Amazon faces class action in Quebec following warehouse closures — but for just 10 weeks

I — The context

Warehouse closures and the slipping delivery times

On January 22, 2025, Amazon announced the closure of its warehouses in Quebec. The company reverted to its pre-2020 business model: using local third parties for delivery. Officially, service quality would be maintained, even improved. Unofficially, Quebec Prime customers saw something else.

Jean Desnoyers is one of them. A Prime member since 2022, he pays his subscription precisely to benefit from fast one- or two-day delivery, free of charge, with no minimum purchase, on the millions of products identified as Eligible Items. That is the central promise of Prime.

On January 29, 2025, seven days after the closure, he ordered a pack of razor blades. Expected delivery: the next day, January 30. Actual delivery: February 3. Four days late on a product identified as deliverable in one day.

He is not alone in noticing. On Reddit on January 22, a user wrote that his Prime deliveries, normally received the next day, were now being announced for four days later. Others replied that they were cancelling their subscriptions. Retail strategist Carl Boutet, on Instagram, observed delays in the suburbs extended from one to five days. Amazon, at this stage, blamed the weather.

Then came the media. On February 12, The Logic ran the headline: "Amazon delivery times in Quebec double as firm mothballs warehouses." The journalist documented the contrast: a Toronto customer receives a chocolate box the next day, while the Prime customer in Montréal receives it on the fourth day. Between February 19 and 25, La Presse published a series of articles in the same vein — about thirty articles among the best sellers could take four, five or six business days to reach downtown Montréal, while in Toronto and Calgary, it was one or two days.

II — The claim

A class action and two CPA provisions

Mr. Desnoyers filed a motion for authorization to bring a class action. His theory rests on two provisions of the Consumer Protection Act which, together, frame the merchant's contractual obligation to deliver what was promised:

The argument is straightforward. Amazon made a representation — fast delivery in one or two days — which became the very substance of the Prime subscription. Failing to honour it amounts to a breach of the contractual obligation codified in section 40 and triggers the liability set out in section 41.

The remedy sought is also provided for in the CPA, at its section 272: full reimbursement of the Prime subscription for the period in question, or alternatively a reduction in price corresponding to the degraded service. And because Mr. Desnoyers argues that Amazon knew from the outset that it would not be able to deliver within the promised timeframes, he is also claiming punitive damages.

The proposed group is broad: all holders of a Prime subscription in Quebec, from January 22, 2025 until the date of the authorization judgment. That is, in practice, the entire pool of Quebec Prime members over fifteen months.

III — Amazon's evidence

45 orders — and most delivered on time

Amazon obtained leave to file Mr. Desnoyers's order history into evidence. This is where things get complicated for the plaintiff.

Before the alleged purchase in his motion, Mr. Desnoyers had already placed five orders for Eligible Items — plus another one the same day — all delivered within the promised one- or two-day windows. And after the razor-blades episode, he placed 45 more orders between January 31 and June 18, 2025. Of those 45 orders, only five involved delivery delays. The vast majority respected the Prime promise.

The month-by-month breakdown, as retained by the Court:

In January 2025, one delay out of seven orders. In February, two delays out of six — but one of the two was actually delivered before the delivery date accepted at the time of the order. In March, one delay out of ten. In April, no delays out of thirteen orders. In May, one delay out of eleven, but with a delivery time already announced longer at the time of the order and accepted by Mr. Desnoyers. In June, no delays out of four.

Four of the plaintiff's orders, moreover, showed an expected delivery date from the outset that was longer than the one- or two-day window stipulated in the Prime subscription. Those dates were accepted at the time of purchase. In those cases, it is hard to argue that there was a misleading representation.

From this evidence, the Court draws two consequences. The first affects the duration of the action. The second affects the composition of the group.

IV — The narrowed period

The action shrinks: 10 weeks instead of 15 months

For Justice Poulin, the facts alleged and the exhibits filed are enough to demonstrate an arguable case — but only up to March 31, 2025.

During January, February and March 2025, Mr. Desnoyers received four orders late and also accepted four orders with initially longer-than-promised delivery times. These facts, combined with the contemporaneous press articles documenting the degradation of service across Quebec, are sufficient to allow the inference that Amazon was not fully able to deliver within the promised times during the weeks following the closure of its warehouses.

But after that date? The evidence collapses.

The only later delay — the delivery of the "Baleaf Mens Sweatpants" ordered on May 15, 2025 — is set aside because Mr. Desnoyers himself accepted, at the time of the order, an estimated delivery date of May 26, nine days later. No misleading representation at play. The judge notes, moreover, that Mr. Desnoyers does not invoke this delay in support of his motion.

The class action is therefore authorized — but for 10 weeks, not for 15 months.

V — The restricted group

Only members who actually experienced a delay are included

The second narrowing affects the composition of the group. Mr. Desnoyers had asked to be authorized to represent all Quebec Prime members during the period in question. Justice Poulin refused, and he gave two reasons.

First, the impressive number of the plaintiff's own orders delivered on time suggests that many Prime members likely experienced no delays at all. Those individuals have no cause of action against Amazon — you cannot claim a refund for a service that was actually delivered.

Second, and more interesting, the Prime subscription gives access to many things that have nothing to do with fast delivery: the Prime Video platform, music streaming, unlimited reading of digital books, photo storage. A subscriber may very well have enjoyed those benefits during the period in question without having ordered anything — and therefore without having experienced any delivery delay.

The group is consequently redefined more narrowly: only individuals who i) were Prime members between January 22 and March 31, 2025; ii) purchased a product after a representation of one- or two-day delivery; and iii) actually experienced a delay, are part of the group.

VI — The takeaways

What this decision tells platforms and consumers

The Desnoyers decision does not revolutionize Quebec consumer protection law. It applies two well-known sections of the CPA to a concrete case involving a digital platform. But it illustrates, in a visible and high-profile file, three things worth noting.

First. An advertising representation becomes a contractual obligation. That is exactly what section 41 of the CPA has said for decades, but it tends to be forgotten when it comes to online subscriptions. The slogan "delivery in one or two days" is not decorative marketing copy: it is what the subscriber bought. And the merchant is bound by it.

Second. An authorized class action is not a total victory. The authorization threshold is intentionally low — it acts as a filter against frivolous claims, not a ruling on the merits. But the authorization judge can, as here, actively shape the action: shorten the period, narrow the group, refuse to include subcategories of members who have not demonstrated a cause of action. The plaintiff comes out a winner, but with a substantially smaller action than the one he proposed.

Third. Order history has become decisive evidence. Amazon's ability to produce the plaintiff's 45 orders with precision, day by day, with promised and actual dates, allowed the Court to concretely visualize the real duration of the service degradation. Without that evidence, the action would probably have been authorized over the full 15 months. It is a technical detail that, in digital files, ends up weighing as much as the case law.