Massive class action alleges Amazon forced anti-discount policy on merchants

Amazon antitrust class action overview:

• Who: Consumers asked a Washington federal judge to certify a class of nearly 300 million consumers in a class action lawsuit against Amazon.
• Why: The consumers claim Amazon forced an “anti-discount policy” on merchants and monitored marketplace rates to ensure compliance, causing them to pay inflated prices.
• Where: The Amazon class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court.

Consumers urged a Washington federal judge to certify a class of nearly 300 million consumers in a class action lawsuit alleging Amazon forced an “anti-discount policy” on merchants and monitored marketplace rates to ensure compliance.

The consumers argue the e-commerce giant’s alleged actions caused them to pay inflated prices, Law360 reports.

Amazon’s main objection to the proposed class is that it is “too big to certify,” according to Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, who is representing the consumers.

The proposed class consists of 288 million customers who made tens of billions of purchases from more than 2.5 million third-party sellers, according to a Law360 report.

The Amazon class action lawsuit was filed in March 2020. It is the oldest of three proposed class action lawsuits in Washington federal court targeting the company’s policies that allegedly penalized sellers who offered goods at lower prices on other platforms.

Amazon argues consumers’ claims vary based on context

Berman argued the class action rule exists to adjudicate a common issue, such as the one raised in the Amazon class action lawsuit, which he claims could never be pursued on an individual basis.

Amazon, meanwhile, argued the consumers’ claims cannot be resolved as a class since they vary based on context, such as the product category and pricing.

The plaintiffs argue Amazon enforced its policies against sellers who offered goods at lower prices outside of its marketplace. The company allegedly sent billions of autogenerated messages to sellers informing them they must meet “price parity” requirements to be eligible to have their products featured in the Amazon Buy Box.

Amazon removed the written price parity clause from its seller agreement in 2019, but the plaintiffs argue the same price parity expectations were “segued” into various other agreements Amazon has with vendors, including the seller code of conduct and business services agreement.

Amazon, meanwhile, denies it had a “de facto” price parity policy after nixing the seller agreement clause in 2019, according to the Law360 report.

Meanwhile, a Washington federal judge granted class certification in a class action lawsuit alleging that devices with Amazon Alexa recorded and stored user conversations.

What do you think about the claims made against Amazon in this class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The consumers are represented by Steve Berman, Barbara Mahoney and Anne F. Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Alicia Cobb, Steig D. Olson, David D. LeRay, Nic V. Siebert, Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Elle Mahdavi, Adam B. Wolfson and Matthew S. Hosen of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP; and Zina G. Bash, Jessica Beringer, Shane Kelly and Alex Dravillas of Keller Postman LLC.

Amazon is represented by John A. Goldmark, MaryAnn Almeida and Emily Parsons of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Karen L. Dunn, William A. Isaacson, Amy J. Mauser and Kyle Smith of Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP.

The Amazon antitrust class action lawsuit is De Coster, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Blue Ice vodka maker, influencers hit with class action over false advertising
• Millions of ‘burst-proof’ hoses sold at Ace, Home Depot and Walmart are recalled over dozens of injuries caused by exploding products
• Bare Bones accused of violating FDA standards in bone broth packaging
• Sharper Image hit with class action over alleged false pricing scheme