Amazon and Apple iPad antitrust lawsuit (Furdek v. Amazon.com)

Two iPad buyers filed a proposed class action against Amazon.com, Inc. and Apple Inc. in federal court in Seattle on October 9, 2026. The case is Furdek v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03843, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The complaint says a 2018 deal between the two companies removed hundreds of independent Apple resellers from Amazon's marketplace. With fewer sellers competing, the plaintiffs allege, people paid more for new iPads bought through Amazon's "Buy Box." The proposed class covers U.S. residents who bought a new iPad that way from May 7, 2020 to the date of class notice.

This is a new filing that grows out of an older case. A 2022 lawsuit making similar claims was dismissed in 2025 after a dispute over the conduct of the plaintiffs' lawyers, and that dismissal is now on appeal. No court has decided whether the allegations in the new complaint are true, and no class has been certified.

Amazon.com, Inc. runs the Amazon.com online store. It sells products as a retailer and also hosts outside companies that sell through its marketplace. Apple Inc. designs and sells the iPad, iPhone and other devices, both directly and through authorized resellers.

The named plaintiffs are Jolene Furdek of Plano, Texas, and Jonathan Ryan of Spokane, Washington. According to the complaint, Furdek bought an iPad for $399.99 on July 1, 2020, with Amazon as the seller. Ryan bought an iPad Air for $549.98 on February 5, 2021, and an iPad Mini for $399.99 on November 10, 2022.

They are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Steve W. Berman and Ted Wojcik signed the complaint, with two other lawyers from the firm listed as seeking permission to appear.

The complaint centers on what it calls the Global Tenets Agreement, which it dates to October 31, 2018, with an effective date of January 1, 2019. Under that deal, the plaintiffs allege, Apple products became available directly from Amazon for the first time in years, and Amazon agreed to cut the number of third-party Apple resellers on its marketplace from at least 600 to seven.

The plaintiffs say Amazon received Apple supply at a discount of up to 10% in return, citing a November 16, 2021 decision by Italy's competition authority. They say Amazon went from rarely winning the Buy Box for Apple products to winning it most of the time once rival sellers were gone. The complaint says about 90% of Amazon purchases go through the Buy Box.

To estimate the effect on price, the complaint compares iPad prices with Samsung Galaxy tablet prices using Keepa price-tracking data. It alleges an overcharge of roughly $40 to $109 per iPad. These figures come from the plaintiffs' own analysis and have not been tested in court.

Some background on the earlier case helps explain the timing. Steven Floyd sued Amazon and Apple over the same reseller deal in November 2022, in a case covering iPhones and iPads. In June 2023, Judge John C. Coughenour let the main antitrust claim proceed but dismissed a separate "per se" theory. According to the new complaint, Furdek and Ryan first asserted their claims in the Floyd case in May 2024. In 2025, Judge Kymberly K. Evanson sanctioned Floyd's lawyers and dismissed the case on September 29, 2025, after finding they had not been candid with the court about when Floyd wanted to withdraw, according to coverage in Reuters, MLex and Law360. A later report says the judge indicated other buyers could bring their own suit. An appeal to the Ninth Circuit, No. 26-5623, was opened on August 31, 2026, and the new complaint says Furdek and Ryan are appealing the dismissal.

The new complaint calls itself protective. It says the Floyd case paused the deadline for these claims and that the dismissal was unrelated to the merits. It starts the class period on May 7, 2020, four years before Furdek and Ryan first raised their claims.

The plaintiffs claim the reseller limit was an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which they describe as a concerted refusal to deal, or group boycott. They say the limit was "purely quantitative," meaning Apple set a number of sellers rather than screening out counterfeiters. The complaint calls the anti-counterfeiting explanation for the deal "purely pretextual" and points out that Amazon had launched its Brand Registry program in 2017.

Class Action Pulse found no public statement from Amazon or Apple about the new lawsuit. Neither company had filed a response in the new case as of October 18, 2026. In the earlier Floyd case, Apple filed an answer to the complaint in July 2023. Readers should not read the absence of a statement here as agreement with the allegations.

The case was assigned to Judge S. Kate Vaughan on October 13, 2026, and summonses were issued that day. The plaintiffs also filed a notice that the case is related to Floyd v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01599.

The court has not ruled on any motion, has not decided whether the deal was legal, and has not certified a class. Rulings in the Floyd case on the per se theory and on counsel's conduct do not decide the merits of this complaint.

The proposed class is: all persons and entities who, as residents of the United States and during the period of May 7, 2020, to the date of class notice, purchased any new iPad from the Buy Box on Amazon.com. Amazon, Apple and their affiliates are excluded.

The definition is limited to new iPads. Used and refurbished iPads, iPhones, and iPads bought from Apple, Best Buy or another store are outside the proposed class as written. A court may change the definition later.

There is nothing to file and no claim form. Readers who think they may fit the definition can:

• Download their Amazon order history and save invoices for new iPads bought since May 2020.
• Note whether "Sold by Amazon" or another seller appeared on each order.
• Follow the docket for a class certification decision or any settlement notice.
• Contact Hagens Berman or their own lawyer with questions about their rights.

There is no money available now. The complaint asks for treble damages, meaning three times any proven overcharge, along with restitution, an order ending the reseller limits, interest and attorneys' fees. These are requests. Any payment would depend on a settlement or a judgment and on court approval.

• May 7, 2020: start of the proposed class period.
• October 9, 2026: complaint filed.
• October 13, 2026: case assigned to Judge Vaughan.
• November 17, 2026: opening brief due in the Floyd appeal, according to the Ninth Circuit docket.

No claim deadline or opt-out deadline exists yet. If a class is certified, members would normally receive notice explaining how to stay in or leave the case.

• Buy Box: The "Add to Cart" and "Buy Now" area on an Amazon product page. When several sellers offer the same item, Amazon picks one to fill it.
• Authorized reseller: A company Apple has approved to sell its products.
• Group boycott: An agreement among companies to exclude certain competitors.
• Rule of reason: The standard courts use to weigh whether a business restraint hurts competition more than it helps.
• Protective complaint: A suit filed to preserve claims while related litigation, such as an appeal, is still pending.

Amazon and Apple will respond once served, possibly with motions to dismiss or pause the case while the Floyd appeal proceeds. The Ninth Circuit's handling of that appeal may affect how this case moves.

A practical note: an Amazon order page shows the seller for each purchase, so saving those records now is simpler than reconstructing them years later.

This article relies on the complaint and the court docket for the new case. Background on the earlier case comes from the Floyd docket, the Ninth Circuit docket, and Reuters and Law360 reporting.

The reseller counts, discount, Buy Box share and overcharge range are the plaintiffs' allegations. The number of class members and the size of any recovery are unknown.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.