B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed a case in which a man claimed Amazon had improperly withheld access to their accounts and related digital content.
The company, however, said it closed the accounts as it found activity on them suspicious.
Peter Rhone sought $1,898.23 for lost account credit, $1,235.96 in gift cards, $124.37 in business Prime membership fees and $500 for lost access to digital content.
The online giant, however, told tribunal member Maria Montgomery it suspended Rhone’s accounts because he engaged in fraudulent gift card redemption activity in breach of its terms and conditions.
According to the Dec. 5 decision, Rhone claimed he placed an order for an e-piano through Amazon.com and attempted to pay for it using the combined value of three gift cards.
“At that point, Amazon suspended Mr. Rhone’s Amazon.ca, Amazon.com, Amazon.de and Amazon.uk accounts because of unusual payment activity,” Montgomery said. “It asked Mr. Rhone to provide proof of ownership of the gift cards.”
He said he provided the information but the accounts remained suspended or closed.
Four days later, he said he was charged a US$91.43 fee for his business Prime membership.
However, a few days later, Amazon processed a refund for a returned phone and applied a $1,291.01 credit (paid out in euros) to the Amazon.de account.
Rhone claimed his tablets lost access to digital content, valued at $500.
“Rhone says that by suspending access to their accounts, Amazon is in breach of their contract,” Montgomery wrote.
Amazon said it suspended Rhone’s accounts because he breached its gift card terms and conditions by engaging in fraudulent gift card activity.
“Amazon says Mr. Rhone redeemed gift cards originating from over 900 distinct email addresses, a pattern Amazon characterizes as highly unusual. According to Amazon, the 900 gift cards redeemed by Mr. Rhone were sent to 400 different email addresses, a significant portion of which are linked to scam activity,” Montgomery said.
The tribunal said Amazon claimed the FBI advised that one of the email addresses is known to be a scam email.
“Amazon says another email address associated with Mr. Rhone’s account has all the hallmarks of an association with scam activity,” Montgomery said. Rhone denied those assertions but did not deny that he used gift cards originating from many email addresses.
Amazon argued Rhone’s claim should not succeed as it would “violate the doctrine of ex turpi causa, which provides that an individual cannot seek a remedy in connection with an illegal act.”
Amazon asserted Rhone purchased the non-refundable phone, digital goods, and membership using fraudulently obtained funds. And, the company argued, Rhone did not prove his losses because he did not provide receipts for the gift card purchases, the phone purchase, or the business Prime membership fee.
Rhone didn’t dispute that the terms above appeared when he redeemed the gift cards but said that he did not agree to them.
Amazon said the terms and conditions were binding because it took reasonable steps to bring them to the attention of gift card users.
“Amazon refers to this as a browse wrap agreement,” Montgomery said.
“B.C. Supreme Court found that a party who has not read the terms of a contract cannot complain that it differs from what they might have expected,” she said.
She ruled Rhone had the opportunity to read the contract and that his redeeming the cards was an indication of acceptance of the terms.
Montgomery found Amazon had not established Rhone engaged in fraud.
“However, Amazon has established that it had reason to suspect fraud relating to Mr. Rhone’s gift card use, given the high volume of gift cards Mr. Rhone redeemed that they did not purchase directly,” she said. “Under the terms of its agreements with Mr. Rhone, I find Amazon had the right to suspend and cancel their accounts. “
As such, Montgomery ruled Amazon did not breach a contract with Rhone, and he is not entitled to damages.
