The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has begun its courtroom battle with Amazon this week over what it calls deceptive practices surrounding the company’s moneymaker Prime subscription program, Gizmodo reports.

The trial, expected to last about a month, could redefine the boundaries of consumer protection in the digital subscription economy, with implications extending well beyond Amazon.

The FTC alleges that Amazon “tricked millions of customers” into signing up for Prime and then made cancellation deliberately complex. In court filings earlier this month, the regulator accused the company of refusing to address a “known problem,” which employees internally described as an “unspoken cancer,” fearing that simplifying the process would lead to fewer paying subscribers.

Central to the case is Amazon’s internal “Iliad” system—the cancellation flow that, according to the FTC, deters or confuses users attempting to quit Prime. The FTC says the labyrinthine mechanism misled some consumers into believing they had successfully canceled when they had not.

The lawsuit, originally filed two years ago under Biden-era FTC Chair Lina Khan, marks Amazon’s first major showdown with the agency, though another high-stakes trial is already looming. In a separate case, the FTC has filed antitrust charges against Amazon, with proceedings scheduled to begin in early 2027.

Prime remains Amazon’s golden goose. In 2023, the company earned more than $44 billion from subscriptions, which include audiobooks and music, though Prime leads the pack. Beyond that revenue, Prime members also spend heavily across Amazon’s marketplace, making them doubly valuable.

Details of the case

The FTC argues that Amazon concealed critical terms—like pricing and automatic renewals—deep in the fine print when users signed up for free trials. Shoppers lured by free shipping at checkout, for example, might not realize they were enrolling in a free Prime trial that renews automatically after 30 days.

Cancellation, too, became an ordeal. The multi-step process—internally dubbed “the Iliad,” a nod to Homer’s decade-long Trojan War—was designed to discourage cancellations. Consumers had to navigate multiple pages, with Amazon dangling exclusive offers and Prime Video teasers along the way.

In some cases, the FTC says, users were shown a banner thanking them for their membership and offering a “look back at your journey with Prime,” several steps before the cancellation was final. The FTC contends this tricked users into believing they had successfully opted out.

These practices, the FTC alleges, violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans “unfair” commerce practices, and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), which requires companies to disclose all terms upfront, obtain explicit consent, and allow simple cancellation.

Amazon executives in the crosshairs

Amazon itself is not the sole defendant. Three executives—Prime Vice President Jamil Ghani, Amazon Health Services Senior Vice President Neil Lindsay, and Senior Vice President of International Consumers Russell Grandinetti—are also named.

The FTC says Ghani and Lindsay approved clarity improvements to Prime’s enrollment flow but rolled them back when sign-ups dipped. Grandinetti allegedly dismissed internal concerns about unintentional enrollments in favor of boosting Prime’s subscriber base.

Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has already delivered a preliminary win to the FTC, ruling that Ghani and Lindsay would automatically be liable if Amazon is found guilty.

Amazon denies wrongdoing. “The bottom line is that neither Amazon nor the individual defendants did anything wrong – we remain confident that the facts will show these executives acted properly and we always put customers first,” a spokesperson told Gizmodo.

Dark patterns under fire

The FTC characterizes Amazon’s tactics as “dark patterns”—deceptive design choices crafted to manipulate user behavior. These range from confusing enrollment buttons to misleading cancellation steps.

Dark patterns are increasingly drawing global scrutiny. The European Union is preparing to address such practices through the upcoming Digital Fairness Act. Meanwhile, in the United States, the FTC under Khan pushed for a “click to cancel” rule to simplify cancellations, but the effort was struck down under the Trump administration.

Implications beyond Amazon

The FTC notes that Amazon is far from alone in complicating subscription cancellations. Many platforms—from streaming services to digital newspapers—use similar tactics to reduce churn. But Amazon, as one of the world’s largest subscription services, represents the highest-profile test case yet.

If the court sides with the FTC, it could ripple across the digital economy, forcing companies to rethink how they present sign-ups and cancellations. Consumer advocates say such a ruling could finally standardize practices and limit manipulative design.

A comparative lens

The Amazon trial echoes similar disputes unfolding globally. In Europe, regulators have taken aim at companies like Apple and Google for “dark pattern” practices around app store subscriptions, while India’s Consumer Protection Authority has begun cracking down on opaque renewal terms across e-commerce platforms.

Netflix and Spotify have also faced criticism in markets like Germany and France, where regulators required clearer cancellation processes. Compared to these cases, Amazon’s alleged tactics stand out not only for their scale—affecting millions of Prime users—but also for the internal acknowledgment that the practices amounted to a systemic issue.

That global context highlights the stakes of the Washington courtroom battle. If the FTC prevails, it would bring U.S. standards closer to those now emerging in Europe, potentially setting a new benchmark for digital subscriptions worldwide.

The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) has cautioned that government plans to introduce a Tax Stamp System for excisable goods may compound Nigeria’s economic pressures, warning it could fuel inflation, suppress consumer demand, and undercut the country’s ability to compete under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

In a statement signed by its Director General, Segun Ajayi-Kadir, on Tuesday, the association said the extra compliance costs from tax stamps would inevitably be passed on to consumers, many of whom are already struggling with high prices of essential goods.

“This will further shrink demand and push more people toward cheaper, illicit alternatives,” MAN said.

The group stressed that the measure would raise production costs for local manufacturers, placing them at a disadvantage against imports from other African economies. With AfCFTA seeking to create a level playing field for intra-African trade, MAN said Nigeria risks losing ground if domestic manufacturers are forced to operate under a heavier cost burden than their continental peers.

Gains of the 2025 Tax Act Under Threat

MAN acknowledged that the Nigeria Tax Act 2025 had delivered some relief to businesses by consolidating multiple levies, simplifying compliance, and lowering the cost of doing business. But it argued that tax stamps could unravel those gains by creating a “hidden tax burden” inconsistent with the spirit of the reforms.

“The 2025 reforms were meant to ease the cost of doing business and encourage investment. Introducing tax stamps risks reversing these achievements and discouraging industrial growth,” the statement said.

The association also questioned the effectiveness of tax stamps as a tool for combating smuggling and counterfeiting. It argued that global evidence shows limited success, with vendors supplying stamp technology often emerging as the biggest beneficiaries, while industries and governments see little impact.

According to MAN, instead of curbing illicit trade, higher product prices could push more consumers toward unregulated markets, while the risk of counterfeit stamps entering circulation could further complicate enforcement.

Although no official announcement has been made, MAN said it has reliable information that the government is considering the policy based on vendor proposals linking tax stamps to the fight against illicit trade.

The association reminded policymakers that a similar proposal was first floated in 2018 but was unanimously rejected by stakeholders across the board, a precedent it believes the government should not overlook.

Digital Solutions Already Exist

The group pointed out that Nigeria already operates digital systems capable of providing transparency and traceability in excise operations. Among them are the Nigeria Customs Service’s B’Odogwu Automated Excise Register System (ERS) and the Federal Inland Revenue Service’s e-invoicing platform.

“These home-grown systems give government the real-time visibility that tax stamps promise, without the additional costs and disruptions,” MAN noted.

It warned that layering a tax stamp regime on top of existing systems would only create bottlenecks and escalate compliance costs.

Lessons from Other Countries

MAN highlighted case studies from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Ghana, where tax stamp systems triggered high compliance costs, legal disputes, and complaints from industries. Despite these burdens, illicit trade persisted.

Even in advanced economies, the model has faced challenges. The United Kingdom recently reformed its stamp-based system after concluding that it was costly, ineffective, and confusing for businesses—an outcome that MAN urged Nigeria to consider before proceeding.

Considering Nigeria’s Fragile Business Climate

The warning from MAN comes against the backdrop of already mounting challenges for Nigerian manufacturers, who face some of the highest operating costs in Africa. The industry has long complained of rising energy prices, high borrowing costs from elevated interest rates, foreign exchange shortages, and multiple taxation at the federal, state, and local levels.

While manufacturers in peer African economies such as Egypt, South Africa, and Morocco are benefiting from lower financing costs and more stable energy supply, Nigerian firms have had to battle power shortages and diesel prices that make production significantly more expensive.

Adding tax stamps to this fragile operating environment, MAN argued, would not only weaken local players in regional competition but could also discourage new investments at a time Nigeria is seeking to attract foreign capital through AfCFTA.

While reiterating its willingness to contribute excise revenues, MAN called on the government to strengthen border controls, boost enforcement, and optimize existing digital platforms rather than adopt tax stamps. It further urged broad consultations with stakeholders and a transparent impact assessment before any final decision is taken.

Champion Breweries Plc has unveiled plans to launch a N58 billion capital raise programme, a bold move aimed at funding its acquisition of the Bullet brand assets and intellectual property, working capital needs, market expansion, and sustainability-focused investments.

The announcement was made during the company’s “Facts Behind the Figures” session at the Nigerian Exchange (NGX) on Monday, September 22, 2025. Company Secretary, Chief Tosan Aiboni, disclosed that the programme will be executed through a N42 billion public offer and a N16 billion rights issue.

According to the Managing Director, Inalegwu Adoga, proceeds will not only support the Bullet acquisition but also be channeled into technology upgrades such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, returnable packaging solutions, renewable energy adoption, and logistics transformation.

Growth Ambitions Anchored on Bullet

Champion Breweries is projecting a more than fivefold increase in revenue and a tenfold growth in profit after tax once the Bullet ready-to-drink (RTD) alcoholic brand is integrated into its operations. Management noted that the deal is expected to contribute over 70% of Champion’s topline while significantly expanding its foreign currency earnings across 14 African markets.

In H1 2025, the brewer had already recorded impressive momentum with a 111% surge in revenue and a 692% rebound in profit after tax, reflecting disciplined execution and a stronger market position even before the acquisition.

“This is a transformative moment for Champion Breweries,” Adoga said. “Bullet gives us scale, high-margin growth, and international reach. With this acquisition, we are evolving from a strong regional brewer into a multi-market, multi-category growth platform with international relevance.”

Champion’s majority shareholder, enJOYcorp, reinforced the ambition. Its Managing Director, David Butler, noted that the Bullet deal was a landmark in building African beverage brands capable of competing globally.

“Bullet expands Champion’s reach across Africa, diversifies its earnings into foreign currencies, and strengthens its portfolio with trend-driven products,” Butler said.

Performance Track Record

Champion’s financial performance in recent quarters underscores its confidence. The brewer posted a pre-tax profit of N1.7 billion in Q2 2025, a 268.95% rise compared to N465.4 million in the same period of 2024. For H1 2025, pre-tax profit stood at N3.4 billion, a major turnaround from a N333 million loss in H1 2024. Revenue from beer and malt sales climbed to N7.4 billion in Q2, up 44.18% year-on-year.

The company, incorporated in 1974 and headquartered in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, has built a reputation over five decades of brewing excellence. Listed on the NGX, it produces a portfolio of beer and malt brands, and is now positioning itself as a continental player through the backing of enJOYcorp, its parent company.

Comparative Look

The strategy mirrors moves seen in Africa’s beverage industry over the past decade, where acquisitions and capital raises have become pathways to market dominance. For instance, AB InBev’s multi-billion-dollar consolidation of SABMiller in 2016 reshaped the African beer market, while Nigerian Breweries and Guinness Nigeria have both turned to capital raises in the past to strengthen balance sheets and fund expansion.

Champion’s approach differs in its focus on trend-driven RTD beverages and energy drinks, categories that are rapidly gaining share among younger consumers across Africa. By acquiring Bullet, it is not just competing with established brewers on beer but positioning itself in segments that global majors are also targeting for growth.

The timing is also notable as Nigeria’s brewing sector has been under pressure from rising input costs, inflation, and currency volatility. Champion’s recent profitability and its ability to attract shareholder backing for such a large raise suggest growing investor confidence in the company’s strategy.

What Lies Ahead?

Once completed, the Bullet acquisition will immediately boost Champion’s financials through foreign exchange earnings, a wider distributor network, and a stronger continental presence. Over the longer term, supply chain integration, ERP-led efficiencies, and sustainability investments could provide competitive advantages in a crowded market.

The N58 billion raise is more than a financing exercise for Champion, as many believe it is the springboard for transforming from a Nigerian regional brewer into an African beverage powerhouse.