Apparently Netflix's ranking algorithm (for deciding which customer gets those DVDs first when they're scarce) favors new customers and those who return their DVDs less frequently -- at least, according to Will Baude and some informal research he's dug up.
Attending to new customers (especially those in the free two week trial period) seems logical enough, as does skewing the model toward more profiable customers, ie those who return their DVDs less frequently but nonetheless pay the same flat fee. Baude, a real consumer's consumer, wants to take action on this, but says he's stuck in "conflict aversion" about the situation. Does the situation really warrant action? Calculations about the profitability of different customers aside, doesn't it make sense to take care of those who use the service less? And why is a system that gets movies to the least frequent users more quickly any less fair than one which takes orders on a first come, first served basis? To my mind, there's a certain logic to a system that prioritizes users in this way.
Of course, none of this precludes a challenge from an irate Baude, based in whatever logic he can muster -- and probably Netflix should be more transparent with its algorithm if it wants to keep customers. But the implication that a system that weights some customers over others is unfair will have to be defended.
UPDATE: Baude has more.