Amazon and Apple iPad Class Action Lawsuit, Furdek v. Amazon Alleges a Reseller Deal Inflated Buy Box Prices

Two iPad buyers have asked a federal court in Seattle to let them sue Amazon and Apple on behalf of everyone who bought a new iPad through Amazon’s Buy Box since May 7, 2020. They claim the two companies agreed to push nearly all independent Apple resellers off Amazon, and that iPad prices rose once that competition was gone.

Quick takeaway: This is a newly filed proposed class action, not a settlement. No class has been certified, no money has been awarded, and there is no claim form or deadline. Nothing has been proven, and neither company has been found liable. If you bought a new iPad from Amazon, keep your order history and watch the case.

Amazon and Apple iPad Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Item	Detail
Case name	Furdek, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al.
Case number	2:26-cv-03843
Court	U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Filed	October 9, 2026
Plaintiffs	Jolene Furdek and Jonathan Ryan
Defendants	Amazon.com, Inc. and Apple Inc.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys	Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Steve W. Berman, Ted Wojcik, Ben M. Harrington, Benjamin J. Siegel)
Legal claim	One claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Main allegation	A 2018 agreement cut independent Apple resellers on Amazon from at least 600 to seven and reduced price competition
Alleged overcharge	About $40 to $109 per iPad, according to the plaintiffs’ estimate
Proposed class	U.S. residents and entities that bought a new iPad through Amazon.com’s Buy Box from May 7, 2020 through the date of class notice
Relief sought	Class certification, injunctive relief, money damages (including treble damages), fees and costs
Class certified?	No
Settlement or claim form?	None. No claims process is open
Current status	Early stage; no response from Amazon or Apple, ruling, or schedule reported as of October 17, 2026

What Does the Furdek v. Amazon Lawsuit Say?

The complaint describes an unlawful agreement between Amazon and Apple that, it says, wiped out nearly all independent Apple resellers on Amazon’s marketplace. Those outside sellers, the plaintiffs say, kept pressure on prices. Remove them, and both companies could charge more.

The “Global Tenets Agreement.” According to the complaint, the agreement was signed on October 31, 2018 and took effect on January 1, 2019. The plaintiffs allege Amazon received direct access to discounted Apple products in exchange for limiting which independent resellers could sell new Apple devices on its marketplace.

The seller numbers. The complaint says the number of Apple resellers on Amazon fell from at least 600 to seven, more than a 98% drop. The plaintiffs also point to Amazon’s 2019 statements to Congress about an arrangement allowing seven resellers of new Apple products. They allege many of those sellers had offered Apple products at discounts of more than 20% off Apple’s own online store.

Amazon’s market share. Wolters Kluwer’s Antitrust Law Daily reports that the complaint says Amazon’s share of Apple iPad sales on its marketplace went from close to zero to dominant. The plaintiffs also note Amazon keeps about 27% of each dollar spent on Amazon.com, which they offer as evidence it can push prices above competitive levels.

What the lawsuit does not claim. It does not say the iPads were defective or that buyers were charged an unauthorized fee. It challenges the alleged agreement and its claimed effect on competition and prices.

Neither company has publicly answered this new complaint in the sources reviewed. In the earlier case over the same arrangement, both companies denied acting anticompetitively or harming consumers, according to Hagens Berman’s case page.

How Much Did iPad Buyers Allegedly Overpay?

The plaintiffs estimate the alleged agreement raised iPad prices by about $40 to $109 per device. They built the estimate by comparing iPad prices with prices for Samsung Galaxy tablets, which they use as a competing product. According to the complaint, the average price gap between Samsung tablets and iPads on Amazon was about $274 before the agreement and $563 after it. They say their analysis of public pricing data, adjusted for product differences, supports the $40 to $109 figure.

Question	Answer
Is $40 to $109 a confirmed overcharge?	No. It is the plaintiffs’ estimate
Will every eligible buyer receive that amount?	No payment has been established
Has a court approved the pricing analysis?	No ruling has been identified
Could the numbers change?	Yes. Evidence, expert analysis, and legal rulings could change any calculation

Even if the lawsuit succeeds, an individual payment would not necessarily equal the amount in the complaint.

Why the Buy Box Matters

The Buy Box is the featured offer on an Amazon product page, next to the “Add to Cart” and “Buy Now” buttons. When you click either one, the sale goes to the seller currently holding that spot. The complaint uses it to define the class, which is why only Buy Box purchases count.

The earlier complaint against the same defendants said roughly 90% of Amazon shoppers rely on the Buy Box when they buy. The plaintiffs’ theory is that with fewer independent sellers and less discounting, a lower-priced reseller was less likely to win the Buy Box for a new iPad, so shoppers paid more. That theory is disputed and has not been tested in court.

Who Filed the Case?

The plaintiffs are Jolene Furdek and Jonathan Ryan. The complaint alleges Furdek bought a new iPad through the Buy Box for $399.99 in July 2020, and that Ryan bought an iPad Air for $549.98 in February 2021 and an iPad mini for $399.99 in November 2022. They say they would have paid less if the alleged restrictions had not reduced competition.

Related article: Bright Lending $15 Million Settlement, Who Gets Cash or Debt Cancellation in Dixon v. Gatzke

Why Is There a Second Case? The Floyd v. Amazon History

This is not the first lawsuit over this arrangement.

• November 9, 2022: Steven Floyd files Floyd v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01599, in the same court, covering iPhones and iPads.
• June 8, 2023: Judge John C. Coughenour denies the motions to dismiss in part. He throws out the plaintiffs’ per se theory but keeps a rule-of-reason claim alive, according to Wolters Kluwer. Reuters reported he said whether the plaintiffs’ market was valid was a question for a jury.
• May 2024: The court lets the plaintiffs amend their complaint to add Furdek and Ryan.
• May 2025: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson, who later handled the case, orders $223,000 in sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel. The Expert Institute reports the judge found counsel had not been candid about when Floyd first said he wanted out of the case. The Expert Institute later reported that the sanctions stand.
• September 29, 2025: The court reconsiders its earlier decision allowing the amended complaint, denies leave to add Furdek and Ryan, and dismisses the case. Floyd’s own claims were dismissed with prejudice, but the court said claims of other potential class members were not barred by that order. In substance, it said Furdek and Ryan were not responsible for Floyd’s change of heart or counsel’s lack of candor.
• October 9, 2026: Furdek and Ryan file this new case.

The 2025 dismissal did not decide whether the alleged agreement violated antitrust law. It was not a ruling that the agreement was lawful or that the price allegations were false.

Why did Furdek and Ryan file again?

According to the new complaint, the October 2026 case is a protective filing while the earlier dismissal is on appeal. Furdek and Ryan have an appeal listed in the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-5623), and Hagens Berman’s case page also lists an appeal as pending. The new case is meant to protect their claims against arguments that time limits bar them. The new case and the appeal are separate proceedings, and the appeal could affect how the dispute goes, so no outcome should be assumed.

What Does Federal Antitrust Law Say?

Sherman Act Section 1

Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) bars contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade. It does not make every agreement between two companies illegal. Courts examine the agreement and its effect on competition under one of two tests:

• Per se rule: a few kinds of agreements, such as price fixing among competitors, are treated as automatically illegal.
• Rule of reason: most agreements are judged by their actual effect on competition. Under this approach, a plaintiff generally must show harm to competition in a defined market, and the court weighs any pro-competitive justifications (see Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. 529 (2018)).

In Floyd, the court dismissed the per se theory and kept the rule-of-reason claim. The sources reviewed do not say how the new complaint handles this standard, so it is one to watch. The plaintiffs describe the arrangement as a group boycott or concerted refusal to deal. The defendants can dispute that description, the claimed harm, and the legal test.

At the start of a case, a Section 1 complaint must allege facts that plausibly show an agreement, not just parallel conduct (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). That is why a motion to dismiss is common in these cases.

Damages, injunctions, and fees: the Clayton Act

• Treble damages: Under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15), a private plaintiff who proves injury from an antitrust violation can recover three times the proven damages, plus costs and attorneys’ fees. Treble damages are not automatic. The plaintiffs must prove each element and recoverable damages.
• Injunctions: Private parties can also seek an injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 26.
• Time limit: Antitrust damages claims generally must be filed within four years after the claim accrues (15 U.S.C. § 15b), subject to exceptions such as tolling. This helps explain why the plaintiffs say they filed a protective case. Class-action tolling under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), can pause the clock for putative class members while a class case is pending, but how it applies here is a question for a lawyer.
• Who can claim damages: Under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), federal antitrust damages claims are generally limited to direct purchasers. How that rule applies to Buy Box purchases, which can be sold by Amazon or by a third-party seller, is a question the court may have to address. The sources reviewed do not say how the complaint handles it.

Class certification

To certify a damages class, plaintiffs must meet Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including showing that common questions predominate (Rule 23(b)(3)). Under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), the plaintiffs’ damages model must match their theory of harm. That makes the $40 to $109 estimate, and how it was calculated, likely to draw scrutiny.

Who May Be Included in the Proposed Class?

The proposed class covers U.S. residents and entities that bought a new iPad through the Buy Box on Amazon.com from May 7, 2020 through the date class notice is provided.

• Only new iPads. Used or refurbished devices fall outside the described class.
• Only Buy Box purchases. An iPad bought through another seller’s offer page, from Apple directly, or at Best Buy or another retailer does not meet the definition as written.
• iPads only. The earlier Floyd case also covered iPhones. The new class definition, as reported, does not cover iPhones, Macs, Apple Watches, or other Apple products.
• Any iPad model. The definition is not limited to a particular model.

The court has not approved this definition, and buying an iPad does not make you part of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs must ask the court to certify the class and prove the legal requirements are met.

What Happens Next?

The case is at an early stage. Possible next steps include:

• Service of the complaint and responses from Amazon and Apple.
• Motions to dismiss. Given how Floyd went, one would not be a surprise.
• Discovery, including Apple and Amazon’s agreement and pricing data.
• A motion for class certification, which decides whether this stays a two-person lawsuit or becomes a case for a large group of iPad buyers.
• A ruling by the Ninth Circuit on the earlier appeal, which may affect the case.

No response deadline, hearing date, class-certification order, settlement, or damages award had been identified as of October 17, 2026. This page will be updated as the docket develops.

Can iPad Buyers File a Claim or Get Money Now?

No. There is no settlement, claim form, or payment program. The complaint asks for class certification and relief, and neither has been granted.

What you can do now

1. Keep your records. Your Amazon order history shows the seller, price, item, and date for each purchase. Save order confirmations, invoices, receipts, and the device model.
2. Check whether your purchase fits. New iPad, bought through Amazon.com’s Buy Box, on or after May 7, 2020.
3. Know that contacting a law firm is optional. Hagens Berman invites Buy Box purchasers to contact the firm, but this is not required for anything.
4. Watch for scams. Be wary of any website or person claiming a payment is available or charging a fee to sign you up for a settlement that does not exist.
5. Wait for formal notice. If a class is certified or the case settles, a court-approved notice would explain who is covered and whether a claim form is needed.

Keeping records does not establish eligibility or guarantee payment.

Related Reading

• Amazon Alexa Secret Recordings Class Action: What To Know
• Amazon $309M Refund Settlement, How and Where to Claim Your Cash for Shortchanged Returns 2026
• Amazon Sued Over Tariff Refunds, Did You Pay More In 2025?

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there an Amazon and Apple class action lawsuit over iPad prices?

Yes. Jolene Furdek and Jonathan Ryan filed a proposed class action on October 9, 2026 in the Western District of Washington. It alleges an Amazon-Apple agreement restricted independent sellers and raised iPad prices on Amazon.

How much does the lawsuit say buyers overpaid?

About $40 to $109 per iPad, according to the plaintiffs’ estimate. It is not a court finding or a guaranteed payment.

Who may be included in the proposed class?

U.S. residents and entities that bought a new iPad through Amazon.com’s Buy Box from May 7, 2020 through the date of class notice. The class has not been certified.

What is the Buy Box?

The featured offer on an Amazon product page with the “Add to Cart” and “Buy Now” buttons.

What does the lawsuit say Amazon and Apple did?

It alleges they agreed to eliminate nearly all independent Apple resellers from Amazon’s marketplace, which allegedly reduced price competition.

Does the lawsuit cover iPhones or MacBooks?

Not under the class definition currently proposed. It covers new iPads only.

Is Furdek v. Amazon the same case as Floyd v. Amazon?

No, but they are closely related. Furdek and Ryan were proposed plaintiffs in Floyd. After Floyd was dismissed in 2025, the judge said other potential class members were not barred from filing, and this new case followed.

Have Amazon or Apple been found guilty of price-fixing?

No. The complaint contains allegations that no court has established.

Do I need to do anything to join?

No. The class has not been certified and no claims process exists.

Is there a settlement?

No. There is no settlement fund, claim form, or deadline.

Have Amazon and Apple responded?

No response appeared in the sources reviewed. In Floyd, both denied that their conduct was anticompetitive.

When will the case be resolved?

No date has been set. It may go through motions, discovery, class certification, and possibly settlement or trial. The separate appeal may also affect it.

About This Article

This article was researched and written by Israr Ahmad, a legal content researcher, from the court dockets and orders, legal news reporting, and statutes and cases listed below. It reflects information available as of October 17, 2026. We will update it when Apple and Amazon respond or the court sets a schedule.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a consumer legal-information website, not a law firm, and the author is not an attorney. Allegations in a complaint are not findings of liability. Consult a licensed attorney about your own situation.

Sources

1. Federal court docket, Furdek v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03843 (W.D. Wash.): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2026cv03843/369829
2. U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, CM/ECF: https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/
3. Order, Floyd v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01599 (W.D. Wash. September 29, 2025): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2022cv01599/316131/250/
4. Docket, Furdek v. Amazon.com Inc., Ninth Circuit No. 26-5623: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/26-5623
5. Law360, “Apple, Amazon Hit With New IPad Sale Antitrust Suit,” October 9, 2026
6. Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily, “ANTITRUST NEWS: iPad consumers bring putative class action against Apple, Amazon, for allegedly restraining third-party sellers,” October 15, 2026
7. Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily, June 9, 2023, on the Floyd motion-to-dismiss ruling
8. Reuters, June 2023, on the denial of the motion to dismiss in Floyd v. Amazon
9. Hagens Berman, case page, “Apple & Amazon.com iPhone & iPad Overpricing Antitrust” (complaints and orders in Floyd, No. 2:22-cv-01599)
10. Expert Institute, “$223,000 Sanctions Stand in Apple-Amazon Antitrust Suit,” August 11, 2026
11. Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A15+section%3A1+edition%3Aprelim%29
12. Clayton Act § 4, 15 U.S.C. § 15: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A15+section%3A15+edition%3Aprelim%29
13. 15 U.S.C. §§ 15b and 26; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (verify current text on the official U.S. Code and court rules websites)
14. Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. 529 (2018); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977); American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974); Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013)