Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—Cal. Super.: California AG denied injunction in suit alleging an Amazon price fixing scheme, (Sep 1, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The court concluded that the government failed to show an impending injury and the government’s delay in requesting an injunction also warranted denial.

A California superior court denied a request for an injunction filed by the Attorney General of the State of California in a suit alleging that retail giant Amazon.com, Inc. has been engaged in an illegal price fixing scheme with its merchants. In denying the injunction, the court found that the State of California failed to show that an injunction is necessary to prevent impending and threatened injury. Additionally, the court determined that the State’s lengthy delay in seeking preliminary injunctive relief does not support a finding that a preliminary injunction is warranted and threatens to delay the upcoming trial (The People Of The State Of California v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. CGC-22-601826 (Cal. Super. Aug. 27, 2026)).

Background. In September 2022, California filed a lawsuit against Amazon alleging increased prices and reduced competition because of Amazon’s alleged anticompetitive contracting practices. Amazon allegedly requires contracts with merchants that effectively prevent them from offering a lower price off the Amazon platform. This has the effect of artificially raising prices. As a result, it has brought two claims against Amazon. The first is for restraint of trade in violation of California’s antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act and the second is for unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

The court recently concluded that application of the rule of reason under the Cartwright Act raised factual issues that could not be decided on demurrer. It also found that the complaint stated a cause of action for unfair competition under the “unlawful” prong of the California Unfair Competition Law.

The AG alleged that during discovery, the state uncovered evidence that Amazon, its vendors, and competing retailers are fixing retail prices. The new evidence allegedly showed that Amazon’s agreements to raise prices are typically implemented using one or more of the following three price fixing schemes. First, when Amazon and a competitor are price-matching one another, resulting in a downward pressure on price, either Amazon or the competitor agrees, through their common vendor, to increase the retail price or make the product temporarily unavailable, so that the other retailer can match the increased market price, increasing the price for consumers. Second, a competitor offering a discounted price on a product will increase its retail price at Amazon’s request (a request made through the vendor), so that Amazon can then match the increased retail price, thereby increasing the price for consumers. Third, the vendor removes a product from a competing retailer who is offering a lower price than Amazon, so that the lower price is no longer available in the market and Amazon then raises its retail price, resulting in a higher price for consumers.

The Attorney General asked the court to stop Amazon’s unlawful conduct, including: engaging in explicit price fixing with its vendors and its competitors; communicating with vendors about other retailers’ pricing; and coercing its vendors to serve as the go-between with its competitors by demanding money to make Amazon whole for price matching a lower-priced retailer. (see Antitrust Law Daily, Feb 25, 2026).

Failure to Show Impending Injury. The court noted that while the State’s evidence “appears to raise serious questions about whether certain of Amazon's past communications with its first-party wholesale suppliers could be construed as unlawful price fixing,” the State nonetheless, failed to show that the challenged conduct is ongoing, much less that it will continue in the future unless it is enjoined. The court agreed with Amazon’s assertion that, "There is no evidence that any alleged price-fixing conduct is continuing.”

The court indicated that the factual showing of the behavior at issue comprises the period between 2019 and 2023. However, the court stressed that the State failed to offer any evidence, that the conduct reflected in the dated documents it relies upon has persisted during the past most three calendar years (2024, 2025, and 2026), nor did the State show that Amazon will engage in such conduct in the future unless it is enjoined from doing so.

Prejudicial delay also warrants denial. Next, the court also determined that the State’s delay in seeking injunctive relief also warrants denial. The court noted that the State filed this action nearly four years ago, in September 2022, after an extensive pre-suit investigation during which it conducted interviews with dozens of witnesses and received millions of pages of documents. Yet, the State did not bring their motion until February 2026, and it is currently scheduled to be heard in late August 2026. The court stressed that the “lengthy delay in seeking an injunction weighs heavily against relief.” The court also noted the current trial schedule and indicated that granting injunctive relief while the parties are preparing for trial would result in the delay of the trial.

The court concluded that “even if the People had met their burden to show the need for preliminary injunctive relief,” it would be strongly disinclined to grant a preliminary injunction at this late date. The court agreed with Amazon that, "preliminary' relief months before trial could achieve no meaningful purpose.”

The Case is No. CGC-22-601826.

Judge: Schulman, E.

Attorneys: Paula Blizzard, California Department of Justice, for The People of the State of California. Robert C. Gianchetti (Covington & Burling LLP) for Amazon.com, Inc.

Companies: Amazon.com, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews