Consumer protection has filed a lawsuit against a clause on price increases at Spotify – and won the case. How does it go from here?
There is a specific clause in contracts for the music streaming service Spotify that the Berlin Regional Court has now declared inadmissible. The corresponding clause deals specifically with the topic of price increases. Spotify’s current wording does not last because it is too user-unfriendly. This is how the district court justified its decision.
Spotify Price Increase Clause Invalid
Prices are rising in almost every area right now, and streaming is no exception. Recently, for example, the subscription costs at Amazon and Disney + were increased. There has also been speculation about a price increase at Spotify for some time. In other countries like Austria, the service is already more expensive.
There is currently not much that can be done against many price increases. Inflation, supply chains that continue to be disrupted and, of course, energy prices make production and thus the end product more expensive. The consumer center of the Federal Association (VZBV) but now sued. And the district court of Berlin has agreed with the consumer advocates.
The Swedish company Spotify formulates it in its contracts in such a way that it can raise prices if the overall costs have generally increased. That is now the case. So far, so good – that’s actually how many providers argue. However, the reason for the judgment is that Spotify only refers to price increases, but not to possible price reductions.
Also read: Price increase on Amazon Prime! That’s what a subscription costs now
Cost reductions must also be included in the clause
At least according to the contract, cheaper prices are not provided for at all. The court therefore argues that users are unlawfully disadvantaged. Spotify, on the other hand, justifies itself by saying that the costs in the streaming area are only increasing and not decreasing anyway. Both consumer advocates and the court disagree. Spotify, like many other companies, depends on cost factors that could well go down again in the future. If that is the case, the streaming service must also reflect this in the subscription costs. In addition, the Berlin Regional Court made it clear that the customer’s right to termination does not compensate for this disadvantage.
It is still unclear exactly how things will continue. For now, Spotify wants to appeal. It is unlikely that the decision will have an effect on current prices. However, should the company ultimately be forced to adjust the corresponding clause, the judgment could definitely have an impact in the future.
Lawsuits like this one because of the Spotify price increase are actually not uncommon. At the same time, the Federal Consumer Association is also suing the Munich Regional Court because of the controversial price increase by DAZN. A similar clause also resulted in a corresponding verdict against streaming giant Netflix in December.