Amazon faces suit over tariff refunds

Amazon.com is facing a proposed consumer class action in federal court in Seattle over prices shoppers say were raised to cover Trump-era tariffs that the U.S. Supreme Court later struck down. The suit, filed on May 15, seeks refunds for customers who bought imported goods sold directly by Amazon while the tariffs were in effect. Plaintiffs say Amazon passed those costs through in higher prices and then chose not to seek refunds from the government after the tariffs were invalidated. Amazon did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. ### What are the shoppers accusing Amazon of keeping? The complaint says Amazon collected tariff-related costs from consumers through higher prices on imported goods and now owes those shoppers money back. Reuters reported the plaintiffs alleged Amazon collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs before the Supreme Court ruled and then kept the benefit of not seeking refunds. (money.usnews.com) Hagens Berman, the Seattle law firm representing the consumers, said the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit asserts unjust enrichment and a violation of Washington state’s consumer-protection law, according to Reuters and the firm’s statement. (money.usnews.com) ### Which tariffs are at the center of the case? February 2025 is when the Trump administration began imposing tariffs on imported goods under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, according to the complaint described by Hagens Berman. The law firm said Amazon began increasing prices on imported products it sold directly to consumers after those tariffs took effect. (money.usnews.com) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, that IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Reuters said the court concluded Trump had overstepped his authority, and the case was Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. ### Why can’t shoppers just ask the government for the money? (hbsslaw.com) Reuters reported that consumers are not eligible to seek tariff refunds directly from the government for the higher costs they paid while the duties were in effect. The complaint says that left Amazon, as the importer, in position to seek any refund while customers who paid higher retail prices could not. (money.usnews.com) Thousands of companies have begun seeking billions of dollars in refunds from the government after the Supreme Court ruling, Reuters reported. The plaintiffs say Amazon has not done so, and they argue that decision deprived customers of money they effectively funded through higher prices. (money.usnews.com) ### What does the lawsuit say about Amazon’s motives? The complaint alleges Amazon did not forgo refunds because it lacked a legal basis, but because it wanted to “curry favor” with President Donald Trump by letting the government keep the funds. Reuters attributed that allegation to the lawsuit, and Hagens Berman repeated it in its statement announcing the case. (money.usnews.com) April 2025 figures in that argument because the lawsuit points to White House criticism after reports that Amazon was considering showing how much of a product’s price came from the IEEPA tariffs. Reuters said Amazon denied that report and said it never considered listing tariff prices on its main retail site, but the episode is cited in the complaint as part of the plaintiffs’ case. (money.usnews.com) ### How broad could this fight become? Reuters said the Amazon case follows earlier consumer suits against companies including Costco, Nike and FedEx over whether tariff-related refunds should be passed on to customers. That means the Seattle case is part of a wider effort by consumers’ lawyers to test whether retailers and other companies can be compelled to share money tied to invalidated duties. (money.usnews.com) The next steps are procedural. The Seattle court will first handle Amazon’s response to the complaint, and the plaintiffs will need to ask the judge to certify the case as a class action before it can proceed on behalf of a larger group of shoppers. (money.usnews.com)