Austrian OGH: Amazon Prime’s G&T Provisions Rejected

Aug 22, 2025 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

In a recent decision, the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) determined that multiple provisions within Amazon Prime’s membership agreements are inadmissible. Amazon’s Prime service, which is subscription-based, provides customers with benefits including expedited and complimentary shipping, among other additional services.

Not clearly defined clauses

Several of the contested clauses were repealed because they do not meet transparency requirements. For instance, the OGH found the phrase ‘unless otherwise expressly provided in these terms and conditions’ to lack clarity for typical consumers. The expectation that users should search through the entire contract to find relevant information was seen as inconsistent with standards for transparency.

Disputing unfair terms

Clauses that significantly disadvantage consumers, as outlined in Section 879(3) of the Austrian General Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, hereinafter ABGB), are considered unlawful. Notably, this includes provisions that categorically exclude the reimbursement of promotional or gift vouchers, as such terms impose an unreasonable disadvantage on users.

OGH: Violation of Section 918 of the ABGB

A clause allowing automatic termination for late payment was found invalid by the OGH because it violates Section 918 of the ABGB. For ongoing contracts like Amazon Prime, companies cannot unilaterally withdraw from the agreement.

Limited revocation clause

A revocation policy was found to refer only to a withdrawal form in the customer service section, which may give the impression that this is the sole method available for exercising the right of revocation. This approach does not align with Section 13(1) of the Austrian Online and Distance Selling Act (Fern- und Auswärtsgeschäfte-Gesetz, FAGG), which explicitly permits informal revocation.

Two permissible clauses

Not all clauses were repealed; the OGH upheld two provisions previously ruled inadmissible by lower courts:

Cross-reference clause:

A clause that references the Amazon website solely for the purpose of obtaining the current membership fee is permissible. The OGH has determined that such a clause serves an informational function only and isn’t a price-determining contractual term.

Interpretation pursuant to Section 915 of the ABGB:

The provision stating that the membership fee will be refunded in full or on a proportional basis, depending on the utilisation of Prime services upon termination, was not contested. While terms such as ‘membership period’ and ‘proportional’ are not explicitly defined, consumers may rely on the interpretation most favorable to them in accordance with Section 915 of the ABGB in cases of ambiguity. Consequently, the OGH also deemed this clause to be acceptable.

OGH 9 Ob 48/25m (17.07.2025)