Amazon is facing a fresh suit from the Federal Trade Commission, accusing the e-commerce giant of duping millions of consumers into signing up for its mainstay Prime program.

The suit, which was filed on Wednesday, also alleged that Amazon sabotaged attempts of consumers to opt out of the program.

According to the agency, Amazon’s actions violated the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act by using so-called dark patterns, or deceptive design tactics meant to steer users toward a specific choice, to push consumers to enroll in Prime without their consent.

“Amazon tricked and trapped people into recurring subscriptions without their consent, not only frustrating users but also costing them significant money,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement.

Amazon spokesperson Heather Layman described the allegation as “false on the facts and the law.”

“The truth is that customers love Prime, and by design we make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up for or cancel their Prime membership,” Layman said. “As with all our products and services, we continually listen to customer feedback and look for ways to improve the customer experience, and we look forward to the facts becoming clear as this case plays out,” Layman said in a statement.

Since March 2021, the FTC has been investigating the sign-up and cancellation procedures of Amazon’s Prime program, per CNBC. The relationship between Amazon and the FTC became strained when the agency requested that CEO Andy Jassy and founder Jeff Bezos testify regarding the practices of the Prime program. Amazon argued that the request was excessive and burdensome, but the FTC rejected their argument.

Amazon’s Prime program, established in 2005, has grown into one of the most popular subscription services worldwide, boasting over 200 million members globally and generating billions of dollars for the company. Membership, priced at $139 per year, provides various benefits such as free shipping and access to streaming content.

In the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Amazon’s leadership is accused of deliberately hindering or rejecting changes aimed at simplifying the cancellation process for Prime. These changes were considered detrimental to Amazon’s financial performance.

The FTC complaint states that Amazon made it challenging for consumers to make purchases on its platform without Prime. Furthermore, a transaction completion button did not clearly indicate that users would also be enrolling in Prime for a recurring subscription.

The complaint also alleges that the cancellation process was intentionally complicated to dissuade users from ending their Prime membership. The FTC cited a report by Insider, claiming that Amazon internally referred to this process as “Iliad,” referencing Homer’s epic poem about the Trojan War.

This complaint marks the third case brought against Amazon by the FTC within the past month. In late May, Amazon agreed to pay over $30 million to settle cases involving privacy breaches in its Alexa and Ring units. While the company disagreed with the FTC’s claims, it chose to settle in order to move forward and resolve the matter.

On Wednesday, Amazon’s shares closed slightly lower.

The Nigerian government’s plan to review the salaries of political, judicial, and other public officers by 114% has resulted in a heavy backlash. The backlash is being buoyed by current harsh economic realities orchestrated by President Bola Tinubu’s policy changes.

On Tuesday, the Chairman of the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), Muhammadu Shehu, confirmed, during the presentation of reports of the reviewed remuneration package to Kebbi State governor, Dr. Nasir Idris, in Birnin Kebbi, that the salaries will be reviewed upward.

Shehu, represented by the Federal Commissioner, Rakiya Tanko-Ayuba, said the move was in line with the provision of Paragraph 32(d) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Government (as amended).

“It empowers the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission to determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders, including the President, Vice President, Governors, Deputy Governors, Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers, Legislators, and the holders of the offices mentioned in Sections 84 and 124 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” he was quoted by NAN as saying.

The event was a continuation of the one-day zonal public hearing on the review of the remuneration package simultaneously in all the six geo-political zones of the country on 1st February 2023.

Shehu said the remuneration review is long overdue, referencing the last review which was carried out in 2007, culminating in the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2008.

“16 years after the last review, it is imperative that the Remuneration Packages for the categories of the office holders mentioned in relevant Sections of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) should be reviewed,” he added.

According to the chairman, the commission has reviewed the remuneration packages as contained in these reports based on a combination of subjective and objective criteria obtained from analysis of macro-economic variables particularly the Consumer Price Index (CPI) among others.

He said that having considered the impact of the review on the economy, the remuneration of the political, public, and judicial office holders in the country was adjusted upward by 114%.

However, the move is coming at a time when Nigeria is facing a heavy economic downturn, following policy changes that involved the removal of petrol and electricity subsidies and the floating of the naira.

The policy changes were implemented without provisions to cushion their economic effects. The government is still working with Civil Society Organizations to develop a framework for the increment of the N30,000 monthly minimum wage.

Against this backdrop, the RMAFC’s decision to conduct an upward review of the salaries of public office holders is seen as a slap on the face of Nigerians.

Shehu said during an interview with AriseTV on Wednesday, that the 114% review has become necessary because CPI has gone up by more than 300% since 2007, when it was last reviewed.

He added that considering the current economic situation, the review has been narrowed to the basic salary of public officers. The chairman explained that concerning allowances and fringe benefits, the commission recommended that the existing allowances be maintained at the current levels since that would translate to higher provisions in actual amounts when applied to the reviewed annual basic salary.

However, his explanation has failed to calm the avalanche of protest trailing the review as it is generally seen as an indication of the government’s insouciance towards the plights of Nigerians.

“Raising the minimum wage of poor workers should come first before that of the elites holding public offices. With this 114% increase, a Federal Legislator will earn about N2million monthly salary and N25 million monthly running cost for his office. Money derived from the removal of subsidies should be spent wisely,” former Senator, Shehu Sani said.

A perspective of a former London real estate agent.

The consensus that real estate is an investment option with income certainty might stand to be questioned or seem old-fashioned thinking. Even this industry sector, which is as old as humanity, also witnessed a level of volatility and rising chaos in the United Kingdom’s market in recent times.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it still powers most economies of the world and is still the safest go-to investment option for many people.

Like most other developed countries, the level of activities in the real estate sector at different levels in the United Kingdom is immense. These activities spread across the manufacturing and services sectors, which contribute 17.7 per cent and 71.63 per cent, respectively, to the UK’s GDP as of 2021.

The six top contributing assets divisions are Office, Multifamily housing, Retail, Industrial, Healthcare, and Student, which run in billions of GBP overall, making the property market a significant industry in the United Kingdom’s economy.

Despite the impact of Covid-19, as of June 2020, “listed office real estate companies had a market capitalization of 66.6 billion euros, while multifamily housing companies’ market cap stood at 53.9 billion euros. The third leading sector was retail, with a market cap of approximately 20.5 billion euros” (Statistica).

With all these positive drivers, one is right to ask, ‘what could be negative about this lucrative industry?’ To begin with, the intensity and complexity of activities happening in any country’s economic power sector indicate numerous underlying and overlying issues.

When I was in the industry, I identified multiple issues which directly affect what I do as an estate agent and might pose a few challenges for another professional engaged differently in the industry.

But what if a slight government intervention in a few policies could help calm the chaos?

For this article, I will only outline five issues and two possible government policies that may offer solutions to the property market chaos:

1. Excessive Policies

It seems the government introduces new regulations mandated to operators or property managers in the industry almost daily. This year alone, the government introduced 15+ regulatory updates every agent and landlord should know.

These changes affect letting agents and landlords because their liability is increasing quickly for investors operating rental portfolios.

2. Market Volatility

Real estate is one recommendation I see people give whenever they want to suggest an investment with less volatility. However, being in the industry for over 36 months, I noticed that despite the tremendous opportunities it offers as an investment, the uncertainty of the global pandemic and geopolitics makes this a difficult period for real estate investors.

3. Revenue Uncertainty

In addition to the volatility of overall income generated by assets portfolio over time, investors face one challenge: income surety. The economic position of many investors will be different from before. Everything should be considered new, from the amount of time and resources spent to investigate a tenant to those spent to make sure all regulations are ticked throughout that tenancy.

4. Evictions Of Delinquent Tenants

This year saw over five rental reform regulatory headlines regarding evictions in the country’s real estate market. Again, because of the time and capital needed, landlords with limited capital either face the expensive challenge of evicting delinquent tenants or accept government stipends with many strings attached

The last eviction I oversaw as an estate agent cost the landlord over £6000.00 within nine months. If he had decided to accept the government’s stipends and keep the tenant, that would mean he would still keep receiving rents lower than the local housing rates while also adhering to regulations to ensure the safety of the tenants, causing damage to the property.

This factor, in my perspective, is the most significant plight of residential property real estate investors. Furthermore, investors looking to acquire those same properties from tired landlords are faced with navigating legal and affordable solutions regarding evictions and refurbishing the property to market standards.

5. Tenants’ concerns

Tenants’ concerns go two ways: that of the landlords, which I covered in points three and four, and that of the tenants, which are mainly the suitable living conditions of their homes and the skyrocketing monthly rental increase.

Investors want to ensure income surety and beat hyperinflation on assets, resulting in a hyper increase in monthly rental prices. Percentage change in rental prices of prime property in England forecast from 2022 to 2026 growth is forecast to reach 30.4 per cent.

Two Ways Government Could Intervene With Property Market Chaos

From my perspective as a former London real estate agent, there is no one-switch button to fix the complexities and challenges of the property market in the UK. However, addressing the fifth factor (tenants’ concerns) could help the industry experience significant benefits for the major stakeholders (investors and tenants) involved. I will lay out two potential ways tenants’ concerns can be addressed.

Reimagining the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) Rates

In the UK, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) uses Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates to calculate housing benefits for tenants renting from private landlords.

The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) rent officers collect rental information from letting agents, landlords, tenants and other sources to update their site. Most landlords and agents use these LHA rental prices as a baseline to determine monthly rents for tenants.

The problem with this is that many landlords and agents always stay above the LHA rates, no matter the living condition of the property. Some landlords and lettings agents even double the LHA prices.

A solution to this challenge could be for the government to set LHA as a price ceiling on private market rents being paid in the Broad Rental Market Areas (BRMA) instead of the current LHA rating system, in which it is the price floor.

Additionally, this should be complemented by a precise specification for a property standard to be worth this new system of LHA rate in rental income.

This will force landlords and letting agents to ask for monthly rents according to property standards and equally increase rents with respect to the amount of investment made to keep the property to specific living standards over the tenancy.

Appreciation of Deposit protected for Tenants in Financial Value

Another policy that, if evaluated and changed, could help with the property market chaos is the security deposit that tenants or leaseholders pay to landlords.

Since 1 June 2019, the UK government introduced a cap on the deposit that the tenant is required to pay at the start of the tenancy. If the annual rent is less than £50,000, the maximum deposit is five weeks. If the annual rent is £50,000 or above, the maximum deposit is six weeks’ rent.

The deposit must be refundable at the end of the tenancy, usually subject to the rent being paid and the property being returned in good condition. Therefore, it must be ‘protected’ during the tenancy. Judging from the amount tenants pay in deposits for tenancy durations and the inflation rates, this brings no financial value to tenants.

For instance, an annual rent of £50,000 is a monthly rent of £4,166.67. Under the current deposit law, the tenant is expected to pay a deposit of £5,769.23 at the beginning of a tenancy. Let’s assume the tenant stayed for 20 months, as the average rental duration in the UK is currently at 19+ months.

If everything is correct, at the end of the residence, the tenant will still receive a refund of £5,769.23. In most cases of tenants leaving a property, some private landlords are not even happy to release the deposit protected willingly to the tenant.

What if a policy rewards tenants financially for these protected deposits and for being good tenants over the years? For example, the illustrated tenant might receive a refund of about £5,800 to £5,850.

It is important to note that this idea is not necessarily to give tenants a large financial incentive but to incentivise their stay while looking after the property they rented.

This policy may mitigate unnecessary movements of tenants by making them stay longer in a property while reasonably maintaining the property. This would also be a welcoming initiative for buy-to-let investors.