Netflix and No Chill: The First Instance Court of Rome slams unilateral price hikes in subscription services
An intimate detail of the left-hand facade of the Pantheon in the heart of Rome’s centro storico (shot by Anastasis Kardamakis, February 2024)
The judgment (see here [original in Italian]) rendered by the Three-Judge Panel of the Court of First Instance of Rome (Tribunale di Roma) on 1 April 2026 in what might be described as an “all’italiana” Netflix class action—akin to the collective proceedings frequently brought against Big-Tech players in the Netherlands and the United States—may prove to be one of the most significant consumer law decisions to emerge from Southern Europe in recent years.
What essentially kicked off as a dispute about unilateral price increases and modifications in Netfix streaming subscriptions between 2017 and January 2024 is among the earliest judicial applications of Italy’s new representative action regime implementing Directive (EU) 2020/1828, and therefore, offers an illuminating glimpse into the future of collective consumer enforcement across the European Union.
The proceedings were brought by Movimento Consumatori, a qualified entity within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2020/1828, as transposed into Italian law by Legislative Decree No. 28 of 10 March 2023, against Netflix Services Italy S.r.l. The claimant challenged a series of contractual clauses enabling Netflix to unilaterally modify subscription prices and contractual terms, as well as provisions governing promotional offers. The Court found that earlier versions of Netflix’s Terms of Use infringed the Italian Consumer Code, which implements Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. In particular, it held that contractual clauses conferring upon the trader a broad ius variandi must specify objective, transparent and foreseeable grounds capable of justifying subsequent modifications. A mere right of withdrawal, the Court reasoned, cannot in itself neutralise the imbalance created by an unrestricted contractual power to alter the bargain unilaterally.
More specifically, the Court rejected the argument that subscription contracts of indefinite duration permit unrestricted price increases provided that consumers are informed in advance (e.g. by e-mail) and allowed to cancel. Drawing extensively on the logic of Directive 93/13 and the case law of the European Court of Justice, it concluded that unilateral modifications must be linked to reasons identified in advance within the contract itself. The original Netflix clauses failed that test because they conferred a virtually unfettered discretionary power to modify subscription prices and contractual conditions without any objectively verifiable justification.
Equally noteworthy is the Court’s analysis regarding the ratione temporis application of the novel representative actions regime introduced pursuant to Directive (EU) 2020/1828. The Court held that said collective redress mechanism could be relied upon -insofar as the claimant seeks injuctive and not compensatory relief- to challenge contractual practices predating the Italian implementing legislation (date of entry into force: 25.6.2026), as long as the allegedly unlawful effects on the monetary interests of the consumers persisted after said date. In doing so, the Court adopted an expansive, time-wise notion of the corrective function of representative actions and refused to treat Netflix’s subsequent amendment of the disputed clauses as rendering the proceedings moot.
Such an interpretative approach is fully consistent with the objectives pursued by the European legislature in ensuring effective consumer protection and access to collective redress, as well as with the general procedural principle of tempus regit actum. Moreover, the same reasoning has already been endorsed by other civil Courts both in Italy (see Trib. Bolzano 670/2024· Trib. Torino, ord., 30.1.2026, in R.g.n. 15981/2025· Trib. Torino, ord., 14.4.2025 in R.g.n. 13711/2024) and in other E.U. member states, including Germany (see BayObLG, Endurteil vom 28.02.2024 - 101 MK 1/20· OLG München, Urteil vom 28.3.2024 - 29 U 1319/20 Kart) and Portugal (Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, 5.11.2025, 1990/23.0T8VCT.L1).
The broader significance of the decision should not be underestimated. Although its stricto sensu legal effects are formally confined to the Italian collective redress proceedings, the Court’s findings may become a valuable evidentiary resource for consumer organisations and other qualified entities in other E.U. jurisdictions.
By way of comparative illustration, Article 10(12) § 8 of Greek Law No. 2251/1994, as amended by Law No. 5019/2023 (transposing Directive 2020/1828 into national legislation) provides that “(a) final judgment of the Greek courts, or of a court or administrative authority of another Member State, concerning the existence of an infringement affecting the collective interests of consumers may be used by any plaintiff as evidence, pursuant to the principle of free evaluation of evidence under Article 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of any other action before the Greek courts, seeking remedial and/or compensatory measures against the same supplier in relation to the same practice, provided that the provisions on res judicata are not affected”.
Accordingly, once the judgment of the Tribunale di Roma becomes final, Greek consumers and consumer associations shall be able to invoke its findings in individual or representative actions, accordingly, seeking injunctive and/or compensatory relief against Netflix, including claims for the reimbursement of sums allegedly charged pursuant to unlawful unilateral price increases (pursuant to the applicable law designated by the conflict of laws rules contained in Rome I Regulation). This, of course, presupposes that the Greek courts are able to establish international jurisdiction over the California based enterprise, e.g. on the basis of Article 18(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation or the relevant provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 3, 33 and 35).
For that reason, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rome deserves attention not merely as a victory against Netflix, but as an early test case for the European representative action model itself. In any event, it conveys a clear message: in digital services subscription contracts, consumers are not simply expected to “take it or leave it” whenever platforms decide to unilaterally rewrite the rules of the game.
© 2026 [Anastasis Kardamakis]. All rights reserved.
This article may be quoted and shared for non-commercial academic, educational, and research purposes, provided that appropriate attribution is given to the author and a link to the original publication is included. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or republished for commercial purposes without the author's prior written consent.
The content of this article is provided solely for informational and academic discussion purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel. The views expressed are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution, organisation, or client with which the author may be affiliated.