Amazon sued over tariff refunds

Amazon.com was sued on May 15 in federal court in Seattle by two consumers who say the company raised prices to cover Trump-era China tariffs and did not return that money after the duties were struck down. The proposed class action was filed by Lisa Markland and Mari Cartagenova in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint says Amazon passed tariff costs through to shoppers on imported goods sold during the period the duties were in effect, then chose not to pursue refunds that could have flowed back to customers. ### Which lawsuit is this, exactly? The case is captioned *Markland et al. v. Amazon.com Inc.*, case number 2:26-cv-01670, and was filed on May 15, 2026, in the Western District of Washington. Hagens Berman, the Seattle plaintiffs’ firm behind the suit, says it is seeking class-action status on behalf of consumers who bought imported products on Amazon between February 2025 and February 2026. (hbsslaw.com) The complaint names Amazon.com Inc. as the defendant and demands a jury trial. The filing says Amazon is “an enormous seller of imported goods,” and frames the dispute as a consumer case rather than a customs dispute because the shoppers, not Amazon, allegedly bore the tariff costs through higher retail prices. ### What are the consumers saying Amazon did wrong? (hbsslaw.com) The plaintiffs say Amazon increased prices on imported products after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, in February 2025. Their theory is that Amazon recouped those duties from shoppers at the point of sale, so any later recovery tied to those duties should not stay with Amazon or the government. (pacermonitor.com) Hagens Berman said in its May 15 statement that Amazon collected funds from “millions of its customers” in response to the tariffs and “has made no commitment to compensate consumers for those payments.” The complaint, as described by the firm and legal press reports, alleges Amazon chose not to seek refunds and instead allowed the money to remain with the federal government. (hbsslaw.com) ### Why did tariff refunds become an issue in 2026? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, that IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose the tariffs at issue. In *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump*, the court said reading IEEPA to allow unilateral tariff-setting would amount to a major expansion of presidential power over tariff policy. The Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service later said in a note to the government’s fiscal 2025 financial statements that the government had stopped collecting the affected tariffs after the ruling. (hbsslaw.com) That disclosure did not settle who should ultimately receive money already collected and embedded in consumer prices, which is the gap this lawsuit targets. (supremecourt.gov) ### Why can’t shoppers just get the money directly from the government? Importers, not retail customers, are the parties that pay duties to Customs and would ordinarily be positioned to seek any refund tied to those entries. The plaintiffs’ lawyers say that leaves consumers outside the federal refund process even if retailers had already passed the cost through in higher prices. (fiscal.treasury.gov) That structure is central to the case. The suit argues that Amazon cannot keep the benefit of avoided or recoverable tariff costs if customers were the ones who actually funded them through higher checkout prices. Amazon’s public position on the suit was not available in the sources reviewed. ### Is this about Amazon claiming refunds, or not claiming them? (finance.yahoo.com) The complaint, as summarized by Hagens Berman and several legal-trade reports, says Amazon decided not to seek IEEPA tariff refunds. The plaintiffs argue that decision matters because it prevents any possibility of returning those amounts to consumers and, in their telling, leaves the economic burden on shoppers even after the tariffs were invalidated. (hbsslaw.com) Some coverage has described the dispute more broadly as one over who should benefit from tariff money after the Supreme Court ruling. The narrower allegation in the filed complaint is that Amazon passed on the tariff costs, then did not pursue the available recovery route. ### What happens next in the case? The next step is for Amazon to respond to the complaint in the Western District of Washington, unless the parties agree to an extension or the court sets a different schedule. (hbsslaw.com) The plaintiffs will also need to seek class certification if they want to represent a broader group of Amazon shoppers. (pacermonitor.com) The court docket identified the matter as active as of this week, and Hagens Berman’s case page says consumers who bought imported products on Amazon between February 2025 and February 2026 may fall within the proposed class. Any recovery, dismissal, or settlement would come later in the federal case. (hbsslaw.com) (pacermonitor.com)