Amazon is facing allegations in California that it worked with suppliers and competing retailers to push up product prices, rather than competing through lower pricing.
The court filing alleges that the company pressured suppliers to either raise prices on rival platforms or remove products from those sites.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Filed originally in 2022, the case claims Amazon restrained competition and helped drive up prices paid by consumers across California.
According to the filing, this pressure was reinforced by possible penalties, including reduced promotional backing, financial charges and product delisting through its “Can’t Realise a Profit” process.
Plaintiffs set out three main methods in the motion.
One is described as “Breaking the Price Match”, referring to retailers increasing prices after ending price-matching arrangements.
The second, “Increasing the Competitor Retail Price”, concerns suppliers encouraging rival retailers to charge more.
The third, “Removing the Product”, involves lower-priced listings being taken off competing marketplaces.
Court documents say these practices led to higher prices for consumers across multiple product categories.
Drawing on internal communications, the complaint highlights several examples of alleged coordination involving Amazon, suppliers and other retailers.
Among them is an allegation involving Levi Strauss & Co., Walmart and Amazon, which the filing says agreed to raise the price of khaki trousers to $29.99 from an earlier range of $25.47 to $26.99.
Another claim alleges that Amazon, GlobalOne and Chewy coordinated price rises on more than ten pet treat products.
Plaintiffs argue that this conduct amounts to price fixing under California’s Cartwright Act, which defines illegal activity as “any combination which tampers with price structures”.
According to the filing, Amazon’s actions distorted competition by blocking prices from being determined through normal supply and demand.
Those bringing the case are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar Amazon from deciding with suppliers or competitors to set or influence retail prices, discussing competitors’ pricing with suppliers, or pressuring suppliers to act as intermediaries.
Measures cited include monetary penalties under Guaranteed Minimum Margin Agreements and Matching Compensation Program payments, as well as threats of product suppression, removal from promotions such as Prime Day and reduced visibility on Amazon’s platform.
Proceedings remain before the court, with the proposed injunction intended to stop the alleged conduct while the case continues.
Retail Insight Network has contacted Amazon for a comment.
