Netflix ordered to refund subscribers up to €500 for unlawful price hikes

Consumer group says it will sue if Netflix doesn't reduce current prices.

See full article...

 

[^L^uigi]

This is protectionism as the majority of Italian legacy media is owned or controlled by serving politicians who have seen their local monopolies be eroded by Netflix and other US streamers.

This is an attempt to get Netflix to exit the Italian market by making it unprofitable to be there.

I’m Italian and I live in Rome.
Totally agree. We went through the same thing in Italy with taxis and Uber.

 

[EmphyrioDonk]

This is protectionism as the majority of Italian legacy media is owned or controlled by serving politicians who have seen their local monopolies be eroded by Netflix and other US streamers.

This is an attempt to get Netflix to exit the Italian market by making it unprofitable to be there.

I certainly hope so. Make America Go Away!

 

[squiggit]

But controlling costs on optional entertainment just infantilizes the population

Talking about an infantalized population when you didn't even read the article is wild. The ruling is not about cost controls it's about disclosure and contract terms.

 

[The0N]

No one ever said the law was sane. But it is the law. Every country has stupid laws, but they are still the law. And if you don't want to end up in court then you have to comply.

New Jersey does not allow you to pump your own gas. Stupid laws are not confined to Italy.

Sure, but we can also not argue that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. If Netflix can’t get it right imagine how damaging this type of thing is to smaller companies.

 

[abazigal]

LOL. Don't like the terms of the law in the country you're operating in? There's an easy fix for that...

Crush the world and remake it in your image?

 

[balthazarr]

Crush the world and remake it in your image?

Close. Bribe lobby to have the law changed in your favour, or, exit the country. Guess which option they're likely to go with?

 

[miller.time]

I'm not on the side of Netflix here, but that makes absolutely no sense. While companies abuse it right and left, there are legitimate reasons to raise prices on goods and services that have nothing to do with padding profits. (Yes, I know that the majority are for padding profits.) That's what a functioning marketplace is for.

Corrected version:
Of course that makes sense – opt-in simply means that if you don’t agree, your contract will be terminated at the end of the current term at the old price. This is standard practice in Germany, for example.

 

[abazigal]

Corrected version:
Of course that makes sense – opt-in simply means that if you don’t agree, your contract will be terminated at the end of the current term at the old price. This is standard practice in Germany, for example.

When I decided two years ago that Netflix was no longer providing adequate value for its price, terminating my subscription was as straightforward as going into the website and clicking on a button.

What more do people need exactly?

 

[sciccoso]

Worth clarifying once again: it's not "we dictate your prices", it's "you have to write your contract properly"

 

[xyzzy01]

That’s…weird. I don’t love late stage capitalism but I’m struggling to see what Netflix did wrong here.

I guess the best way to handle future price hikes is to auto-cancel on the date of the hike and if the customer wants to continue service, they re-sub/opt-in? Which, honestly, isn’t a terrible way to handle it.

These subscription/“services” companies rely on a vast majority of their base forgetting they’re even subscribed.

A consumer protection law requiring that price increases above the CPI would cancel the subscription and thus require an active action of the consumer to continue the subscription would be nice. It would certainly make companies think twice before increasing prices.

E.g. since I joined Netflix in 2012, prices have increased about 140%. The CPI has in increased just below 50%. And I recently read about more incoming price hikes...

 

[RoryEjinn]

If you ever ask yourself why we can't have change in the world, this comment thread is a perfect explanation.

We got people in here arguing that Netflix can charge whatever they want, whenever they want, for any reason.

We got people in here arguing that the courts shouldn't have even entertained the case regardless of the breach of contract law because they gave a 30 day notice.

We got people in here arguing that the courts only made this decision because it was some kind of racketeering thing.

We got people in here arguing that consumer protection laws should only apply to essential services.

All that money spent on propaganda has really paid off for the oligarch class.

 

[fepp]

Most of the comments here are utterly bizarre.

Although not at all surprising - big tech / big company hate is always very strong here.

The idea that governments should dictate how private companies price their totally non-essential products in an extremely competitive market is beyond comprehension.

Here's the thing: you do not need to watch Netflix. If you think it's too expensive (it's not; you still get an all you can eat streaming buffet for peanuts) then simply terminate your subscription.

You don't need it. Use the time for something else.

Totally agree.

It is entirely optional to subscribe to their entertainment service, and if the price gets too high for what you get, just cancel.

The one thing consumer law could do is to make sure you have the right to cancel in case of a price hike, and not allow price hikes during a subscription period. If I sign a contract for a year at X EUR, it should stay X EUR for that year. If I select to pay monthly with no contract period, you can raise the price immediately, but I can also cancel immediately.

No company has an obligation to provide a great service at a very low price - that tends to mean they losing money trying to gain marketshare. Which is rarely a good model for the long term and something that would make sense to try to regulate - but hard to see how?

Don't see why this post got so heavily downvoted.

 

[darkowl]

Well gee, so THIS is what a functioning legal system that puts the public good before corporate profit looks like.

It really isn’t. Most people in our position do not like paying more for the same service so this outcome seems “good”.

Meanwhile the Italians also made stupid law to force companies to block IP addresses within 30min with their “Piracy Shield”, which is extremely dysfunctional.

 

[The0N]

We got people in here arguing that Netflix can charge whatever they want, whenever they want, for any reason.

I legitimately do believe Netflix should be able to set their prices.

 

[fepp]

I’m Italian and I live in Rome.
Totally agree. We went through the same thing in Italy with taxis and Uber.

Hope the taxis won...

Uber is a classic case of bad capitalism.

That said, Italian taxis have a sad tendency to overcharge tourists and not accept credit cards. North of the Alps they tend to be a lot more honest.

 

[Sixcupsofcoffee]

This is really the essential point. Governments should control prices on essentials of life: food, fuel, housing, medical care.

But controlling costs on optional entertainment just infantilizes the population. What’s wrong with hitting that cancel button? Do you need the government to wipe your butt too?

Netflix makes mostly crap anyway. Check in for one month of every 12 and you’re good. They have several competitors who are better values.

And the guy who spotted this for what it is - hypocritical protectionism - sure got it right. The Italian economy is rife with hilariously overpriced products. How about knocking down the price of that Gucci bag to what it costs to make plus inflation? I know it didn’t cost you $5000 to make that thing.

Gucci and Netflix has this in common: you don’t need them. So ignore their overpriced crap and your problem is solved.

More “I didn’t read or comprehend the article” vibes. Neither the court nor the lawsuit said Netflix couldn’t raise their prices or even why they can or can’t. They have laws about the contract itself, and what it has to say if you’re going to potentially raise prices in the future. That’s all. It’s about the language of the contract, not Netflix’s right to make a profit or set their prices.

 

[TimeWinder]

Don't see why this post got so heavily downvoted.

"Big company/tech hate is always very strong here." People downvote that sort of stupid generalization, especially when it's wrong, or used (as here) as an excuse to avoid actually addressing the real issues instead of a "groupthink" strawman.

 

[tijo]

Not really. Italy has a law about what's required in a contract, Netflix failed to put the required statements in their contract, and now are paying the price. The required statements don't even seem that onerous given they've made the change in their newest contracts.

Netflix should have paid their lawyers more and gotten the contract right first time.

Yeah.

I read this article and to me this sums up to: this is a contract law case. Netflix fumbled the way they wrote the contract, well, their lawyers did. They'll appeal, pay or not pay people depending on the appeal verdict and amend their contract moving forward. Nothing to see here, move along!

 

[cuvtixo]

What am I missing other than people are mad about Netflix making money?

From the article: "Per Italian law, price increases that Netflix has issued or will issue beyond April 2025 are legal. At that time, Netflix adjusted its terms to state that contract terms could one day change due to technological, security, or regulatory needs, to clarify clauses, or to provide changes to the service"

That's what you missed. Do you feel a bit silly now?

 

[ackmondual]

No one could've called this in 1943, that the Italians would suddenly be a bastion of people's rights and the US is now a fascist regime bent on WW3.

"Oh, what a time you've chosen to be born." - Samurai Assassin 1965

Everybody we fought in WWII, our enemies (by act of Congress and otherwise), appear to be the sane ones these days. How the tables have turned!

 

[graylshaped]

When I decided two years ago that Netflix was no longer providing adequate value for its price, terminating my subscription was as straightforward as going into the website and clicking on a button.

Eleven clicks via several menus including two different logins by my tally.

Not the hardest exit process, but claiming it was one click is rather silly.

 

[wrein]

This is really the essential point. Governments should control prices on essentials of life: food, fuel, housing, medical care.

The bottom line is that Netflix broke the law by raising prices without justification and without notifying customers of the contract changes, but it seems that this concept just won’t sink in with many Americans, who feel outraged if a government rules against the “corporate deity” cult—the belief that corporations are always right.
EDIT:
I expect a lot of downvotes. You're welcome.

 

[ahsgdbeyb3]

DeepL would have worked better

Google-provided translation

 

[graylshaped]

The bottom line is that Netflix broke the law by raising prices without justification

Happens in pretty much every store and every market every day.

I expect a lot of downvotes. You're welcome.

My pleasure

 

[Varste]

Well gee, so THIS is what a functioning legal system that puts the public good before corporate profit looks like.

But to contrast this, Cloudflare is fighting a ridiculous Italian law that they have to block requested sites at the DNS level within 30 minutes. Can't win them all I suppose.

 

[Marvin__]

Tricky one. Letting Netflix off the hook from now on with an addendum to the small print makes this a joke.

This could have been a lot more interesting had the court argued competition law. Back in 2017, there wasn't much competition in the streaming market. Arguably, Netflix abused a near-monopoly to hike up prices. These days, there is a market. Sort of. Still hampered by a copyright law that allows rightsholders to licences their content to just one provider.
The can, and they do. Because copyright law that gives a monopoly to rights holders. With no obligations.

Picking all that apart, in the context of unprecedented price hikes, would have been an interesting exercise.

 

[strx]

I'm not on the side of Netflix here, but that makes absolutely no sense. While companies abuse it right and left, there are legitimate reasons to raise prices on goods and services that have nothing to do with padding profits. (Yes, I know that the majority are for padding profits.) That's what a functioning marketplace is for.

Okay? All I was saying is, that I wish contracts like that defaulted to end without assent, instead of assent is assumed.

 

[Cloudgazer]

Well gee, so THIS is what a functioning legal system that puts the public good before corporate profit looks like.

Um - I don't think any legal expert has ever seriously proposed that Italy has the model of a well functioning legal system.

 

[graylshaped]

Tricky one. Letting Netflix off the hook from now on with an addendum to the small print makes this a joke.

This could have been a lot more interesting had the court argued competition law. Back in 2017, there wasn't much competition in the streaming market. Arguably, Netflix abused a near-monopoly to hike up prices. These days, there is a market. Sort of. Still hampered by a copyright law that allows rightsholders to licences their content to just one provider.
The can, and they do. Because copyright law that gives a monopoly to rights holders. With no obligations.

Picking all that apart, in the context of unprecedented price hikes, would have been an interesting exercise.

The current situation is reminiscent of the conditions that led to the Paramount consent decree that denied the content owners (the studios) the ability to vertically integrate in this fashion.

Had Netflix come away with Paramount, the irony is that their standard terms with talent their distribution channel may have created an event more imbalanced market than the historical anti-competitive issue the consent decree addressed.

 

[Ben G]

Tricky one. Letting Netflix off the hook from now on with an addendum to the small print makes this a joke.

That’s all this lawsuit is about though. It’s not some huge consumer protection win. It’s just that Netflix needed better lawyers when they wrote the original contract. If they had that bit in the small print of the contract from the beginning, they could have legally raised their prices all they wanted. Like they have been able to do since they added the clause in 2025.

 

[abazigal]

Okay? All I was saying is, that I wish contracts like that defaulted to end without assent, instead of assent is assumed.

I suspect most people would simply re-subscribe while complaining how inconvenient the entire process is because of some “dumb law” from the government. Most people don’t hate Netflix, don’t mind paying, and hate friction of any sort.

 

[truth serum]

I wonder if they will ever put the actual reason. Which is "to increase shareholder value".

 

[blaatenator]

If you like consumer protection you'd like other eurohits:

• 2 year warranty
• (some) right to repair
• replaceable batteries
• usbc mandates
• no software monopoly mandates
• no software patents

"2 year warranty": In The Netherlands it is actually warranty for as long as a device is expected to function. For some applicances like a dishwasher warranty could be much more then 2 year.
(of course there was a time in the past where stuff was made to last, some companies (Siemens and Miele come to mind) build a good reputation around that.

 

[unshavenyak]

Most of the comments here are utterly bizarre.

Although not at all surprising - big tech / big company hate is always very strong here.

The idea that governments should dictate how private companies price their totally non-essential products in an extremely competitive market is beyond comprehension.

Here's the thing: you do not need to watch Netflix. If you think it's too expensive (it's not; you still get an all you can eat streaming buffet for peanuts) then simply terminate your subscription.

You don't need it. Use the time for something else.

You are making a fuss out of nothing. Did you actually read the article? Netflix’s original T&C’s did not comply with Italian law. Consumers (rightfully) called them on it. Netflix has updated their contract as of 2025 to have the necessary language to justify price increases. They probably should’ve written their contracts properly the first time, eh?

This is textbook FAFO.

 

[unshavenyak]

This. 100% this.

No. Don’t be stupid. Comply with local laws and regulations where you do business. They either were ignorant of Italian law or wilfully ignored it, and got burned. Don’t like the laws? Don’t operate there.

We comply with separate FDA, EMA, PMDA, et al. legal and regulatory requirements wherever we operate. Some times that means having to do a Japanese-patient or Chinese-patient only clinical trial. We are free to make the decision if we do that trial or not.

What we are not free to do is sell our medicines there without doing the trial and then putting on a pikachu face if we get sued for it.

 

[unshavenyak]

Totally agree.

It is entirely optional to subscribe to their entertainment service, and if the price gets too high for what you get, just cancel.

The one thing consumer law could do is to make sure you have the right to cancel in case of a price hike, and not allow price hikes during a subscription period. If I sign a contract for a year at X EUR, it should stay X EUR for that year. If I select to pay monthly with no contract period, you can raise the price immediately, but I can also cancel immediately.

No company has an obligation to provide a great service at a very low price - that tends to mean they losing money trying to gain marketshare. Which is rarely a good model for the long term and something that would make sense to try to regulate - but hard to see how?

Don't see why this post got so heavily downvoted.

Did you read the article? It’s because they breached contract law. Italy is not requiring Netflix to provide a great service for a low price in perpetuity. They require sufficient disclosure in the contract terms as to why a price may change.

It’s almost as if the down votes are for the lack of reading comprehension and straw man arguments that were made…

 

[hanharal]

They courts say they are free to raise prices, but that they had to give a reason why they would raise prices in the contract. Netflix has now changed thier contracts to comply, so clearly it was not that difficult to do so.

Netflix screwed up by writing a contract that did not comply with Italian law.

But will "increasing profit" be a valid reason?
From the article it didn't seem so.

 

[unshavenyak]

But will "increasing profit" be a valid reason?
From the article it didn't seem so.

It seems a satisfactory term could be included, as Netflix updated their T&C's in April 2025 and still operate in Italy.

 

[gnasher729]

"Per Italian law, price increases that Netflix has issued or will issue beyond April 2025 are legal."

So refunds now, followed by price increases every year for the next decade to make up the loss, right?

If I read the article correctly, then Netflix got caught in a trap where any price increases were illegal. They had to give reasons for the increase and they didn’t. Then apparently they changed their contracts in April 2025.

If you sign any new contract, Netflix can choose any new price or terms.

 

[squiggit]

Don't see why this post got so heavily downvoted.

Probably the misinformation.

Arguably the alarming part is that a post that blatantly misrepresents the contents of the article in such a way is only at a net zero as of this writing, which suggests half of everyone who provided feedback on the comment believed the lie.