California AG Files Emergency Motion to Halt Amazon's Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed an emergency motion seeking to immediately halt what he alleges is a massive price-fixing conspiracy run by Amazon that inflates prices across the entire U.S. economy.

In a filing that could have seismic implications for the retail industry, Bonta claims Amazon uses its overwhelming market power to force vendors to raise prices not just on its platform, but across competing websites as well. The attorney general is seeking a temporary injunction that would take effect immediately, potentially a year before Amazon's scheduled trials in January 2027.

The scale of the alleged scheme is staggering. Amazon's North American online shopping business generated $426 billion in revenue in 2025, approximately $3,000 for every household in America. According to Bonta's complaint, third-party goods on Amazon's platform have seen prices rise 7% annually—more than twice the rate of inflation.

How the Scheme Allegedly Works

Bonta outlines three primary methods Amazon allegedly uses to inflate prices:

Method 1: Direct Vendor Pressure When Amazon and a competitor engage in price wars over a product, Amazon allegedly tells its vendors who sell to rivals to increase those prices directly.

Method 2: Competitor Discount Suppression If a competitor discounts an item, Amazon allegedly asks vendors to pressure that competitor to stop through the vendor relationship.

Method 3: Platform Exclusivity Enforcement When vendors stop selling products for lower prices outside of Amazon, the company allegedly raises its own prices on those items.

This arrangement constitutes what antitrust lawyers call a "hub-and-spoke" conspiracy or "vertical price-fixing," where cooperation on pricing occurs through common customers or vendors rather than direct collaboration among rivals.

The Prime Leverage Point

The mechanism Amazon allegedly uses to enforce these arrangements centers on its Prime program, which boasts 200 million members nationwide. Prime members receive "free shipping," making them less likely to shop around. Amazon controls which vendors get the coveted "Buy Box" that captures most Prime sales.

To become "Prime eligible," sellers often must use Amazon's Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) service, tying access to Prime customers to whether sellers pay Amazon for inventory management. This strategy has proven effective—Amazon now fulfills roughly two-thirds of products bought on its platform.

From 2014 to 2020, the fees Amazon charges third-party sellers grew from $11.75 billion to more than $80 billion. "Seller fees now account for 21% of Amazon's total corporate revenue," noted D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine in a similar 2021 lawsuit.

Legal Precedent and Growing Momentum

Bonta's filing builds on years of antitrust action against Amazon. In 2021, Racine sued Amazon for prohibiting vendors from offering discounts outside the platform. In 2022, Bonta filed his more comprehensive lawsuit. In 2023, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan filed her own case with additional details, including allegations about "Project Nessie," where Amazon allegedly used its algorithm to encourage other retailers to raise prices on similar products.

All these cases have passed the legal hurdles to proceed to trial, but remedies remain years away. Bonta's emergency motion represents a dramatic acceleration of the legal process.

Why This Emergency Motion Matters

Judges grant temporary injunctions only when they believe a party is likely to lose at trial, immediate harm is significant, and the public interest is served. Bonta's willingness to seek this extraordinary remedy suggests he believes the evidence against Amazon is overwhelming.

If successful, the injunction would flip Amazon's incentives. Currently, the company has every reason to delay trials through dilatory tactics. Under an injunction, Amazon would face immediate restrictions until trial concludes, removing its ability to continue alleged harmful behavior while litigation drags on.

Evidence Destruction Allegations

The complaint hints at Amazon's internal processes to hide its activities. This isn't surprising given that the FTC has told the judge in its case that top Amazon officials, including Jeff Bezos, have been destroying evidence.

According to Law.com, the FTC said in a heavily redacted brief that it's missing both the "raw notes" of important meetings and key messages from Signal apps of Bezos and other senior executives, who in some instances set messages to automatically delete in "as short as ten seconds or one minute."

Bonta characterized this behavior as "the digital equivalent of shredding documents while under a legal hold," evidence of lawlessness.

Broader Context

This case emerges amid growing recognition that consolidation and price-fixing are linked to inflation. Earlier this year, a similar alleged conspiracy between Pepsi and Walmart was revealed. Today, the Antitrust Division won a significant legal motion in its price-fixing case against a meat conspiracy led by Agri-Stats, and the Ninth Circuit issued a favorable ruling on a Robinson-Patman Act price discrimination suit.

Public attitudes have shifted dramatically. Where Amazon was once considered innovative and consumer-friendly, it's now increasingly viewed as bureaucratic and coercive—a product of an environment of lawlessness. Americans are growing angry about what they see as a conspiracy by the "Epstein class" to extract wealth through high inflation environments.

As populist politicians gain election and enforcers develop stronger cases, the legal and political environment for tech giants like Amazon is becoming increasingly hostile. Bonta's emergency motion represents perhaps the most aggressive legal action yet against the company's business practices.

If successful, it could fundamentally reshape not just Amazon's business model, but the entire online retail economy.