Amazon Lawsuit, NYC vs Big Tech, EU Fines, India's Dark Pattern Rulings

Welcome to Fair Monday: your weekly briefing on dark patterns, digital consumer protection, and the fight for ethical design.
Every Monday, we deliver the latest developments in regulatory enforcement, class action lawsuits, and industry accountability, tracking how major platforms from Amazon to Meta are being held responsible for deceptive practices that manipulate user behavior, exploit consumer trust, and undermine digital rights. Whether you're a legal professional, UX designer, compliance officer, or simply a consumer who wants to understand how digital deception works, Fair Monday provides the insights, case analysis, and precedent-setting developments you need to navigate the evolving landscape of digital fairness.ur news for this week:
Amazon accused of fake prime day discounts: Legal analysis of federal class action
On September 22, 2025, plaintiffs Cathy Armstrong and Oluwa Fosudo filed a federal class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Case No. 2:25-cv-01826), alleging Amazon engaged in systematic deceptive advertising during Prime Day 2025.
Legal Framework and Violations:
The complaint invokes Washington's Consumer Protection Act (RCW Ch. 19.86), which prohibits "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The plaintiffs allege three causes of action:
- CPA Violations: Amazon displayed "Fake Prior Amazon Prices" that were either never used in the preceding 90 days or appeared only briefly to artificially justify percentage discounts.
- Breach of Contract: By promising specific percentage discounts (e.g., "40% off"), Amazon entered into contracts with consumers but failed to deliver the promised savings when discounts were calculated from inflated reference prices.
- Unjust Enrichment: Amazon profited from deceptive practices by inducing purchases at premium prices consumers wouldn't have paid absent the misleading discount claims.
Evidentiary support:
The complaint documents specific products with pricing histories demonstrating the pattern:
- A DASH air fryer advertised as "40% off $59.99" had never been sold at the reference price for an entire year, with actual prior pricing around $49.99.
- SHOKZ headphones showed a "39% off $179.95" Prime Day Deal, but pricing data reveals the product was consistently available between $130-$160 during the preceding 90 days.
Prior enforcement and repeat violations:
Significantly, Amazon was sanctioned in March 2021 by California's Superior Court for identical practices. That Final Judgment explicitly prohibited Amazon from "advertising an ARP [Advertised Reference Price] for longer than the timeframe in the definition of the ARP" and required clear definitions of pricing terms.
Implications for compliance professionals:
This case demonstrates that:
- Prior settlements create admissions of deceptive practices
- Reference pricing must be based on actual, sustained historical prices
- Strikethrough formatting without legitimate basis constitutes deceptive design
- Consumer protection enforcement is increasingly coordinated across jurisdictions
The plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, and transparency requirements—potentially establishing precedent for algorithmic pricing accountability.
NYC takes historic legal action against big tech over youth mental health crisis
New York City filed a landmark 327-page lawsuit on October 8, 2025, against Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Alphabet (Google, YouTube), Snap (Snapchat), and ByteDance (TikTok) in Manhattan federal court, accusing them of fueling a youth mental health epidemic through deliberately addictive design.
The complaint alleges Meta intentionally designed its platforms to addict children and adolescents, knew they caused problematic use, yet failed to implement effective age-verification or parental controls. Instead, Meta allegedly revamped algorithms to maximize "addictive efficacy" despite increased awareness of harm, concealing these effects from the public and Congress while failing to provide adequate warnings about dangers or safe use instructions.
Snap is accused of targeting children to drive revenue through psychological manipulation, using features like "Disappearing Snaps" and "My Eyes Only" that thwart parental oversight and encourage destructive behavior. The "Quick Add" feature allegedly endangers children, while Lenses and Filters promote negative appearance comparison.
NYC cites alarming data: 77.3% of high school students spend 3+ hours daily on screens. The lawsuit links social media to rising depression, anxiety, sleep deprivation, and dangerous viral trends like "subway surfing," which has killed 16 teens since 2023.
The city seeks financial compensation and injunctive relief requiring platform design changes, using public nuisance legal theory.
EU fines Apple and Meta €700 million for Digital Markets Act breaches
On April 23, 2025, the European Commission imposed historic fines totaling €700 million on Apple (€500 million) and Meta (€200 million) for violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the first non-compliance decisions under the landmark legislation.
Apple breached anti-steering obligations by imposing restrictions that prevented app developers from informing consumers about alternative offers outside the App Store, steering them to cheaper options, or allowing direct purchases. The Commission found these restrictions were not objectively necessary or proportionate, limiting both developer opportunities and consumer choice.
Meta violated user choice obligations through its binary "Consent or Pay" advertising model, which forced EU users to either consent to personal data combination for personalized advertising or pay for an ad-free subscription. The Commission ruled this model failed to provide an equivalent service using less personal data and didn't allow users to freely consent to data combination. While Meta introduced a revised model in November 2024, the fine covers the March-November 2024 period.
Both companies must comply within 60 days or face periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of average daily worldwide revenue. Settlement negotiations are currently underway, with Meta working to clarify data tracking options and Apple proposing App Store policy changes to enhance developer flexibility.
Indian Consumer Court rules Emirates used "dark patterns" in hidden seat fee case
The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) upheld a 2020 ruling against Emirates, finding the airline guilty of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. The case involved two passengers who paid ₹7,200 for adjacent seats on a Mumbai–Dubai–New York flight in 2017, only to discover other passengers received similar seats without extra charges.
The Commission found Emirates engaged in deceptive practices by hiding information about free seat availability, misleading passengers to believe all adjacent seats required payment, and compelling them to pay through unfair inducement. The airline's website failed to disclose that free adjacent seats were available, breaching the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Significantly, the Commission explicitly stated that Emirates' conduct was "analogous to a dark pattern."
Emirates must refund ₹7,200 with 6% annual interest plus ₹8,000 in damages and costs. The Commission dismissed the airline's appeal, emphasizing that while airlines may charge for premium seats, they must clearly disclose all seat pricing and availability to ensure informed consumer choice.
This ruling positions India as a proactive leader in dark pattern enforcement, demonstrating a data-driven "survey-to-investigation pipeline" model for responsive consumer protection regulation.
📽️ Related: Airline booking journeys are notorious for dark patterns. Check out resources from the OECD event on dark patterns in airline seat selection.
Here is our OECD Dark Patterns Video
Major Indian eCommerce platforms found using dark patterns
LocalCircles' 4-month study involving 77,000 verified consumers across 334 districts reveals widespread dark patterns on India's major eCommerce marketplaces, with Meesho emerging as the only platform completely free of manipulative design practices.
The survey, conducted June-September 2025 using AI-powered validation and consumer complaints analysis, found drip pricing is the most prevalent dark pattern, with 75% of users experiencing hidden charges revealed only at checkout—including payment fees, platform fees, and COD charges not disclosed upfront.
Other prevalent practices include bait and switch (48%), where advertised low prices change upon clicking or limited quantities aren't disclosed; privacy zuckering (44%), tricking users into sharing excessive personal data for price manipulation; forced action (29%), where cancelled orders are still processed as COD; and basket sneaking (21%), automatically adding unwanted items to carts.
Platform audit results show Amazon, Flipkart, and Tata Neu each have 4-6 dark patterns, while Myntra and JioMart have 1-3 each. Meesho passed all manual tests and remained dark pattern-free as of October 6, 2025.
Consumer Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi announced investigations into these practices, stating strict action will be taken to ensure transparency. The findings have been escalated to the Central Consumer Protection Authority, demonstrating India's leadership in proactive, data-driven consumer protection enforcement.
References:
- https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Armstrong-v-Amazon-complaint.pdf
- https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/nyc-meta-lawsuit-southern-district-new-york.pdf
- https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085
- https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/10/12/emirates-loses-appeal-over-hidden-seat-charges-on-new-york-bound-flight/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgL6Bu2nbxA
- https://www.localcircles.com/a/press/page/dark-patterns-ecommerce-survey