Amazon tariff refund lawsuits (MDL No. 3197)

Federal lawsuits accusing Amazon of keeping tariff surcharges it charged shoppers are now combined in one court. On October 2, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized six cases as In re Amazon Tariff Litigation, MDL No. 3197, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge John H. Chun.

The suits say Amazon raised prices on its own first-party sales to cover tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). They say that after the Supreme Court struck those tariffs down on February 20, 2026, Amazon could recover the duties from the government but did not return the surcharges to customers. Amazon disputes the claims. No court has ruled on them, and there is no settlement.

The defendants named in the MDL transfer order are Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC. The Seattle case lists Morgan Lewis & Bockius and Davis Wright Tremaine as Amazon's counsel.

The first suit was filed in Seattle on May 15, 2026 by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, led by Steve Berman. It was later combined with a second Seattle case, Rosen v. Amazon.com, Inc., brought with Grant & Eisenhofer. The current Seattle plaintiffs are Mari Cartagenova, Kathleen Holm, Jerry Kmiec, Jeffrey Price and Howard Rosen. One original plaintiff, Lisa Markland, voluntarily dismissed her claims on July 30, 2026.

The other centralized cases are Lasseter (Middle District of Florida), Emerson (Eastern District of Michigan), Polistico and Rittenhouse (Eastern District of New York) and Sangha (Northern District of Ohio).

The tariffs at the center of the case began on February 4, 2025, when a 10% IEEPA tariff on Chinese goods took effect. Tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods followed in March 2025, and most trading partners were covered by April 2025, according to the consolidated complaint.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and held that IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs. Importers of record, the businesses legally responsible for paying duties, then became able to seek refunds.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed July 30, 2026, alleges that Amazon passed tariff costs to shoppers through higher prices on items shipped and sold by Amazon.com. The original Markland complaint cites a 2025 analysis that found a 2.6% rise in the median price of more than 1,400 China-made products sold on Amazon, and notes Amazon's response that it had not seen average prices change unusually. The plaintiffs say Amazon now stands to collect refunds of the same duties while keeping what customers paid.

On a July 30, 2026 earnings call, Amazon CFO Brian Olsavsky said the company received about $600 million in tariff refunds in the second quarter, CNBC reported. He said the amount was limited because Amazon bought inventory ahead of the tariffs and is not the importer of record for most items sold in its stores.

The plaintiffs allege that Amazon was unjustly enriched and violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by keeping surcharges tied to unlawful tariffs. The original complaints also allege that Amazon dropped a plan to show tariff costs to shoppers after an April 29, 2025 call between President Trump and Jeff Bezos. The Rosen complaint notes that Amazon denied that displaying tariff costs was ever the plan. These are allegations, not findings.

Amazon says it "largely absorbed" tariff costs. Olsavsky said that in "a limited set of circumstances" where Amazon can trace charges passed to customers, it "will proactively contact affected customers and automatically issue refunds," and that other refunds would support low prices, according to CNBC. In an August 2026 filing with the MDL panel, Amazon said it "vigorously disputes the plaintiffs' claims," CFO Dive reported, while agreeing the cases should go to Seattle.

The panel's order decided only where the cases will proceed. It found the actions share questions about whether Amazon must return tariff-related charges and sent them to Judge Chun. Most plaintiffs had opposed centralization. The panel also declined to wait for a separate request, MDL No. 3202, that seeks to combine tariff suits against many retailers.

No court has ruled on whether Amazon owes anything. Under a September 8, 2026 order in the Seattle case, Amazon's deadline to respond to the consolidated complaint is 30 days after the panel's ruling, unless Judge Chun resets it. An earlier consolidation order said the court expected Amazon to move to dismiss.

The Seattle consolidated complaint proposes a class of all persons who, from February 4, 2025 through February 20, 2026, bought a good subject to IEEPA tariffs from Amazon's online stores and paid a surcharge to cover those tariffs. Amazon, its affiliates, officers and employees, judges and their families, and government entities are excluded. The Florida case proposes its own subclasses for imported and U.S.-sourced products.

The theory centers on items Amazon sold itself. Purchases from third-party sellers, including those fulfilled by Amazon, are generally outside it, because those sellers were the importers. No class has been certified, and the MDL may produce one combined complaint with a different definition.

There is no claim form and nothing to sign up for. Shoppers who bought goods listed as "Ships from and sold by Amazon.com" during the tariff period can save their order history now. Amazon's account pages show past orders and the seller for each item.

If Amazon contacts you about a tariff refund, review it carefully. Accepting a voluntary refund may or may not affect any later class claim, and that question has not been decided. Plaintiffs' firms such as Hagens Berman list the case on their websites, and you can ask your own lawyer about your purchases.

Nothing is available now. The complaint asks for return of the surcharges with interest, restitution, damages, disgorgement, a constructive trust over refunded duties and attorneys' fees. These are requests, not awards. Any payment would come only from a judgment or a court-approved settlement, and the amount per shopper would depend on what each person bought and what can be traced.

• February 4, 2025: first IEEPA tariff takes effect; start of the proposed class period.
• February 20, 2026: Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs; end of the proposed class period.
• May 15, 2026: first Seattle suit filed.
• July 30, 2026: consolidated amended complaint filed.
• October 2, 2026: MDL No. 3197 created in Seattle.
• October 8, 2026: Seattle case reassigned to Judge Chun.

There is no claim, exclusion or objection deadline. Those rights arise only after class certification or a proposed settlement.

IEEPA is a 1977 law that lets the president regulate economic transactions during a declared national emergency. A tariff is a tax on imported goods, paid by the importer of record. Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, gathers similar federal cases before one judge for pretrial work. Unjust enrichment is a claim that a party kept money it should, in fairness, return. A constructive trust is a court order treating property as held for someone else.

Judge Chun is expected to set a schedule, appoint lead plaintiffs' lawyers and decide whether one master complaint will govern all cases. Amazon's response, likely a motion to dismiss, would follow. Additional tariff suits filed in other courts may be added through conditional transfer orders.

A practical note: download your Amazon order history for 2025 and early 2026 now and mark the items sold by Amazon.com. That record answers the first question any claim process is likely to ask.

The JPML transfer order supports the centralization, parties, case list and judge. The Seattle docket supports the consolidation, plaintiffs, dismissal of Markland and Amazon's response deadline. The Washington plaintiffs' August 1, 2026 MDL motion memorandum quotes the consolidated complaint's class definition and claims. The Markland and Rosen complaints support the price analysis and the alleged Trump and Bezos call. All are unproven allegations. CNBC and CFO Dive support Amazon's public statements. Class Action Pulse did not find an Amazon court response on the merits as of October 16, 2026.

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.