A US federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a whistleblower lawsuit that accused Amazon of helping foreign fur sellers avoid customs duties and import inspection fees on its marketplace.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling on 20 May 2026, supporting a lower court decision that struck out the qui tam case brought by relators Mike Henig and Henig Furs under the False Claims Act.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
The relators alleged that foreign fur product manufacturers using Amazon’s platform had submitted reverse false claims to the US Government over 15 years.
According to the lawsuit, shipment values were understated on customs declarations to reduce tariff assessments by US Customs and Border Protection.
The case also alleged that required US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) inspection forms were left out, or that shipments were sent through ports without FWS facilities to avoid inspection fees.
Amazon was accused of knowingly enabling the conduct and conspiring with the manufacturers.
The appeals court rejected liability under all three recognised grounds of the False Claims Act: actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, and reckless disregard.
On actual knowledge, the court said no individual or entity at Amazon had been shown to have consciously acknowledged false information in the shipments.
It also found that the company’s continued dealings with the manufacturers matched ordinary commercial conduct and did not show awareness of fraud.
On deliberate ignorance, the court said the relators had not alleged that Amazon took intentional steps to avoid learning of the false claims.
It also rejected the argument that below-market fur prices should have raised suspicion.
The court found no basis to conclude that Amazon compared third-party pricing with competitors or would have linked low prices to tariff avoidance rather than economies of scale or decreased labour costs.
On reckless disregard, the court found no basis to deem Amazon unreasonable for not checking customs declarations against shipment invoices.
It noted there was no allegation that this was standard industry practice. The conspiracy claim was also dismissed.
Under Amazon’s standard business services agreement, third-party sellers are responsible as the importer of record for filing import documents and paying assessed duties, taxes, and fees, and Amazon is explicitly excluded from that role.
The original dismissal was issued by Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York on 3 January 2025.
Earlier this month, US consumers launched a proposed class action against Amazon in federal court in Seattle, claiming the retailer unlawfully passed on tariff costs totalling hundreds of millions of dollars.
