Antitrust lawsuit against Amazon: what California charges against the marketplace and why it is important for sellers
In short, this is what the dispute is about. California says Amazon didn't just track competitors' prices. When the same product on another site was cheaper, the company, through the supplier, tried to remove this difference. Either the competitor’s price increased, or the product there temporarily disappeared.
First lawsuit California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed in 2022. In February 2026 his office asked the court to urgently stop the controversial practice. In April, some of the materials became public, and AP recounted one of the episodes with Levi Strauss and Walmart. Amazon does not agree with the accusations.
What is known about the antitrust lawsuit against Amazon
B original 2022 lawsuit the state wrote that Amazon interfered with normal price competition. According to California, sellers and brands could not freely set lower prices on other sites or on their own sites because they were afraid of sanctions from Amazon.
In 2026, the dispute became more specific. After the discovery stage, the prosecutor’s office stated that they saw not the general market picture, but correspondence and work episodes. B request for preliminary injunction and in press release from the Attorney General's office The state has described three schemes it considers price fixing.
How California's Price Fixing Scheme Worked
According to California, the logic was as follows:
- Amazon sees that the same product from a competitor is cheaper.
- The company is not going into open price competition, but rather going to the supplier.
- The supplier must ensure that the competitor’s price increases, or that the product temporarily disappears from another site.
- Amazon then maintains or regains its price advantage without directly lowering its own price.
B California press release dated February 23, 2026 Three schemes are listed:
- Amazon and a competitor already maintain the same price, and then, through a common supplier, raise it higher;
- a competitor gave a discount, after a signal through the supplier the price rises again;
- the product is temporarily removed from the cheaper site, and the lower price simply disappears.
AP in case materials analysis gives the example of Levi Strauss and Walmart. The documents include correspondence regarding trousers that were cheaper at Walmart. After Amazon contacted, AP writes, the supplier discussed the issue with Walmart, and the price returned to a higher level.
What is price parity and why is it an antitrust risk for the marketplace?
There has been a long-standing debate around Amazon about two related things:
- price parity, when the seller is not allowed to keep a lower price outside of Amazon;
- fair pricing policy, when the site punishes the seller for a price that, in its opinion, harms the storefront.
B California lawsuit 2022 the state wrote that such rules prevent competitors from cutting prices and prevent sellers from freely choosing their pricing strategy. B decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals in a similar dispute also understands how price parity and fair pricing policy can maintain prices on other sites.
The court in such cases needs to answer a simple question: could a site of such a scale, through suppliers, achieve higher prices outside its own storefront. If so, this is no longer an ordinary control over listings and not a domestic dispute about discounts.
Why is this matter important for brands, sellers and e-commerce teams?
If a brand sells through multiple channels, it wants to do the usual things: give a discount on its website, run a promotion with a partner, sell off leftovers, check which price converts best. This is normal work for an e-commerce team.
The problem begins at the moment when the largest platform on the market can punish for such freedom. Then the question of price ceases to be just a question of marketing.
In practice it looks like this:
- the team is afraid to put a lower price on its website;
- discounts on other sites have to be checked not with the economics of the promotion, but with the reaction of the dominant channel;
- correspondence with distributors and brands begins to look dangerous;
- The marketplace influences not only its storefront, but also other people’s prices.
What to check for a company if it depends on marketplaces
If a business has a large share of its sales through one major channel, it is useful to go through five simple points.
1. Correspondence about prices
See if managers, sellers or category teams have letters and chats where they discuss not your price itself, but the price on other sites. This is the first place where the risk is usually immediately visible.
2. Manual approval of discounts
If a promotion cannot be launched on your own website or on another site without regard to the reaction of one marketplace, this is no longer just a commercial discipline. It's an addiction.
3. Share of revenue from one channel
The higher the concentration of sales on one site, the easier it is for that site to dictate terms. Here, legal risk and commercial risk go hand in hand.
4. Agreements and site policies
You need to separately look at contracts, seller terms, fair pricing rules, consequences of losing a buy box, as well as internal team instructions. If there is no such check within the company, it is usually done as part of compliance audit of digital processes.
5. Internal pricing rules
Normal pricing policy answers the question “why do we set such a price.” The bad one answers the question “how not to irritate the site.” These are different things.
Has Amazon been found guilty yet?
No. As of press time, the case is ongoing, with Amazon disputing the state's claims.
But we can already see what such disputes look like in practice. The court does not look at general words about competition, but at correspondence, specific SKUs, prices on other sites and the role of the supplier as an intermediary.
What's ultimately worth remembering?
California says that a large marketplace could influence prices not only on its own, but also on other people’s storefronts. If the court agrees with this logic, it will be an important guideline for the market.
For brands and sellers, the conclusion is also simple: when one channel generates the main revenue, the issue of price becomes not only a marketing issue, but also a legal one.
Sources to check
- Attorney General Bonta Announces Lawsuit Against Amazon for Blocking Price Competition
- Attorney General Bonta Exposes Amazon Price Fixing Scheme Driving Up Costs for Americans
- California v. Amazon Complaint PDF
- California preliminary injunction filing PDF
- AP: California says Amazon pressured retailers to boost prices on their websites to not undercut it
- District of Columbia v. Amazon.com, Inc.