Amazon sued over tariff refunds

Amazon is confronting two separate tariff-related court fights at once, but they involve different conduct, different plaintiffs and different legal theories. On May 20, the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of a whistleblower case accusing Amazon of helping foreign fur sellers evade customs duties and U.S. Fish and Wildlife inspection fees. On May 22, The Times of India reported on a separate proposed class action in federal court in Seattle accusing Amazon of not seeking refunds tied to tariffs later struck down by the Supreme Court. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) The overlap is the word “tariffs.” The substance is not. One case asked whether Amazon knowingly enabled false customs filings by third-party sellers. The newer case asks whether Amazon, as importer of record on certain goods, should reclaim tariff money from the government and return the benefit to consumers who paid higher prices. ### Which case did Amazon just win? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the whistleblower suit on May 20, 2026, according to Retail Insight Network. The relators were Mike Henig and Henig Furs, and the underlying case had been dismissed by Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York on January 3, 2025. (retail-insight-network.com) The whistleblowers alleged that foreign fur-product manufacturers using Amazon’s marketplace understated shipment values on customs declarations to cut tariff bills and omitted required Fish and Wildlife paperwork or routed shipments through ports without inspection facilities. (retail-insight-network.com) They also alleged Amazon knowingly enabled that conduct. The appeals court rejected liability under the False Claims Act theories cited in the report — actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance and reckless disregard. Retail Insight said the court found no showing that Amazon consciously knew false information was being submitted and no basis to say Amazon was unreasonable for not comparing customs declarations with shipment invoices. (retail-insight-network.com) ### What is the new Seattle lawsuit actually alleging? Two consumers, Lisa Markland of Maryland and Mari Cartagenova of Massachusetts, filed the proposed class action in federal court in Seattle, according to The Times of India. (retail-insight-network.com) The suit covers purchases made between February 4, 2025 and February 20, 2026. The plaintiffs allege Amazon raised prices on imported goods to reflect tariff costs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and collected “hundreds of millions of dollars” from consumers before those tariffs were invalidated. (retail-insight-network.com) They accuse Amazon of violating the Washington Consumer Protection Act and of unjust enrichment. The complaint, as quoted by The Times of India, says Amazon’s decision not to seek recovery “serves its own political and commercial interests at the direct expense of the consumers who bore the tariff costs in the first place.” It also says the money being used to stay “in the President’s good graces” does not belong to Amazon because consumers paid those tariff-related amounts. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) ### Why does “importer of record” matter so much here? March 4, 2026 is the key date in the refund dispute. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) The Times of India reported that the Court of International Trade confirmed that the right to reclaim the invalidated duties belongs to importers of record, not consumers directly. Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade said “all importers of record” are entitled to benefit from the Supreme Court decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs, according to The Times of India’s March 5 report. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) Eaton also said he would hear cases pertaining to refunds of IEEPA duties. That is why Amazon’s role in the transaction matters. The Seattle plaintiffs say Amazon acted as importer of record for goods sold through its online store, embedded the tariff costs in retail prices, and then did not pursue the government refunds that only importers of record can claim. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) ### What does the lawsuit say about Amazon and the White House? April 2025 is part of the complaint’s narrative. The Times of India reported that Amazon had announced it would begin displaying how much of a product’s cost came from tariffs, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called that plan “a hostile and political act,” and the plan was later abandoned. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) The complaint argues that abandoned disclosure plan shows Amazon can identify the tariff component in product pricing. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) The plaintiffs use that point to support their claim that Amazon can calculate what consumers paid because of the now-invalid tariffs. ### What happens next in the refund fight? The Court of International Trade remains the venue identified in the refund process for disputes over IEEPA duty recovery, with Judge Eaton saying he would hear those cases. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) The Seattle consumer suit, meanwhile, appears aimed at forcing Amazon to pursue refunds or account for money already collected through tariff-driven price increases. The next concrete step is likely to come from the Seattle federal case brought by Markland and Cartagenova or from any importer-of-record refund proceedings tied to the March 4 trade court ruling. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) Amazon’s response to the class-action allegations was not included in the reports reviewed here. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)