California Attorney General Rob Bonta released evidence Monday in a lawsuit accusing Amazon of widespread price fixing.
Amazon is allegedly behind a scheme to artificially drive up prices, according to the state’s lawsuit initially filed in 2022. State attorneys asked the San Francisco Superior Court in February to halt Amazon’s alleged price-fixing methods the lawsuit proceeds, and Monday the court allowed the release of a largely unredacted copy of that preliminary injunction request for the public.
The unredacted document shows specific interactions in which Amazon, vendors and competing retailers such as Target, Walmart, Chewy, Best Buy, Home Depot and others agree to raise retail prices across their platforms.
“The evidence we’ve uncovered is clear as day: Amazon is working to make your life more unaffordable,” Bonta said in a statement. “The company is price fixing, colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise costs for Americans beyond what the market requires — beyond what is fair. Amid a crisis of affordability, Amazon is illegally working to rake in profits by making sure consumers have nowhere else to turn to for lower prices. We’ll see them in court.”
An Amazon spokesperson said in an email to HeySoCal.com, “The Attorney General’s motion is a transparent attempt to distract from the weakness of its case, coming more than three years after filing its complaint and based on supposedly ‘new’ evidence it has had for years. Amazon is consistently identified as America’s lowest-priced online retailer, and we’re proud of the low prices customers find when shopping in our store. Amazon looks forward to responding in court at the appropriate time.”
At a hearing in March on whether to grant a preliminary injunction, Judge Ethan P. Schulman questioned the lack of timeliness in the state’s allegations, noting that the price-fixing examples are between 2019 and 2021.
“Why am I hearing about this so late?” Shulman asked. “Some of this was … the subject of deposition discovery that took place in 2023. We’re now in 2026. What took so long and why did (state attorneys) take so long to move on this?”
The judge also wondered, “Is there a good faith basis to believe that whatever this alleged conduct was that occurred several years ago is still ongoing such that there’s a need for a preliminary injunction? Is there a showing of irreparable harm here that can be made, an imminent irreparable harm?”
According to Bonta, Amazon has reached out to its vendors for years and instructed them to increase retail prices on competitors’ websites, threatening severe consequences th those who don’t comply.
“Vendors, bullied by Amazon’s overwhelming bargaining leverage and fearing punishment, agree to raise prices on competitors’ websites, or to remove products from competing websites altogether,” according to the Attorney General’s Office.
The alleged price fixing scheme usually starts with Amazon representatives demanding that vendors “fix,” “correct,” “increase,” “raise” or “look into” the prices of products on other retailers’ websites. Amazon vendors who don’t give in to the pressure are subject to advertising and promotion restrictions, demands for financial compensation and the removal of vendors’ products from Amazon.
According to Bonta, Amazon uses three illegal schemes to raise prices for consumers.
- “Amazon or its competitor, through their common vendor, will agree to increase the retail price or make a product temporarily unavailable, so that the other retailer can match the increased market price, increasing the price for consumers.
- “A competitor offering a cheaper price on a product will increase its retail price at Amazon’s request (a request made through the vendor), so that Amazon can then match that increased retail price, thereby increasing the price for consumers.
- “The vendor removes a product from a competing retailer that is offering a lower price than Amazon, so that the lower price is no longer available in the market and Amazon then raises its retail price, resulting in a higher price for consumers.
The AG’s Office provided examples of price fixing from the formerly redacted portions of the preliminary injunction request:
- Amazon, Levi Strauss & Co. and Walmart Inc. agreed on increased retail pricing for khaki pants. Company agents provided Levi’s representatives links to Khaki pants that were priced lower on Walmart.com — $25.47 to $26.99 — saying it “hop[ed] these can get resolved over the next few days,” according to the state’s injunction request. The next day, an unnamed Levi’s employee reported that “I talked to Walmart and they have partnered with us to … take Easy Khaki Classic fit back up to…$29.99 immediately” and provided links to show the increased Walmart price. Amazon acknowledged that Walmart raised its price and confirmed it had matched that higher price: “the updated pricing of $29.99 is now showing up on [Amazon].”
- Amazon, GlobalOne and Chewy agreed on higher retail prices for pet treats. The plan was detailed in an email between Amazon and its vendor GlobalOne. For its part, Amazon would increase GlobalOne’s Canine Naturals pet treat prices to get Chewy to follow, then GlobalOne would “reach out to Chewy” to let them know that Amazon was increasing the pricing and “would ask that [Chewy] follow.” According to Bonta, if Chewy agreed, Amazon would raise its prices for the Canine Naturals pet treats and Chewy would match the price increase. The plan materialized, state attorneys allege. Amazon told GlobalOne that the price-matching override was in place and to “let Chewy know to update [pricing] immediately.” That same day, GlobalOne confirmed the “ones that went up on Amazon immediately went up on Chewy [happy face emoji] … Overall this looks like it’s working!” The result of the alleged collusion was Amazon, Chewy and GlobalOne increased the retail prices of over 10 Canine Naturals products sold on the Amazon and Chewy websites.
- Amazon, Hanes and Target worked to raise the price of apparel. Amazon sent Hanes links to Target.com and Walmart.com that showed lower prices Amazon’s. Hanes confirmed that it’s representatives “reached out to Target and Walmart to have the prices increased.”
- Amazon, Allergan and Walmart colluded to spike the price of eyedrops. Amazon emailed vendor Allergan to say that it had temporarily suppressed eye drops because of a $13.59 price match. Allergan employees were told Amazon would “check the price match regularly throughout the day.” Allergan responded with a screenshot of Walmart’s website showing $16.99, stating that “Walmart got their price back up” and asking Amazon to no longer supress the product. Amazon did just that, confirming, “Buy box back up at $16.99.”
- Amazon, Agrothrive and Home Depot worked to increase the price of plant fertilizer. Amazon complained to Agrothrive about lower prices for Agrothrive products sold at Home Depot. Agrothrive responded: “Yes, just got out of a meeting with the Home Depot manager and she has agreed to raise the prices this time.”
- Amazon, Songmic and Wayfair agreed to increase the price of a trash can. Amazon complained to Songmic that Wayfair was selling Songmic’s trash can for less, and that the price should increase. In response, Songmic “urgently asked” Wayfair “to stop running deals for it.”
According to Bonta, “The examples above are not outliers and are not exhaustive. They are illustrative of countless interactions — spanning years and product lines — in which Amazon, vendors and Amazon’s competitors agree to increase and fix the prices of products on other retail websites. As Amazon told one vendor explicitly: ‘I am very determined to help you hunt the disrupters in the market.’”
The state’s motion for preliminary injunction asks the court to immediately prohibit Amazon representatives from explicit price fixing with vendors and competitors, communicating with vendors about other retailers’ pricing and coercing vendors to serve as go-betweens with competitors “by demanding money to make Amazon whole” for price-matching a lower-priced retailer,” according to Attorney General’s Office.
A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is set for July 23, and the case is scheduled to go to trial in January.
The unredacted court filing released Monday is available on the state Department of Justice website.