### Amazon Sued Over Allegations of Delayed Prime Deliveries in Low-Income DC Neighborhoods
Amazon, the renowned online retailer, is facing legal challenges after claims emerged that it intentionally delayed Prime deliveries in specific low-income areas of Washington, DC, while still demanding full subscription fees. The lawsuit, brought forth by DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb, accuses Amazon of engaging in misleading practices and discrimination, alleging that the company knowingly offered substandard delivery services to individuals residing in two ZIP codes located east of the Anacostia River—20019 and 20020—without proper notification.
—
### **The Claims: Delayed Deliveries with Full Subscription Fees**
The lawsuit claims that since mid-2022, Amazon transitioned from its own delivery service to relying solely on third-party carriers like USPS and UPS for the last-mile deliveries in these neighborhoods. These external carriers are typically slower than Amazon’s own delivery drivers, leading to considerable delays for Prime customers in these areas. Schwalb asserts that Amazon did not inform affected customers about this shift, thus robbing them of the primary advantage of a Prime membership: prompt delivery.
The complaint points out that these delays have had a particularly adverse effect on low-income families who rely on Amazon for vital goods due to a lack of nearby shopping options. Over the last four years, residents in these ZIP codes ordered 4.5 million packages, experiencing increasingly extended delivery times. In 2023, just 25% of packages arrived within the expected two-day period, a decline from 72% prior to the policy alteration.
—
### **Amazon’s Defense: Safety Priorities for Drivers**
Amazon has refuted the allegations, branding them as “categorically false.” In a statement, spokesperson Kelly Nantel clarified that the switch to third-party delivery services in these neighborhoods was made to enhance driver safety. Nantel pointed to “specific and targeted acts against drivers” in these areas as the rationale for the operational change.
“We intentionally chose to modify our operations, including delivery routes and schedules, purely to safeguard the safety of our drivers,” Nantel stated. She also expressed that Amazon is open with customers regarding delivery expectations during both the shopping and checkout processes.
—
### **Deceptive Practices: Hiding the True Reasons Behind Delays**
The lawsuit presents a contrasting perspective. Schwalb claims that Amazon has been actively misleading customers who raised concerns about delays. The complaint alleges that Amazon consistently communicated to customers that delivery delays were mere “coincidences,” not acknowledging the omission of their ZIP codes from in-house delivery services.
For instance, one upset customer on X (formerly Twitter) remarked that deliveries to their ZIP code took a week, while a nearby location continued to benefit from one-day deliveries. Amazon’s response suggested that these delays were unintended, sidestepping the policy change. In another case, a customer inquired about delivery issues through Amazon’s support chat and was instructed to remove and re-add their address instead of being informed about the ZIP code exclusion.
“Amazon has intensified its misrepresentation by failing to reveal the delivery exclusion,” Schwalb remarked, adding that the company “deceptively suggested that slower speeds are merely due to other circumstances.”
—
### **Legal and Ethical Consequences**
Schwalb contends that Amazon’s conduct breaches DC’s consumer protection laws, which outlaw misleading advertising and unjust business tactics. He argues that Amazon should have been forthright with affected customers regarding the limitations on Prime delivery in their regions. Additionally, Schwalb posits that Amazon owes these customers refunds or adjusted subscription fees for not delivering the promised service.
The lawsuit seeks multiple remedies, including:
1. **An Injunction:** To stop Amazon from promoting speedy delivery services to customers in excluded ZIP codes without appropriate disclosure.
2. **Refunds:** Reimbursement for affected Prime members who paid full subscription prices but did not receive the promised advantages.
3. **Civil Damages:** To discourage Amazon and other businesses from participating in similar conduct in the future.
Should the court rule against Amazon, the company could incur millions of dollars in penalties, as each delayed delivery to nearly 50,000 impacted customers since mid-2022 could be treated as a separate violation.
—
### **Wider Implications for E-Commerce**
This case prompts significant inquiries into transparency and fairness in the e-commerce sector. Prime delivery is a fundamental aspect of Amazon’s business framework, and customers incur additional costs for the assurance of prompt and dependable service. If companies can selectively exclude particular areas from these advantages without transparency, it establishes a concerning precedent for consumer rights.
Schwalb highlighted that while he does not oppose Amazon prioritizing driver safety, the company has an obligation to be truthful with its customers. “Amazon owes an explanation to its subscribers in these regions about delivery delays and could even consider offering lower subscription rates,” he stated.
—
### **What Lies Ahead for Amazon?**
Amazon has signaled a readiness to work with Schwalb’s office to tackle safety issues in the affected areas but has not
