The record-breaking $2.5 billion settlement Amazon has agreed to pay for allegedly tricking millions of customers into enrolling in its Prime service has been hailed as a milestone for consumer protection. But while regulators celebrate the largest civil penalty in the Federal Trade Commission’s history, critics argue the fine does not go far enough — and that systemic changes are needed to curb so-called “dark patterns” in online subscriptions. The FTC accused Amazon of using manipulative design tactics that nudged shoppers into Prime memberships without clear consent, and of making it unnecessarily difficult to cancel. The case ended in a sweeping financial settlement: $1 billion in penalties to the U.S. government and $1.5 billion earmarked for customer refunds. Amazon has denied wrongdoing but agreed to simplify its sign-up and cancellation flows and submit to compliance monitoring. Yet consumer advocates and policy experts say the sheer scale of Amazon’s operations makes even a multibillion-dollar fine look like a manageable cost of doing business. With annual revenue surpassing half a trillion dollars, they argue, the company could absorb the penalty without significantly changing its behavior. The concern is that fines alone may not alter corporate incentives when subscription revenues are so lucrative. Calls are growing for the FTC to impose deeper, structural remedies. One idea gaining traction is a “one-click cancel” requirement, ensuring cancellation is as simple as enrollment. Critics of Amazon’s previous practices note that customers sometimes had to wade through multiple screens, a process that even carried the internal code name “Iliad” — a nod to its length and complexity. A mandated single-step process would make such tactics impossible. Others propose independent usability testing, with outside auditors measuring how long it takes real users to sign up versus cancel, and publishing those results annually. Another suggestion is pre-approval of future subscription design changes, forcing companies to submit new user interfaces to regulators before deployment. Such measures, advocates say, would prevent deceptive design at the source rather than punishing it after the fact. There are also calls for personal accountability. Under this model, senior executives responsible for subscription design would be required to certify compliance with consumer protection rules under penalty of perjury. If manipulative practices reappear, executives themselves could face fines or even bans. Supporters argue that holding individuals — not just corporations — responsible would ensure stronger internal oversight. On the consumer side, reformers want broader redress. While the current settlement grants automatic refunds to customers who used few Prime benefits, many believe all affected subscribers should be compensated, with pre-filled claims and follow-up outreach to ensure refunds do not go unclaimed. Transparency could also be heightened with a public FTC dashboard reporting subscription metrics, cancellation times, and refund totals, along with a “dark pattern registry” that documents manipulative designs. Some observers say legislative action may be required. The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, the statute underpinning the Amazon case, does not explicitly define dark patterns. Amendments could codify rules that opt-ins must be clear, cancellations must take no more steps than enrollment, and free trials must disclose renewal terms in a standardized format. Clearer laws, they argue, would help prevent the next Amazon-style case before it begins. For now, the Amazon settlement sets a precedent in scale but leaves questions unresolved. Has the FTC truly changed the way big tech companies handle subscriptions, or simply collected another penalty from a giant that can afford to pay? With dark patterns increasingly under scrutiny across the digital economy, what regulators do next could determine whether this case becomes a turning point or just another line on the balance sheet.