Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—W.D. Wash.: Walmart, eBay shoppers granted certification in Amazon Marketplace price parity clause suit, (Nov 4, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Court rejects Amazon's contention that the class action method of litigation would be unmanageable due to "the unprecedented size of the proposed class."

The federal district court in Seattle, Washington has granted class certification in litigation alleging improper anticompetitive effects by the Amazon Marketplace platform's "most-favored nation restraints" allegedly imposed upon third-party merchants using the platform, resulting in customers paying supracompetitive prices. Class representatives were appointed, and interim class counsel was given official class counsel appointment. The ambit of the approved class definition was given a slight limitation over the definition as proposed (Frame-Wilson v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2026)).

Background. Amazon.com, Inc. is the largest online retailer in the United States, operating its Amazon Marketplace Internet platform. In addition to carrying and selling Amazon's own products, Amazon Marketplace can also be used by other retailers to market their own wares, some of which are the same items as sold by Amazon. Third-party retailers who use Amazon Marketplace are required by Amazon to register and to adhere to certain policies, terms, and conditions, including the payment of sales commissions and other charges to Amazon. Such terms and conditions had previously included a price parity clause (PPC), sometimes referred to as a most favored nation provision, which required the third-party retailers to offer the goods sold to purchasers via Amazon Marketplace to be at prices and on terms no less favorable than those terms and prices on any other platform.

Amazon officially withdrew the PPC policy in March 2019 after Congressional demands that the FTC investigate the matter were made; the FTC's investigation subsequently led to a lawsuit filed against Amazon by the FTC and 17 state attorneys general [FTC v. Amazon.com Inc., 2:23-cv-01495, (W.D. Wash, Sep. 26 2023]). After Amazon officially purported to discontinue its PPC policy, two individuals filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that Amazon (1) did not uniformly enforce its PPC policies while they officially existed; and (2) Amazon in fact continues to enforce its PPC policy through other surreptitious means.

On February 20, 2025, the class action plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Class certification. The judge found that the proposed class satisfied all of the requirements for class certification. Here, the proposed class was defined in terms of having been harmed by Amazon's PPC policy as that policy affected their purchases from third-party sellers on the Walmart and eBay online platforms. The numerosity requirement was "easily satisfied" at an estimate of "at least 10 million consumers," of whom common sense would expect a large number to have also purchased goods on the Walmart and eBay platforms.

The proposed class representatives in fact have made purchases from third-party vendors on each of the three named online platforms, and therefore would, if suing Amazon individually, assert the same claims as the proposed class's members. These named individuals have, from the inception of the litigation in 2020, cooperated closely with the attorneys in prosecuting the action, and have no imaginable conflicts of interest in the matter. Naming these individuals would accordingly meet the typicality and adequacy requisites for class certification.

Common questions central to the case were presented, including but not limited to (1) market definition; (2) market power; (3) whether an illegal agreement was entered into; (4) whether Amazon monopolized or attempted to monopolize the defined market; and (5) degree of harm, if any, to the class members. These questions of law and/or fact would impact the outcome of the litigation more than specific questions pertaining to any individual class member. The commonality and predominance requisites for class certification were thereby fulfilled.

While Amazon did challenge the plaintiffs' expert's model, that model sufficed at the class certification stage of litigation but could be challenged at trial.

A class action was also found to be a superior method of resolving the dispute because it would entail better judicial economy than having to conduct millions of individual lawsuits, the dollar value of any individual's claims would impose an undue burden to that individual's solo conduct of the litigation (including retaining counsel), and the Western District of Washington is the locale of Amazon, where much if not most of the evidence is easily accessed. No superior alternative to a class action was proposed, and none was apparent.

Class definition. The court made a slight alteration to the proposed class definition. As proposed, the class consisted of individuals who purchased goods from third parties on the online retail marketplaces of Walmart and/or eBay if the same goods were offered for sale by Amazon's third-party sellers on Amazon Marketplace [emphasis added].

The class definition as approved by the court changed that class definition to restrict the Amazon Marketplace third-party seller to that same third-party sellers on Amazon Marketplace [emphasis added].

The Case is No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC.

Judge: Chun, J.

Attorneys: Alex J. Dravillas (Keller Postman LLC) for Deborah Frame-Wilson. Amy J. Mauser (Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP) for Amazon.com Inc.

Companies: Amazon.com Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust WashingtonNews GCNNews