"This is about protecting Californians from paying more than they should," Attorney General Rob Bonta said.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Amazon in San Francisco Superior Court in 2022, accusing the Seattle-based company of violating state antitrust and unfair competition laws. On Monday, Bonta's office released newly unredacted evidence as it pushes for a preliminary injunction to stop the alleged conduct before trial.
Bonta argues Amazon used its market leverage to pressure vendors and other major retailers to raise prices on their own websites so Amazon would not be undercut. The state says that is price fixing: companies working to raise prices or keep them from falling instead of competing to offer shoppers a better deal.
"Amazon has been coordinating with vendors and major retailers, including Target, Walmart, Chewy, Best Buy, and Home Depot, to raise prices across the market," Bonta said.
According to California, the alleged scheme often started when Amazon spotted a product selling for less somewhere else. The filing says Amazon would then tell vendors to "fix," "correct," "increase," "raise" or "look into" the lower price, with the threat of penalties if they did not. Those penalties, the state says, could include promotion restrictions, financial consequences or even removal of products from Amazon's site.
One example laid out in the filing involves Levi's khaki pants on Walmart's website. According to the state, Amazon sent Levi's links showing the pants listed on Walmart.com for $25.47 to $26.99 and said it hoped the issue could be resolved in the next few days. Levi's then told Amazon it had spoken with Walmart and that Walmart had "partnered" with Levi's to move the Easy Khaki Classic Fit pants back up to $29.99 immediately. Amazon later confirmed that the same $29.99 price was showing on Amazon too. In follow-up communication described in the filing, Levi's said Walmart had updated the price "as a test for the best interest of the marketplace" and suggested it could serve as a "proof case" for resolving similar issues going forward.
"These were not suggestions. They were directives often backed by threats of penalties if vendors failed to comply," Bonta said.
California says that the example shows Amazon was not simply matching a lower competitor price. Instead, the state argues Amazon flagged the lower Walmart price, Levi's then got Walmart to raise it, and Amazon matched the new, higher number rather than competing against the lower price.
State Sen. Aisha Wahab, whose district includes parts of the East Bay and South Bay, said the newly public allegations against Amazon connect to her broader concerns about what she calls "manipulative pricing." She has pushed legislation aimed at limiting surveillance pricing, the practice of using a consumer's personal or device data to help determine what price they may be shown online.
Wahab said the issue goes beyond one lawsuit.
"What we are seeing is the game is completely rigged against regular people," she said. She also argued that companies are using the data they collect to shape prices and offers in ways consumers often cannot see, known as surveillance pricing.
Wahab's bill, SB 259, would prohibit companies from using specified device data to determine the maximum amount an individual consumer may be willing to pay and then setting a price based on that determination, according to her description of the measure. She said the goal is to stop companies from targeting people with higher prices based on habits, devices or other data points.
Amazon has previously denied the state's allegations.
In a statement to ABC7 Eyewitness News, a spokesperson said, "The Attorney General's motion is a transparent attempt to distract from the weakness of its case, coming more than three years after filing its complaint and based on supposedly 'new' evidence it has had for years. Amazon is consistently identified as America's lowest-priced online retailer, and we're proud of the low prices customers find when shopping in our store. Amazon looks forward to responding in court at the appropriate time."
For now, Bonta is asking a judge to block the alleged conduct while the case moves forward. A hearing is scheduled for July 23, and the case is set for trial in January 2027.