A prospective class-action lawsuit filed by a resident of Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood this week alleges Amazon deceptively provides slower delivery service to residents of certain ZIP codes throughout the country. The complaint comes just two weeks after the online retail giant was hit with a similar lawsuit from the District of Columbia’s attorney general.
The lawsuit, like the Washington, D.C., complaint, centers on the company’s paid Amazon Prime subscription service. Amazon Prime members pay $14.99 a month or $139 a year for access to Prime. In exchange, members receive perks such as faster deliveries, including same-day, one-day or two-day shipping.
The prospective class-action lawsuit, filed Tuesday in state court in Washington, where Amazon is headquartered, alleges the online retail giant has quietly stopped providing faster deliveries to Prime members in underserved areas throughout the country, specifically in lower-income ZIP codes with high populations of people of color.
In Chicago, Prime members in South and West Side ZIP codes 60624, 60623, 60612, 60637 and 60649 are excluded from faster deliveries, the lawsuit alleges.
“Amazon should not make promises to Prime members it knows it cannot keep — plain and simple,” Kristen Simplicio, one of the attorneys on the case, said in a statement. “The company’s entire advertising campaign hinges on high-speed delivery of Prime products and yet Amazon fails to disclose that some customers — often those living in underserved areas — are paying for services Amazon refuses to provide. They must be held accountable.”
In a statement, Amazon spokesperson Steve Kelly called the allegations “categorically false.” Amazon shoppers are given “a transparent delivery promise” when they buy products online so they know when to expect their deliveries, he said.
“We want to be able to deliver as fast as we possibly can to every zip code across the country,” Kelly said. “At the same time, we’re constantly reviewing data and conditions that impact our operations. Any change to our operations, including delivery routes and times, are all made in the best interest of our customers, employees, and those who deliver on our behalf.”
The complaint alleges that despite putting certain ZIP codes on a “blacklist,” the company has continued to advertise fast shipping to Prime members in those ZIP codes and charges them the same for Prime membership as it does members in other ZIP codes.
The company’s advertising “has deceived hundreds of thousands — or potentially millions — of existing Prime members in underserved zones about the speed with which it delivers packages,” the complaint said.
The lawsuit comes weeks after the District of Columbia sued Amazon over similar allegations, accusing the company of systematically excluding residents of two majority-Black D.C. ZIP codes from faster delivery service. Amazon told The Associated Press that it made delivery changes in the interest of driver safety because of “specific and targeted acts” against delivery drivers in those ZIP codes.
“The claims made by the attorney general, that our business practices are somehow discriminatory or deceptive, are categorically false,” an Amazon spokesperson told the AP two weeks ago.
The named plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Tuesday is Taryn Trusty, a South Shore resident and Amazon Prime member who alleges she has received “severely curtailed access” to two-day shipping because of where she lives.
The lawsuit, like the lawsuit from D.C.’s attorney general, alleges Amazon blacklisted Trusty’s ZIP code from its delivery service program, causing her and others to receive slower deliveries than other Amazon Prime members.
Amazon uses a network of subcontracted delivery service providers to deliver throughout the U.S. Tuesday’s complaint alleges that in ZIP codes including Trusty’s, the company has stopped using its delivery service partners and instead relies only on third-party providers like United Parcel Service and the U.S. Postal Service, which it alleges provides slower delivery service.
The complaint, filed under Washington state consumer protection legislation, seeks damages for Trusty and other prospective class members, which it argues should include current and former Prime members who lived in areas allegedly excluded from faster deliveries over the last four years, excluding those in D.C.
