Stock Markets May 15, 2026 08:22 PM

Consumers File Class Action in Seattle Seeking Refunds From Amazon Over IEEPA Tariff Costs

Plaintiffs allege Amazon kept 'hundreds of millions' in unlawfully collected tariff charges after Supreme Court ruled the tariffs invalid

By Maya Rios AMZN

A proposed class action filed in federal court in Seattle accuses Amazon.com Inc of failing to refund higher prices consumers paid that plaintiffs say reflected tariffs the U.S. Supreme Court later found had been unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The suit claims Amazon raised prices on imported goods and retained what it calls wrongfully collected funds while other companies pursue refunds from the government.

Consumers File Class Action in Seattle Seeking Refunds From Amazon Over IEEPA Tariff Costs
AMZN

Key Points

  • A proposed class action filed in federal court in Seattle accuses Amazon of retaining 'hundreds of millions' charged to consumers as tariff-related price increases.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court in February ruled 6-3 that President Trump exceeded his authority by using IEEPA to impose the tariffs, prompting many companies to seek refunds from the government.
  • Consumers cannot directly claim tariff refunds from the government; the lawsuit argues Amazon should return the amounts it collected and alleges political motives for the company's inaction.

Consumers launched a proposed class action on Friday in federal court in Seattle, accusing Amazon.com Inc of keeping fees that the plaintiffs say were added to retail prices to cover tariffs later determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to have been unlawfully imposed.

The complaint alleges Amazon collected "hundreds of millions of dollars" by increasing the prices of imported goods prior to the High Court's ruling. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a 6-3 decision that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act - IEEPA - to implement broad tariffs. Following that decision, the lawsuit notes, thousands of companies have begun seeking billions of dollars in refunds from the federal government.

According to the plaintiffs, Amazon has not sought refunds from the government. The lawsuit asserts that the company's inaction is "not because it lacks a legal basis to do so, but because it seeks to curry favor with Trump by allowing the federal government to retain the funds."

The filing adds: "The problem is that the funds Amazon is using to stay in the President’s good graces do not belong to Amazon. These funds were wrongfully taken from consumers to cover IEEPA Tariffs that have since been invalidated." The complaint advances claims of unjust enrichment and violation of Washington state's consumer-protection law.

Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.


The Seattle lawsuit is one in a series of cases in which consumers have accused retailers, shippers and other companies - ranging from Costco to Nike to FedEx, according to the complaint - of failing to pass on tariff refunds to end buyers. The filing underscores a legal gap for consumers: while importers can pursue refunds from the government for tariffs they paid, consumers who saw prices rise when the tariffs were in effect are not eligible to seek such refunds directly from the federal government.

To bolster its contention that politics influenced Amazon's choices, the complaint points to an April 2025 episode in which the company reportedly drew criticism from the White House after a media report said Amazon was considering displaying how much of a product's cost came from IEEPA tariffs. The filing says Amazon denied that report and stated it never considered listing tariff amounts on its main retail site. The complaint further alleges that the news prompted a phone call from President Trump to Amazon Executive Chairman Jeff Bezos, in which the president complained.

The plaintiffs seek restitution for the higher prices they say were charged to consumers and ask the court to address what they contend is improper retention of funds tied to invalidated tariffs.

Risks

  • Legal risk to Amazon if the court finds unjust enrichment or consumer-protection violations, potentially affecting the retail sector and company cash flows.
  • Uncertainty for consumers seeking restitution, since individual consumers are not eligible to claim tariff refunds from the government; impacts retail and e-commerce sectors.
  • Potential reputational and regulatory scrutiny for companies implicated in retaining tariff-related charges, which could influence broader market perceptions in consumer-facing industries.

More from Stock Markets

Ackman and Loeb Take Divergent Paths on Major Tech Holdings in Early 2026 May 15, 2026 Fitch Lowers Outlook for Goldman Sachs BDC, Flags Asset Cushion Concerns May 15, 2026 U.S. Regulators Open Antitrust Inquiry Into Arm's Licensing of Chip Designs May 15, 2026 Ares Management Expands Credit Fund Positions in Q1 2026 Filing May 15, 2026 Mexican equities close lower as industrials and consumer groups weigh on index May 15, 2026