Key Points:
- California asked a judge to immediately halt Amazon’s pricing tactics.
- The state claims Amazon blocks merchants from selling cheaper elsewhere.
- Sellers who refuse Amazon’s demands reportedly lose the “Buy Box” button.
- Attorney General Bonta called Amazon a greedy corporation hurting families.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta went to court on Tuesday with a major request. He asked a state judge to stop Amazon from artificially inflating prices for shoppers. This legal move is part of an ongoing antitrust lawsuit that the state filed more than three years ago to challenge the e-commerce giant’s dominance.
Bonta claims that Amazon actively blocks price competition. According to the filing, the company bullies merchants to ensure they do not sell their goods for lower prices on rival websites like Walmart, eBay, or Target. The Attorney General argues that Amazon tells vendors exactly what prices it wants to see so it can protect its own massive profits.
The state described a harsh punishment system for sellers who disobey. If a merchant refuses to follow Amazon’s pricing rules, Amazon allegedly cuts them off. The company removes the “Buy Box” from its product listing. This is the button that allows customers to “Add to Cart” or “Buy Now.” Since this button drives the vast majority of sales, losing it can destroy a small business.
Bonta used strong language to describe the situation. He called Amazon a “greedy, behemoth corporation” that intentionally raises prices to get richer off the backs of everyday consumers. His office claims they uncovered countless interactions where Amazon, rivals, and merchants worked together to fix prices. They allegedly agreed to hike costs or hide products to avoid price wars.
California wants an immediate solution. The state is seeking a preliminary injunction, which would force Amazon to stop these practices right now while the lawsuit moves through the system. Bonta also wants a court-appointed monitor to watch Amazon and ensure they comply with the law.
Amazon strongly disagrees with these accusations. In court documents, the company argues that its agreements with merchants are “procompetitive.” They claim these rules are common in the retail industry and actually benefit shoppers by ensuring good product selection and fair pricing. With a full trial not scheduled until January 2027, California officials believe the court must act now to protect buyers.
