Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—E.D. Pa.: Consumer’s complaint against Amazon.com dismissed, (Jun 3, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

Amazon allegedly declined to honor its online offer of a $100 gift card for $50.

The federal district court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania dismissed a consumer’s complaint alleging that Amazon.com’s refusal to honor its online offer violated the Pennsylvania consumer protection lawsThe court found that the consumer’s allegations were factually unproven and unstainable under Pennsylvania law. With the dismissal of the consumer’s substantive allegations, declaratory relief was not available (Monsky v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00643-GAM (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2026)).

In 2023, the consumer allegedly found a listing on Amazon.com which offered a $100 gift card to the consumer for only $50. The consumer bought several such gift cards, hoping to receive $100 for every $50 he paid. Instead, Amazon charged him $50 for every $50 in gift card value. Eight months later, the consumer found a similar discrepancy on Amazon, made another purchase, and again got only the money he had paid for it.

The consumer contends that Amazon intentionally maintains a “flaw in the design of [its] systems” so that customers’ credit cards are charged for different gift card amounts than the website showed them, inducing customers to buy gift cards they would not have bought otherwise. Because Amazon allegedly has had various forms of notice of this error dating back to 2010, and never fully corrected it, the consumer concludes Amazon’s error was intentional.

The consumer brought seven claims for relief: one based in Pennsylvania’s consumer protection statute, four based in Pennsylvania tort law, and two requests for declaratory judgments. Amazon moved for dismissal of all allegations.

Unfair trade practices. The consumer contends that Amazon’s failure to honor its offer of a $100 gift card for $50 violated Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). However, the court concluded that the consumer could not establish that he met the UTPCPL requirement that he justifiably relied on the Amazon offer. This was so because the consumer’s pleading implicitly conceded that he did not expect that Amazon intended to make an offer that would result in a loss. Thus, the complaint made it implausible to conclude that the consumer believed that the advertised price was genuine.

Fraud. Count Two or the complaint alleges that Amazon committed bank fraud when it included the consumer’s transactions for the “mispriced” gift cards in the list of transactions that it sold to its Acquiring Bank the day that the consumer made the Amazon purchases. Rejecting Count Two, the court stated that the consumer failed to explain how he relied on Amazon’s alleged statement to its partner bank, nor how this reliance was the cause of the consumer’s injury.

Negligence and strict liability. Counts Three and Four allege violation of Pennsylvania tort law. Count Three asserts negligence based on Amazon’s purported duty to take “reasonable care in designing and implementing its e-commerce platform.” Count Four seeks to impose strict liability on Amazon based on the alleged design defects that made its website “dangerous to the consumer or the consumer’s property.” The court held that both of these counts were flawed because under the economic loss doctrine, no tort action can be maintained where the only injury alleged is a loss of money, as opposed to physical injury and damage to tangible property.

Breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint claims that Amazon violated a “special agency relationship that exists between a consumer and e-commerce platform,” specifically that Amazon owed the consumer a fiduciary duty to charge his credit card for only the exact transaction amount that the consumer expected to receive. Rejecting this count, the court stated the relationship between the consumer and Amazon is that of buyer and seller, and there was no support for this alleged special relationship under Pennsylvania law, and that consumer had not plausibly shown that it should exist here.

Declaratory relief. Because the consumer’s substantive counts were dismissed, his motion for declaratory relief was not warranted.

The Case is No. 2:26-cv-00643-GAM.

Judge: McHugh, G.

Attorneys: Daniel A. Berger (Derger Law, LLC) for Jeremy Monsky. Colin John O'Brien (Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP) for Amazon.com, Inc.

Companies: Amazon.com, Inc.

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices PennsylvaniaNews