LEGAL NEWS IN THE SPOTLIGHT | Court of Rome issues landmark Class Action ruling on price Increases

On 1 April 2026, the Court of Rome (Court) issued a judgment (Judgment) in the case brought by Associazione Movimento Consumatori Aps v Netflix Services Italy S.r.l., concerning, inter alia, the compatibility of the “Changes to Prices and Subscription Plans”, “Changes to the Terms of Use” and “Promotional offers” clauses in Netflix’s Terms of Use with the Italian Consumer Code (Article 33(1) and 33(2), letters d), m) and o), implementing Article 3, Annex 1, letters c), j) and l) of Directive (EEC) No. 13 of  April 1993).

The Court held that the versions of Netflix’s price-change clause in force until January 2024 were unfair because they allowed Netflix to increase subscription prices without specifying, in the contract itself, the reasons that could justify such increases. According to the Court, informing consumers only at the time of the price increase and granting them a right to opt out was not sufficient: consumers had to be informed in advance, already when entering into the contract, of the grounds on which Netflix might later change the price. Importantly, the Court stressed that the need to specify justified reasons does not amount to a guarantee of immutability of the original contractual and economic framework. for indefinite-term contracts, justified reasons need not be confined to unforeseeable or extraordinary events beyond the trader’s control. On that basis, the Court found that consumers subject to price increases applied under those earlier terms may seek restitution of the exceeding amounts paid. The Court also ordered corrective information measures, including publication of the judgment and consumer notices regarding the unfair clauses and the possible right to restitution.

By contrast, the Court considered the revised price clause introduced in January 2024, and later reformulated in 2025, to be compliant.

With respect to the promotional offers clause, the Judgment found that Netflix’s right to revoke an offer and suspend an account where the user is not eligible was not unfair, as that power was tied to objective eligibility criteria disclosed in connection with the offer, rather than to a purely discretionary right of termination.

Newsletter n. 117 – April 2026