The Scheme Described in the Lawsuit
Starting February 4, 2025, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Chinese goods under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At its peak, the average tariff rate on imports from China reached 127.2%. Amazon, according to the lawsuit, immediately began passing these costs to customers: prices on 1,200 budget items rose by 5.2%. For comparison, Walmart during the same period reduced prices on the same goods by approximately 2%.
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump ruled 6–3 that the IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs unilaterally. More than 2,000 importer companies immediately filed lawsuits in the Court of International Trade to recover paid duties. The total amount of IEEPA tariffs collected, according to U.S. Customs data, exceeded $133 billion by December 2025 — and the potential refund amount could reach $175 billion.
Why Amazon Did Not File for a Refund
Importer companies have the right to apply to the government for the return of illegally collected tariffs. Amazon did not do so. The lawsuit, filed on May 15, 2026, with the federal court in Seattle by the law firm Hagens Berman, argues that this decision was deliberate and politically motivated.
«The problem is that the funds with which Amazon supports the president's loyalty do not belong to Amazon. They were illegally extracted from consumers to cover IEEPA tariffs, which have since been declared invalid.»
— from the lawsuit text
Key evidence comes from events in April 2025. At that time, Amazon was considering whether to display on a product card what portion of the price was attributable to tariffs. White House Press Secretary Karolyn Levitt called this plan a «hostile and political act.» Trump personally called Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos — and the company abandoned the idea. The plaintiffs cite this episode as evidence that the subsequent refusal to return funds was politically, not legally, motivated.
Context: A Wave, Not an Isolated Lawsuit
Amazon is neither the first nor the last on the list. Similar class action lawsuits have already been filed against Nike, Costco, FedEx, EssilorLuxottica (Ray-Ban), Shein, Temu, Lululemon, and Nintendo. The logic in all cases is similar: the company raised prices due to tariffs, collected money from customers, and now either receives government reimbursement or — like Amazon — refuses to demand it altogether, but the money is not returned anywhere.
Hagens Berman managing partner Steve Berman put it directly: «It appears that consumers are left empty-handed in Amazon's political-financial calculations.»
An important detail: consumers, unlike importers, do not have the right to independently apply to the government for tariff reimbursement — this path is closed to them. The only option is to sue the company that received the money.
What Happens Next
Amazon has not yet commented on the lawsuit. The classification of the lawsuit as a class action still requires court approval — without it, the case remains individual. Bezos will have to balance between his loyalty to the White House, which he has carefully cultivated in recent years (a $1 million donation to the inauguration, a documentary about Melania Trump), and growing legal risks.
If the court certifies the class and finds that the refusal to demand tariff reimbursement violates Washington state law, the precedent will affect the entire retail sector: can a company deliberately choose not to demand reimbursement in order to maintain political ties — and at whose expense?
