Amazon faces two tariff suits

Amazon.com is fighting two separate tariff cases in U.S. courts, one over alleged import-duty evasion by third-party fur sellers and another over whether shoppers should get money back after Trump-era tariffs were struck down. On May 20, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a whistleblower’s bid to revive claims that Amazon helped foreign fur manufacturers avoid tariffs and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service inspection fees on products sold through its marketplace. Five days earlier, consumers sued Amazon in federal court in Seattle, alleging the company raised prices to cover tariffs later ruled unlawful and has not sought government refunds that could be passed back to customers. Reuters reported both cases this week. ### Why did the appeals court throw out the fur-tariff case? The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on May 20 that whistleblower Mike Henig had not shown Amazon knew, or deliberately ignored, that foreign fur manufacturers were understating shipment values to pay artificially low tariffs. The court also said Henig failed to show Amazon knew sellers were evading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service inspection fees by omitting forms and routing shipments through ports not overseen by that agency. (finance.yahoo.com) Mike Henig, owner of Montgomery, Alabama-based Henig Furs, had argued that Amazon should have recognized the alleged fraud because foreign manufacturers were offering below-market prices between 2007 and 2024. Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said there could be “innocent” explanations for lower prices, including economies of scale or lower labor costs. The ruling left in place a January 2025 dismissal by a federal judge. (finance.yahoo.com) ### What exactly are consumers accusing Amazon of in Seattle? Consumers filed the proposed class action on May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging Amazon collected “hundreds of millions of dollars” in higher prices tied to tariffs that the U.S. Supreme Court later found were unlawfully imposed. The suit says Amazon has not sought refunds from the government even though importers can do so after the February 2026 ruling. (finance.yahoo.com) The complaint says consumers themselves cannot seek tariff refunds directly from the government because they were not the importers of record. It asserts unjust enrichment and a violation of Washington state consumer-protection law. Reuters reported that Amazon did not respond to a request for comment on the filing. (money.usnews.com) ### What is the Supreme Court ruling behind the refund dispute? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February 2026, by a 6-3 vote, that Donald Trump overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose sweeping tariffs. Reuters reported that thousands of companies then began seeking billions of dollars in refunds from the government. (money.usnews.com) Hagens Berman, the law firm representing the consumers, said the challenged tariffs began in February 2025 and that Amazon started increasing prices on imported goods it sold directly to consumers during that period. The firm said the tariffs continued until Feb. 20, 2026, when the Supreme Court invalidated them. (money.usnews.com) ### Why does the refund case turn on who imported the goods? The importer of record is the party entitled to seek repayment from the federal government, according to the consumer complaint and Hagens Berman’s public statement. That makes the dispute less about whether the tariffs were legal — the Supreme Court has already ruled on that question — and more about whether Amazon had a duty to pursue refunds and return any recovered money to shoppers who paid higher prices. (hbsslaw.com) That framing is an inference from the allegations and the court posture in the two cases. Reuters said similar refund suits have also been filed against Costco, FedEx and Nike. The Amazon case in Seattle will now proceed through the early stages of class-action litigation, while the May 20 appellate ruling appears to close off Henig’s False Claims Act route unless he seeks further review. (money.usnews.com) (hbsslaw.com)