chance of success
A lawsuit has been filed in Moscow’s Khamovnichesky District Court by twenty Russians seeking 60 million rubles in moral compensation after Netflix ceased service in the Russian Federation. The filing drew attention as a high profile case about the platform’s unilateral decision to stop its services locally. Konstantin Lukoyanov, a lawyer who volunteered to represent the plaintiffs, spoke to various media outlets about the case.
On April 13 the Khamovniki District Court published an entry listing Entertainment Online Service LLC as a defendant. The company operates as Netflix International BV’s Russian affiliate, with National Media Group acting on behalf of the American service in Russia. Several lawyers interviewed by Socialbites.ca considered the plaintiffs’ claims against Netflix reasonable and fair.
Yevgeny Tsarev, director of RTM Group, a firm specializing in forensic science and digital law, argues that Netflix’s decision to stop services without notice violates the Civil and Consumer Protection Act. Oleg Pavlov, head of the Public Consumer Initiative, a legal scholar and consumer rights advocate, shares the sentiment that the plaintiffs have a solid chance of a favorable outcome in court.
“In this case, the plaintiffs stand a strong chance since Entertainment Online Service LLC holds a formal legal personality to act as the defendant in Russia. Payments flowed through this entity, so there are funds and mechanisms to satisfy the claim right here in the country”, noted Pavlov. Pavel Katkov, founder of the Katkov and Partners law firm, also believes in a potential victory but for a different reason.
He explained that the current Russian judicial climate shows a readiness to defend national interests, and a major case against a foreign service aligns with that stance.
Among critics, Efim Kazantsev, a member of the Legal Support Commission for the Digital Economy of the Moscow Branch of the Russian Bar Association, views the action as a public relations move by Chernyshov, Lukoyanov and Partners, with Lukoyanov as the representative named in the filing. Kazantsev indicated that any success would amount to advertising gains for the lawyers rather than a guaranteed outcome for the clients.
Alexei Byrdin, director of the Internet Video Association, concurs with this cautious view. He contends that Netflix accurately warned Russian users about the termination and continued service through the paid period, making the plaintiffs’ claim questionable. Byrdin also suggested that proving Entertainment Online Service LLC’s involvement in Netflix’s leadership decision could be challenging. He noted that while Roskomnadzor records show a linkage, it does not definitively establish direct influence over Netflix’s policy in Russia. National Media Group declined to comment.
looks a little
Despite the mixed opinions, experts agree that even a victory in court would likely not result in the plaintiffs receiving the full 60 million rubles. Tsarev argued that large compensations are rare in such matters. He noted that compensation amounts frequently fail to cover legal costs, while the politicized nature of the case could drive a higher award. Russians have previously seen lawsuits against foreign IT companies yield smaller sums than requested.
In a notable historical example, in 2015 a case involving Google and mail scanning resulted in a Court order requiring Google to stop the behavior and pay a modest sum to the plaintiff. Kazantsev expressed skepticism that the 60 million rubles figure would stand in court today. He suggested that even in cases of clear consumer harm, awards rarely reach tens of thousands of rubles per person. If the court considers the claim, a plausible outcome could be a modest award in the range of a few thousand rubles per affected consumer. Kazantsev emphasized that the 60 million rubles figure appears to have been chosen to attract media attention rather than to reflect probable damages.