On September 25, 2025, Amazon agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that its Prime subscription program violated federal consumer protection laws—the largest civil penalty ever obtained by the FTC for a rule violation and the second-highest consumer restitution in agency history.

For attorneys practicing in consumer protection, corporate compliance, e-commerce litigation, or advising technology clients, this settlement represents a watershed moment. The case establishes that “dark patterns”—manipulative user interface designs—constitute actionable violations of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and Section 5 of the FTC Act, with billion-dollar consequences and personal liability exposure for executives.

This analysis examines the legal theories, trial strategies, and practice implications that make FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc. essential reading for any attorney advising clients on digital commerce, subscription models, or user experience design compliance.

Case Overview: FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

The FTC’s complaint alleged that Amazon violated ROSCA and the FTC Act through two categories of conduct: (1) enrolling consumers in Prime subscriptions without obtaining express informed consent, and (2) creating an intentionally complex cancellation process designed to prevent consumers from ending their subscriptions.

The settlement, reached three days into a jury trial, included:

Notably, this is only the third ROSCA case in which the FTC has obtained civil penalties, making it a significant expansion of enforcement activity under the statute. For law firms advising e-commerce clients, the settlement establishes clear compliance standards that previously existed only in FTC guidance documents. Attorneys handling consumer-facing practices should note the regulatory trajectory this case represents.

Legal Theories: ROSCA, FTC Act, and Dark Patterns Liability

Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA)

The FTC’s primary statutory vehicle was ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8401 et seq., which imposes three requirements on businesses offering negative option features (automatic renewals):

Judge Chun’s September 17, 2025 pretrial ruling found as a matter of law that Amazon violated ROSCA’s pre-disclosure requirement by collecting billing information before disclosing material terms. This ruling—prior to settlement—establishes important precedent for future ROSCA litigation.

Section 5 of the FTC Act

The FTC also charged violations of Section 5’s prohibition on “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The complaint alleged Amazon’s dark patterns were both:

• Deceptive: Interface designs misled consumers about whether they were subscribing to Prime
• Unfair: Practices caused substantial consumer harm that consumers could not reasonably avoid and that was not outweighed by countervailing benefits

Dark Patterns as Actionable Conduct

The case provides the most comprehensive judicial treatment of “dark patterns” to date. The FTC’s complaint identified specific interface manipulation tactics:

For attorneys advising technology clients on digital marketing and user experience, this taxonomy provides a compliance roadmap—and a litigation checklist for plaintiff’s counsel.

The Legal Teams: Who Litigated This Historic Case

Understanding the legal representation in landmark cases provides valuable insight into litigation strategy and the caliber of advocacy required for high-stakes regulatory defense.

FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection

The government prosecuted this case entirely with in-house counsel from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. Lead attorney Jonathan Cohen delivered opening statements, telling the jury that Amazon prioritized “more members, more money” over consumer welfare.

The FTC team’s trial strategy emphasized documentary evidence—particularly internal Amazon communications discussing the deceptive nature of their practices. This approach proved devastating to the defense narrative.

Amazon Defense Counsel

Amazon assembled a three-firm defense team combining trial expertise, regulatory experience, and local presence:

Hueston Hennigan, named “U.S. Trial Firm of the Year” by Benchmark Litigation for three consecutive years, took the lead at trial. Attorney Moez Kaba’s opening argument characterized the FTC’s case as “cherry-picking” evidence and compared the agency’s ROSCA interpretation to “ticketing someone for speeding when the law just says, ‘Drive reasonably.'”

Covington & Burling brought deep FTC regulatory experience, having previously negotiated Amazon’s $25 million Alexa child privacy settlement and represented the company in Ring home security matters. The firm’s Washington presence was critical for managing agency relationships and settlement discussions.

Davis Wright Tremaine provided Seattle-based local counsel support, essential for navigating the Western District of Washington where Amazon is headquartered.

For law firms building their practices, this case demonstrates the value of multi-firm collaboration combining trial expertise, subject-matter specialization, and local court experience.

Trial Strategy and Key Evidence

The FTC’s Documentary Weapon

The government’s case relied heavily on Amazon’s own internal communications, which proved devastating at trial. Key documents revealed that Amazon employees and executives openly discussed the manipulative nature of their subscription practices:

The FTC also presented evidence that Amazon had calculated the revenue impact of each friction point in the cancellation process—demonstrating that obstruction was intentional and profit-driven, not merely negligent design.

The “Rollback” Evidence

Former Amazon UX researcher Reid Nelson testified that when his team implemented consumer-friendly design changes, Prime enrollment dropped—and Amazon would quickly “roll back” the improvements. This pattern of knowingly reverting transparency fixes was central to proving intentional deception rather than mere negligence.

Discovery Sanctions: A Cautionary Tale

The case also provides a stark lesson in discovery abuse. Amazon initially claimed attorney-client privilege over approximately 70,000 documents. When challenged, the company withdrew 92% of these claims.

On June 23, 2025, Judge Chun sanctioned Amazon for “bad faith” document review, finding the company’s privilege assertions were motivated by “the desire to gain a tactical advantage.” The court granted the FTC additional discovery time and ruled that Amazon could not make affirmative use of late-produced documents without court permission.

For litigation practitioners, this serves as a reminder that aggressive privilege assertions can backfire catastrophically—damaging credibility precisely when defendants need the jury to believe their narrative of good faith conduct.

Expert Witness Exclusion

On August 11, 2025, Judge Chun excluded Amazon’s key expert witness who would have testified that “dark patterns” are subjective and undefined. The court found the expert’s methodology unreliable—a significant blow to Amazon’s defense theory that ROSCA’s requirements are unconstitutionally vague.

Practice Implications for Attorneys

Consumer Protection Litigation

For plaintiff’s attorneys, this settlement validates dark patterns as actionable conduct under existing law—no new legislation required. Key takeaways:

• ROSCA provides a powerful statutory hook for subscription-related claims with available civil penalties
• Internal communications are gold—discovery should target UX design discussions, A/B testing results, and revenue impact analyses
• Executive liability is viable—individual officers who oversee deceptive practices can be named defendants
• Class certification may be easier for standardized interface claims affecting millions of users

The FTC’s success here will likely spawn private class actions and state AG enforcement targeting similar practices across the subscription economy. Practice areas involving consumer-facing businesses should anticipate increased client counseling demands.

Corporate Defense and Compliance

For defense counsel advising technology and e-commerce clients:

• Audit subscription flows immediately—the settlement creates de facto compliance standards
• Implement litigation holds for UX communications—casual Slack messages about “dark arts” become exhibits
• Review privilege assertions carefully—Amazon’s 92% withdrawal rate suggests systemic over-claiming
• Counsel executives on personal exposure—individual liability survived until settlement
• Document consumer-friendly design choices—create an affirmative record of compliance efforts

Regulatory Practice

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson signaled aggressive enforcement ahead, stating: “I’ve taken Uber to court, I’ve taken LA Fitness to court on this issue. We have taken some of the biggest companies in America to court and we’re not backing down.”

Although the Fifth Circuit struck down the FTC’s “Click to Cancel” rule in 2025 on procedural grounds, this case demonstrates the agency can achieve similar results through case-by-case enforcement of existing statutes. Practitioners should advise clients that regulatory compliance extends beyond formal rulemaking.

Law Firm Marketing Considerations

For law firms developing their own digital marketing and client acquisition strategies, this case offers cautionary guidance. Any subscription or retainer model involving automatic renewals should:

• Disclose all material terms before collecting payment information
• Obtain explicit, affirmative consent for recurring charges
• Provide cancellation mechanisms as simple as enrollment
• Avoid shame-based language in opt-out options
• Document the consumer-friendly intent of design choices

Client Advisory: ROSCA Compliance Framework

Based on the Amazon settlement’s terms and Judge Chun’s pretrial rulings, attorneys can advise clients on a compliance framework that would withstand FTC scrutiny:

For clients with existing subscription programs, attorneys should recommend immediate UX audits using this framework. Given the FTC’s stated enforcement priorities, proactive compliance is far less expensive than reactive litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion: A New Era for Consumer Protection Enforcement

FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc. represents a watershed moment in consumer protection law. The $2.5 billion settlement—comprising the largest civil penalty ever for an FTC rule violation—establishes that manipulative interface design constitutes actionable deception with consequences that can dwarf the revenue such practices generate.

For plaintiff’s attorneys, the case provides a roadmap for dark patterns litigation: target internal communications, emphasize revenue impact calculations, and leverage ROSCA’s civil penalty provisions. For defense counsel, it underscores the importance of proactive compliance auditing, careful privilege assertions, and executive counseling on personal liability exposure.

The FTC’s stated intention to pursue similar cases across the subscription economy means this settlement is not an endpoint but a beginning. Law firms that develop expertise in dark patterns compliance and litigation now will be well-positioned as enforcement activity accelerates.

For attorneys seeking to build thought leadership in emerging practice areas, publishing analysis of cases like this one establishes credibility with prospective clients searching for counsel. Contact InterCore Technologies to discuss how AI-powered content strategies can position your firm at the forefront of consumer protection and technology law.