Netflix in the crosshairs of the Court of Rome: a halt to creative adjustments to prices

Consumers versus Netflix (and digital services more generally)

A summary of the facts

Consumers have recently challenged the unfairness of certain clauses included in the contracts of the well-known digital service provider, pointing the finger, in particular, at those that grant the provider the unilateral power to alter the terms and prices of the service.

These clauses are left entirely to the provider’s discretion, in breach (and this is the crux of the matter) of the Consumer Code, resulting in a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer.

The legal case

The class action brought by consumers sought to achieve:

• the determination of whether certain clauses are unfair

• the subsequent adoption of preventive and corrective measures.

The broadcaster defended itself by arguing, in short, that:

• the terms of the contract, taken as a whole, did not result in a significant imbalance to the detriment of consumers;

• the ius variandi applied in B2C relationships, accompanied by prior notice and the right of withdrawal, could not be treated in the same way as that provided for in B2B contracts, which do not include a right of withdrawal;

• the disputed clauses were not unfair, as they specified the cost factors relevant to price increases, provided for information obligations and the right of withdrawal;

• the structure of the terms and conditions was in line with that used by other streaming platforms and complied with AGCom’s guidelines on the disclosure of costs and the methods of communicating this information to customers;

• the Electronic Communications Code did not apply; the contract could not be declared void on the grounds of unfairness; the reasonableness of the fee itself could not be challenged; and, in any event, there was no unfair commercial practice in the drafting of the clauses.

The Court’s decision

In its judgment No. 4993 of 1 April 2026, the Court of Rome upheld the consumers’ claim, declaring as unfair – and therefore void – the clauses which, from 2017 to 2024, allowed the platform to unilaterally alter the price of subscriptions and other contractual terms:

3.5	Changes to prices and subscription plans (effective from 2017 to January 2024)	“From time to time, we may change our subscription plans and the price of our service; however, any changes to the price or subscription plans will take effect no earlier than 30 days from the date on which we send you the relevant notification. If you do not wish to accept the change to the price or subscription plan, you may cancel your subscription before the change takes effect.”
6.4	Changes to the Terms of Use (in force from January 2024 to April 2025)	“Netflix may amend these Terms of Use from time to time. We will notify you at least 30 days before any such changes apply to you. If you do not wish to accept the changes, you can cancel your subscription before they come into effect.”
6.5.	changes to the Terms of Use	“Netflix may amend these Terms of Use from time to time. In the event of substantial changes, we will send you a notification at least 30 days one month before those changes take effect. If you do not wish to accept the changes, you may cancel your subscription before they take effect.”

The Court therefore ordered:

• the cessation of the use of clauses deemed unfair;

• the adoption of appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate the effects of the infringements, particularly with regard to information provision;

• the publication of the decision on the Netflix website (for a period of not less than six months) and in the leading daily newspapers.

***

The judgement therefore adds a key element regarding the limits on the unilateral power to amend contractual terms.

This element, whilst falling within the scope of digital services, could also have implications for other areas where there is a ‘stronger party’ (which draws up standard-form contracts) and a ‘weaker party’ (which, in practice, can only sign them).

The Court of Rome clarifies that it is not sufficient merely to give the user advance notice and grant them the right of withdrawal: for price increases to be legitimate, the clauses must specify from the outset the specific reasons that may justify a future change to the financial terms, so as to enable the consumer to foresee, at least to some extent, the impact of such changes.

In the absence of such elements, the ‘ius variandi’ amounts to an unfair term, rendering the contractual provisions null and void and giving rise to a right to a refund of sums unduly paid.

Netflix, for its part, has announced its intention to lodge an appeal, arguing that it has always operated in compliance with Italian legislation and industry practices.

We shall therefore wait and see how this interesting legal dispute unfolds, as it offers us an opportunity to reflect on how the effective protection of users depends, once again, on the drafting (and careful analysis) of the general terms and conditions, which must remain in line with the principles of transparency and symmetry set out in the Code of consumption.