Amazon sued over tariff refunds

Amazon.com is facing a proposed consumer class action in Seattle over money tied to tariffs imposed under President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The suit says Amazon raised prices on imported goods when the tariffs took effect in 2025, then chose not to seek reimbursement after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated those duties on February 20, 2026. The complaint was filed on May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to Hagens Berman, the law firm representing the plaintiffs. Amazon did not immediately appear in the materials reviewed to have publicly responded to the allegations. ### What are consumers accusing Amazon of keeping? The May 15 complaint accuses Amazon of passing tariff costs through to shoppers and then leaving potential refund money with the federal government rather than trying to recover it. Hagens Berman said the case covers customers who bought imported products through Amazon between February 2025 and February 2026 and alleges the money at issue “does not belong to Amazon.” (hbsslaw.com) The lawsuit says Amazon began increasing prices in February 2025, when the Trump administration started imposing tariffs on imported goods under IEEPA. The filing alleges those tariffs later reached average U.S. duties on Chinese imports of 127.2% and remained in effect until the Supreme Court struck them down on February 20, 2026. (hbsslaw.com) ### Why does the lawsuit focus on refunds rather than the tariffs themselves? The February 20 Supreme Court ruling invalidated the IEEPA tariffs, creating a separate fight over who should get money already collected while the duties were in force. The complaint against Amazon is not asking the court to revisit tariff policy; it is asking whether a retailer that raised prices because of those tariffs had a duty to pursue reimbursement and return the benefit to customers. (hbsslaw.com) The Times of India reported on May 22 that the federal government set up a reimbursement process for companies that had paid the struck-down tariffs. The lawsuit’s theory, as described there and in the Hagens Berman filing, is that Amazon chose not to use that process even though consumers had effectively funded the higher prices. (hbsslaw.com) ### What evidence do the plaintiffs point to? Hagens Berman said Amazon increased the prices of 1,200 low-cost goods by 5.2% during the tariff period, while Walmart lowered prices on the same items by nearly 2%. The complaint also cites comments attributed to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy that he expected to see tariffs “creep into some of the prices.” (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) Late April 2025 is another key part of the plaintiffs’ account. The lawsuit says Amazon had planned to show customers how much of a product’s cost came from IEEPA tariffs, but dropped the plan after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “a hostile and political act” and Trump spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on April 29, 2025. (hbsslaw.com) ### How does this connect to the broader Supreme Court fight over Trump’s tariff powers? The broader legal issue is whether IEEPA gave the president authority to impose sweeping global tariffs in the first place. The Washington Examiner, in a May 21 roundup of pending Supreme Court matters, described that question as central to the tariff cases still shaping Trump-era executive-power disputes. (hbsslaw.com) A National Law Review analysis of the February 20 ruling said the Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize presidential tariffs and identified the case as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. That ruling ended one phase of the tariff fight, but the Amazon case shows how the financial fallout is now moving into private litigation over prices, refunds and who ultimately bore the cost. (msn.com) ### What happens next in the Amazon case? The Seattle case will next move through the early stages of federal class-action litigation, including Amazon’s expected response and any fight over whether consumers can proceed as a class. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 15, 2026, and the related tariff-authority cases remain part of the Supreme Court’s 2026 term landscape. (hbsslaw.com) (natlawreview.com)