Amazon has been put on blast in a class-action lawsuit by consumers seeking refunds for higher product prices stemming from last year’s IEEPA tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.
The suit was filed in federal court on Friday in Seattle and accused the e-commerce giant of profiting off “hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs,” making it one of multiple high-profile retail sellers under fire from consumers for failing to pass through reimbursements.
Nike, Shein, Temu, Costco and Lululemon are all embroiled in similar class-action litigation.
The tariffs in question, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in February.
Following that decision, the Court of International Trade confirmed in early March that the right to reclaim those tariffs rests solely with importers of record, or Amazon, in this specific case. But the ruling did not require the importers to file lawsuits to obtain the refunds.
The suit alleges that in failing to disclose to consumers that it did not intend to seek a refund of the IEPPA tariffs even if those tariffs were illegal, Amazon committed deceptive and unfair conduct that violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
The plaintiffs also alleged Amazon has chosen not to pursue that recovery to better ingratiate the firm with the Trump administration and seek favorable treatment.
“Amazon has refused to seek a refund—not because it lacks a legal basis to do so, but because it seeks to curry favor with Trump by allowing the federal government to retain the funds,” the complaint says. “Amazon’s decision to forgo recovery serves its own political and commercial interests at the direct expense of the consumers who bore the tariff costs in the first place. Amazon has not returned any portion of those costs it passed on to consumers, and it has no intention of doing so.”
The plaintiffs pointed to various politically charged instances since the tariffs’ implementation, such as a report that said Amazon would add information displaying to the consumer how much of an item’s total cost can be attributed to tariffs.
When the news dropped, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the reported move “a hostile and political act.” Amazon said the plan was never approved.
“Although the plan was never implemented, it demonstrates that Amazon can identify
exactly how much of a product’s price was due to the IEEPA tariffs,” the suit alleged. “And it demonstrates that Amazon has the record-keeping ability to identify each consumer who paid a higher cost due to a Trump tariff.”
The suit also referenced President Trump’s quote from April, in which he said he would “remember” the companies that didn’t seek tariff refunds.
The class-action complaint was filed by two consumers, Lisa Markland of Maryland and Mari Cartagenova of Massachusetts. The suit concerns purchases made between Feb. 4, 2025, and Feb. 20, 2026, the day the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down the “reciprocal” IEEPA tariffs.
Amazon’s competitors in the logistics field have begun the tariff refund process, with FedEx, UPS and DHL all starting to pass on proceeds to impacted business customers.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has said that up to $166 billion in tariffs collected under the IEEPA statute could be reimbursed, depending on the total refund requests. The CBP finalized $35.5 billion of those refunds through May 11.
The lawsuit itself details price increases resulting from the tariffs. An analysis of the median price of more than 1,400 made-in-China products sold on Amazon found a 2.6 percent increase between January and mid-June, outpacing that month’s U.S. inflation rate of 2 percent for core goods.
In response to this analysis, Amazon said it had not seen average products change outside of typical fluctuations.
Two months later, a Wall Street Journal study of 2,500 products sold on Amazon found that the tech titan had increased the price of 1,200 low-cost goods by an average of 5.2 percent between January and July last year. During the same period, Walmart lowered prices on those same items by nearly 2 percent.
Although the lawsuit said Amazon’s price increases occurred “despite prior pledges to keep prices low,” CEO Andy Jassy articulated in last May’s earnings call that there would be “plenty of sellers that decide to pass on those higher costs to end consumers,” although “not all of them are going to pursue the same tack.”
According to the complaint, more than 100 people have joined the lawsuit. The lawsuit does not list a specific number of damages requested, but notes that the amount exceeds $5 million.
The three-count lawsuit seeks restitution of a proportionate share of any refunds Amazon recovers, alongside interests, legal fees, costs, treble damages and injunctive relief.
