Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—W.D. Wash.: Failure of Amazon to issue refund not an antitrust violation, (Apr 22, 2025)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Consumer alleged that Amazon violated the Sherman Act by not refunding returned vegan patties.

In a pro se antitrust action filed by a consumer against Amazon.com, Inc. and FoodServiceDirect.com, Inc., the federal district court in Seattle, Washington dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The complaint alleged that the Defendants denied him a refund for vegan food products he purchased online. The court held that the complaint failed to state a valid claim against Amazon and that this deficiency could not be cured via amendment. The court further pointed out that FoodServiceDirect.com did not participate in the motion to dismiss because it did not appear that the consumer had properly served the complaint (Pickering v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2025)).

The consumer purchased five cases of vegan patties, each containing 12 patties, using his Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. He alleged that he ordered the patties on May 11, 2023, from FoodServiceDirect.com via Amazon’s online store for $540.00 plus tax. The consumer received his order, which contained documents in the boxes indicating that “temperature sensitive” food items such as the patties could be returned only if they arrived damaged or “have an expiration date of less than two weeks.” The consumer disclaimed any damage to his patties and alleged they were not set to expire until October 2023. Nonetheless, the consumer contacted Amazon’s customer service beginning in June 2023 and continuing through December 2023, attempting to arrange for a return and refund of four of the five cases of patties he received. Nonetheless, the consumer mailed four cases to FoodServiceDirect.com. He then complained that he had not received a refund.

The consumer filed suit in April 2024, alleging that Amazon and FoodServiceDirect.com violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, New York’s Donnelly Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Amazon moved to dismiss.

Sherman Act. Because the dispute described in the complaint could not give rise to an antitrust claim, the court dismissed the Sherman Act claims with prejudice. The conduct at issue—a failure to process a refund for one consumer—could not plausibly constitute harm to competition as a whole in the relevant market, which is the type of harm that antitrust laws are intended to prohibit. Thus, the consumer could not show that he had standing to bring an antitrust claim without an antitrust injury.

Although the opposition/cross-motion stated that Defendants’ alleged “actions clearly violate antitrust laws and no further discovery is needed to decide the case,” such threadbare arguments were insufficient, even if the pro se complaint was liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. The consumer failed to allege the existence of an agreement between Amazon and any other party, let alone an agreement intended to restrain trade or that injured competition and harmed the consumer. His Section 2 claim failed because the consumer failed to allege any anticompetitive conduct on the part of Amazon or explain how not processing a refund related to acquiring or maintaining monopoly power.

Donnelly Act. As with the Sherman Act claims, the complaint failed to allege facts that would support any of the elements of a Donnelly Act (New York General Business Law § 340) claim, and the dispute described in the complaint did not constitute an antitrust injury. The statute requires that a plaintiff plead elements similar to those needed for a federal antitrust claim. Moreover, courts have consistently adhered to the principle that to have standing to sue, antitrust injury must be demonstrated, regardless of the type of antitrust violation asserted. The consumer did not and could not plausibly allege that Amazon’s refusal to process his refund harmed competition generally. Accordingly, the court dismissed the Donnelly Act claim with prejudice because any amendment would be futile.

ECOA claim. Because the conduct complained of bore no connection to an ECOA claim, the court dismissed the claim with prejudice. The court concluded that allowing an amendment of this claim would be futile. The complaint alleged that Defendants’ conduct violated the ECOA by refusing to refund the SNAP benefits he used to purchase the patties, though his Amazon orders purchased with a credit or debit card had been appropriately handled.

The court found that Amazon was not a creditor for purposes of ECOA. The consumer had not alleged that he applied for credit from Amazon or that his interaction with Amazon had anything to do with the extension, renewal, or continuation of credit, as defined in ECOA. The ECOA prohibits any creditor from discriminating “against any applicant, concerning any aspect of a credit transaction … because all or part of the applicant’s income derives from any public assistance program.”

Show cause. The consumer was ordered to show cause no later than May 9, 2025, why his claims against FoodServiceDirect.com should not be dismissed for failure to serve. The document the consumer filed failed to establish that FoodServiceDirect.com was served per Fed. R. Civ P. 4. It appeared that documents were mailed to corporate headquarters, but not that they were delivered to a person authorized to receive service of process. While the consumer requested that Amazon waive service, which it did, there was no evidence that the consumer requested that FoodServiceDirect.com waive service. The consumer may further explain his service efforts to date, request more time to attempt service again, request a waiver of service, or make any other showing in response to the order to show cause.

The Case is No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC.

Judge: Evanson, K.

Attorneys: John Pickering, pro se. Lauren Norris Donahue (K&L Gates LLP) for Amazon.com Inc.

Companies: Amazon.com Inc.

Cases: Antitrust WashingtonNews