this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
359 points (99.7% liked)

World News

55217 readers
2336 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Azrael@feddit.org 25 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

About a year old news, but same thing in Germany

Rough Translation:

Good news for Netflix customers: The Cologne Regional Court ruled on May 15, 2025, that Netflix's price increases in 2017, 2019, and 2021 were unlawful (Case No. 6 S 114/23). The streaming service had ultimately simply raised its prices unilaterally – without a valid contractual basis.

Although customers had to agree to the higher prices in their account ("Agree to price increase"), the court ruled that this was not a genuine choice. Due to the wording surrounding the agreement button, users saw no way to keep the old price – therefore, it was not a case of voluntary consent.

Consequently, the crucial question again was whether Netflix had the right to unilaterally increase prices for existing customers. This required a valid price change clause in Netflix's terms and conditions. In this respect, the Cologne Regional Court followed the decisions already issued by the Berlin Higher Regional Court and deemed the price change clauses in Netflix's terms and conditions to be unreasonably disadvantageous and therefore invalid.

There is a statutory period of limitation of 3 years as per German law though, so you can only reclaim the higher paid costs for 2022-2025.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

Does this mean Netflix didnt have anything in their T&C that they could raise prices, so they couldn't raise prices?

Edit: Oh I re-read this a few times and they did have a clause. I don't understand this then. It's stupid to say a company can't raise prices, was the issue that they needed to give something like 3, 6, 9, 12 months notice instead of an immediate put up or get out situation?

[–] grepe@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

customer protection is taken seriously in germany (or any country whrere laws protect customers from companies rather than the other way around for that matter). you can't for example just send an email to your customers saying "we've made some changes to our terms and conditions" without making it possible for the customers to say "ok, I'm out". if there is no such option the customers may rightfully argue that this is simply not the product they purchased and the conpany is breaking their end of the deal.

[–] sanpo@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Not sure if this is true for all EU now, but they can't raise prices on their own, period.

They have to inform you and unless you agree all they're allowed to do is cancel your service once the new pricing is in effect.

And illegal/abusive clauses in the T&C are null and void.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

But they did inform?

I'm looking into this a bit further, and it seems to be so idiotic if i understand this right... because their T&C didn't say they may raise prices due to inflation, or because of increased production costs, or adding new features, it was voided. They just said they could increase prices, but a reason in the T&C was required.

Edit: And they've now since added a reason in the T&C because of this.

Edit2: Also because there was no clear way to cancel on the spot when they saw the prompt? This part seems more reasonable.

[–] Azrael@feddit.org 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Edit2 is the more correct one.

As per German law, a contract or a renewal of a contract requires both parties to consent.

Since Netflix only offered a "Yes I accept" button and no "I decline, please cancel my subscription" one, the Price Hike is illegal and thus void.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Do you think they would have let the no reason in the T&C pass (edit with a warning) had they offered the i decline cancel button?

[–] null@lemmy.org 12 points 7 hours ago

The audacity to charge for a tier with ads.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 46 points 9 hours ago
[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 30 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah .. that's never going to happen.

[–] Casanunda@lemmy.world 21 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Wdym? Court ordered them to pay.

[–] HellieSkellie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What are the consequences of not paying the court ordered amounts?

[–] Casanunda@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

My educated-but-not-italian-lawyer guess is: growing fines, seizure of bank accounts and assets and eventual ban on conducting business.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

And they're appealing. And what's the court gonna do, fine them less than they would have to pay out?

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 22 points 9 hours ago

Appealing doesn't get them out of paying.

[–] Casanunda@lemmy.world 13 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not an Italian lawyer, but I'm pretty sure appeals can be rejected. And hopefully this one will be.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 10 points 9 hours ago

Fines can also be increased on appeal.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

[–] krisevol@lemmy.zip 5 points 7 hours ago

It says that the price hikes after 2025 are legal. So they will pay the fine if they must, but they will just hike it again to make the money back.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 10 points 9 hours ago

Start an example?

Considering consumer laws are pretty good in Europe and jurisprudence tends to set example in the euro-space, it may cause other countries to do the exact same thing.

The company may appeal. It may even win. But the bad publicity hurts. And if they lose, it gets even worse, as it will have to pay what it is being demanded.

Or not pay and get fines on top of that.

[–] verdi@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 8 points 8 hours ago

A small victory for civilisation against the Uruk.

[–] MrSmoothPP@lemmy.zip 17 points 10 hours ago

Haha get owned Netflix