Amazon has reportedly not sought refunds from the Trump administration for tariffs that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down, a move that has sparked a class-action lawsuit from consumers. Earlier this year, after the Supreme Court invalidated Trump-era tariffs, the federal government established a mechanism to reimburse those who had paid them. However, while many major brands filed for refunds, Amazon is said to have refrained from doing so.
Lawsuit Allegations
The proposed class action, filed in federal court in Seattle, alleges that Amazon collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs by raising prices on imported goods before the Supreme Court had ruled. The suit accuses Amazon of violating the Washington Consumer Protection Act and engaging in unjust enrichment.
The complaint was filed by two consumers: Lisa Markland of Maryland and Mari Cartagenova of Massachusetts. It covers purchases made between February 4, 2025, and February 20, 2026. The plaintiffs claim that Amazon, acting as the importer of record for goods sold through its online store, embedded IEEPA tariff costs into consumer prices rather than absorbing them internally.
Legal Background
Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Court of International Trade confirmed on March 4, 2026, that the right to reclaim those duties from the federal government rests solely with importers of record. Consumers cannot file directly for refunds. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon has chosen not to pursue that recovery.
Why Amazon Is Holding Back
Lawyers behind the class-action suit believe they understand Amazon's motives. “Amazon’s decision to forgo recovery serves its own political and commercial interests at the direct expense of the consumers who bore the tariff costs in the first place,” the plaintiffs wrote in the lawsuit. “It has, in short, generated and retained a windfall from unlawful government action, and consumers — not Amazon — are the ones left paying for it.”
“The problem is that the funds Amazon is using to stay in the President’s good graces do not belong to Amazon,” the lawsuit states. “These funds were wrongfully taken from consumers to cover IEEPA Tariffs that have since been invalidated.”
In April 2025, Amazon announced that it would start displaying how much of a product’s cost came from tariffs, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the move “a hostile and political act,” the suit notes. Amazon abandoned that plan thereafter. President Trump is also reported to have called Amazon founder Jeff Bezos about the matter.
“Although the plan was never implemented, it demonstrates that Amazon can identify exactly how much of a product’s price was due to the IEEPA tariffs,” the suit says. “And it demonstrates that Amazon has the record-keeping ability to identify each consumer who paid a higher cost due to a Trump tariff.”
Nearly 2,000 importers sought refunds after the Supreme Court’s decision. But the lawsuit says Amazon has listened to Trump’s promise to “remember” companies that don’t participate in the refund program.
“Those funds belong to the consumers who paid them,” the suit says. “Amazon’s use of these funds to curry political favor does not make consumers whole and is not a legally cognizable substitute for the relief sought in this lawsuit.”
