California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday released a largely unredacted court filing packed with internal emails that allege Amazon strong-armed brands like Levi Strauss and Hanes into pressuring Walmart, Target and other rivals to raise prices - all to protect Amazon’s $2.66 trillion empire.
The 19-page memorandum, filed in support of a preliminary injunction in San Francisco Superior Court, paints a picture of coordinated price elevation that Bonta calls “naked” and “per se illegal” under California’s Cartwright Act. The evidence builds on documents the Guardian first reported on last week, but goes significantly further by naming major brands and quoting verbatim email chains that had remained heavily redacted until Monday.
"You don’t see price fixing so explicitly and egregiously in writing like this," Bonta told reporters, framing the documents as proof that Amazon used its market dominance to eliminate real competition across the internet.
The case, The People of the State of California v. Amazon.com Inc. (CGC-22-601826), dates back to September 2022. California accuses Amazon of running what it calls a "Retail Price Fixing Scheme" that relies on threats of lost Buy Box placement, suppressed search visibility and outright order suspensions - tools the state says gave the company "overwhelming bargaining leverage" over vendors.
The emails tell the story in real time.
In one exchange detailed in the filing, Amazon flagged "styles of concern" to Levi’s - specifically Easy Khaki Classic pants listed cheaper at Walmart. The next day, Levi’s replied that it had "partnered with" Walmart to raise the price back to the desired $29.99 ladder. Amazon then matched the higher price.
Similar patterns appear with Hanes (pressuring Target and Walmart), Allergan eye drops (Walmart raised prices after Amazon suppressed the listing), pet treats coordinated with Chewy, and furniture sold through Home Depot. Vendors repeatedly acted as intermediaries, contacting rival retailers at Amazon’s direction to "fix" or "resolve" lower prices elsewhere.
The filing also describes Amazon’s internal enforcement mechanisms: "CRaP" (Can’t Realize a Profit) flags, Guaranteed Minimum Margin demands, and instructions to discuss pricing by phone to avoid a paper trail.
According to the filing, Amazon's conduct harms consumers by creating an invisible price floor across major online retailers. "The company is price fixing, colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise costs for Americans beyond what the market requires - beyond what is fair," Bonta said in a statement.
Amazon pushed back sharply, calling the release "a transparent attempt to distract from the weakness of its case" and noting that the evidence is years old. "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," a spokesperson said. "Amazon looks forward to responding in court at the appropriate time."
The timing is notable. Bonta filed the preliminary injunction request in February; a hearing is scheduled for July 23, 2026. Full trial begins January 19, 2027 - one of at least three major Amazon antitrust trials now teed up for next year, including the FTC’s separate monopoly case (joined by 18 states and the DOJ) that also features allegations of algorithmic pricing tactics known internally as "Project Nessie."
The Federal Trade Commission and 17 states sued Amazon in 2023, accusing the company of illegally maintaining a monopoly in online retail by squeezing merchants who sell on its site and prioritizing its own products. Those actions resulted in “artificially higher prices,” according to the government’s suit.
In September, the F.T.C. agreed to settle a lawsuit against Amazon that accused the company of making it difficult for consumers to cancel its Prime subscription service. Under the terms of the settlement, Amazon agreed to pay up to $2.5 billion — including $1 billion in penalties and additional payouts to consumers. It did not admit or deny wrongdoing. -NYT
Legal experts say the explicit emails could make this one of the more straightforward price-fixing cases in recent Big Tech history - though Amazon is expected to argue that vendors set their own prices and that its practices ultimately benefit consumers through lower prices and greater selection.
For now, the unredacted documents give regulators, lawmakers and the public a rare, granular look inside the mechanics of modern retail pricing power. Bonta’s office framed the release as a transparency win amid a national affordability crunch. "Amid a crisis of affordability," the attorney general said, "Amazon is illegally working to rake in profits by making sure consumers have nowhere else to turn to for lower prices."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.