Amazon Tariff Lawsuit 2026, Class Actions Consolidated in MDL 3197, Claims, Class Period and Refund Status

Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC face coordinated class action lawsuits alleging the retailer passed the cost of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to shoppers through higher prices on imported products. The cases are now part of In re: Amazon Tariff Litigation, MDL No. 3197, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

On October 2, 2026, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered the transfer of five lawsuits pending in other federal districts to Washington for coordinated pretrial proceedings, joining the first-filed case already pending there. U.S. District Judge John H. Chun was assigned to oversee the MDL.

The plaintiffs allege shoppers paid higher prices to cover tariffs that the Supreme Court later invalidated, and that Amazon has not committed to returning those alleged overcharges. Amazon disputes the claims. No court has found that Amazon owes shoppers refunds, no class has been certified, and no settlement or claim form exists. There is nothing to file and no deadline.

Important notice: AllAboutLawyer.com is a consumer legal information website, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice.

Quick Facts: Amazon Tariff Refund Lawsuit

Detail	Information
Defendants	Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC
Litigation name	In re: Amazon Tariff Litigation
MDL number	3197 (MDL case number 2:26-md-03197)
Court	U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Assigned judge (MDL)	John H. Chun
JPML transfer order	October 2, 2026
First-filed case	Markland v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01670 (filed May 15, 2026)
Actions centralized	Six actions across five federal districts
Main allegation	Amazon passed IEEPA tariff costs to shoppers through higher prices and did not return the alleged overcharges
Proposed purchase period (original complaint)	February 4, 2025 to February 20, 2026
Claims in the original complaint	Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, money had and received
Class certification	None identified
Settlement or claim form	None identified
Stage	Coordinated pretrial proceedings

What Is the Amazon Tariff Class Action About?

The lawsuits challenge Amazon’s alleged handling of product-price increases linked to tariffs imposed in 2025 and early 2026. The original complaint, filed on May 15, 2026 by Lisa Markland and Mari Cartagenova, alleges Amazon raised prices on imported merchandise while IEEPA tariffs were in effect and collected hundreds of millions of dollars in tariff-related costs from customers without returning them. It also alleges Amazon chose not to seek tariff refunds from the federal government, leaving consumers to bear the costs.

Reporting on other complaints describes slightly different theories. Some plaintiffs reportedly allege Amazon was the importer of record, so only Amazon can ask the government for refunds, and that keeping those refunds without compensating customers is unjust enrichment. One early complaint reportedly points to Amazon’s public focus on low prices and alleges concealment of how tariffs affected prices. Another, as reported by Law360, claims Amazon skipped seeking refunds to appease the president. Each complaint has its own allegations, and the original complaint should not be assumed to represent every transferred case.

These are allegations, not findings.

Why Were the IEEPA Tariffs Invalidated?

The Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump held that IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The administration had relied on IEEPA for tariffs that began with duties on Chinese imports in February 2025 and expanded to other trading partners.

The ruling addressed the government’s authority. It did not automatically require Amazon to return money to customers, and it did not establish that any particular price increase resulted from a tariff. The consumer lawsuits raise a separate question: if a retailer passed tariff costs to shoppers through higher prices, can customers recover them after the tariffs were invalidated?

How Do Government Tariff Refunds Work?

After the ruling, reporting says the government set up a process for importers to request refunds. Bloomberg Law reported that more than $100 billion of the roughly $166 billion paid had already been processed, a figure we did not independently verify.

Under customs law, duties are paid by the importer of record (19 U.S.C. § 1484). Duties are generally finalized through liquidation (19 U.S.C. § 1504), refunds with interest are addressed in 19 U.S.C. § 1505, and importers can contest customs decisions through protests (19 U.S.C. § 1514) and, in the Court of International Trade, under 28 U.S.C. § 1581. A central dispute is whether a retailer that collected higher prices from shoppers, and later receives or seeks a refund of duties, must share that money with customers. Whether consumers have any claim to money that belongs to an importer is likely to be a major legal fight, and the answer is not established.

Which Amazon Purchases Could Be Covered?

The original complaint proposed a class of people who, between February 4, 2025 and February 20, 2026, purchased goods subject to IEEPA tariffs from Amazon’s own online stores and paid a surcharge to cover those tariffs. It focuses on products sold directly by Amazon, not every third-party marketplace transaction.

• Sold by Amazon: Listings identifying Amazon.com as the seller.
• Sold by independent merchants: Third-party sellers may own their inventory, set prices and handle importing. The original complaint does not automatically include every marketplace product merely because Amazon handled fulfillment or delivery.

The court has not approved any class definition, and the original proposed definition is not an eligibility determination. Do not assume you qualify based only on purchase date or because an order came from Amazon.

What Evidence Do the Plaintiffs Cite?

The complaint points to statements and reporting about price changes during the tariff period:

• In April 2025, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said third-party sellers could pass tariff costs to consumers and discussed steps Amazon took to manage costs, such as buying inventory in advance and working with sellers.
• Reporting that Amazon considered displaying tariff-related costs on product listings in 2025 but dropped the plan after political criticism.
• A July 2025 analysis of 2,500 products on Amazon that reportedly found 1,200 lower-cost goods rose in price by an average of 5.2% between January and July 2025.

None of this establishes that every price increase was caused by tariffs. Prices change for many reasons, and the court would need evidence connecting alleged tariff costs to the purchases at issue.

What Is MDL No. 3197?

A multidistrict litigation (MDL) coordinates related civil cases pending in different federal districts that share common questions of fact. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, cases can be transferred to one district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, to reduce duplicate work and avoid inconsistent rulings. Cases do not become one lawsuit for every purpose, and at the end of pretrial proceedings, transferred cases not resolved generally go back to their original courts (Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998)).

The JPML held oral argument on September 24, 2026, in Chicago. A motion to centralize the cases was filed on August 1, 2026, according to reporting. The panel found the cases share common factual questions, including the plaintiffs’ claim that Amazon inflated prices to recoup tariff costs. Amazon told the panel it disputes the claims but supported centralizing in Washington. The panel chose the Western District of Washington because Amazon is headquartered there and relevant evidence and witnesses are likely located there. Reporting also says that before centralization, Judge Tana Lin consolidated two early Washington suits on June 29, 2026; the MDL itself was assigned to Judge Chun.

The transfer order is procedural. It is not a ruling that Amazon violated any law, that the plaintiffs were harmed or that anyone is owed money.

Cases Transferred to Washington

Case	Case number	Court before transfer	Filed (per reporting)
Lasseter v. Amazon.com Inc.	8:26-cv-02019	M.D. Florida	July 14, 2026
Emerson v. Amazon.com Inc., et al.	2:26-cv-12614	E.D. Michigan	July 29, 2026
Polistico v. Amazon.com Inc., et al.	1:26-cv-04194	E.D. New York	July 13, 2026
Rittenhouse v. Amazon.com Inc.	2:26-cv-03392	E.D. New York	June 5, 2026
Sangha v. Amazon.com Inc., et al.	1:26-cv-01777	N.D. Ohio	Not verified
In re: Amazon Tariff Litigation (first-filed)	2:26-cv-01670	W.D. Washington	May 15, 2026

The MDL docket lists Mari Cartagenova, Parveen Sangha, Gregory Rittenhouse, Dan Polistico, Sharon Lasseter, Tonysha Emerson, Kathleen Holm, Jerry Kmiec, Jeffrey Price and Howard Rosen among the plaintiffs.

Who Represents the Plaintiffs?

Firm	Attorneys
Napoli Shkolnik	Hunter J. Shkolnik, Salvatore C. Badala, Shayna E. Sacks
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP	Stuart A. Davidson
Farrell & Fuller LLC	Michael J. Fuller Jr.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP	Steve W. Berman, Sydney K. Thomas, Christopher R. Pitoun, Dana Abelson
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.	Kelly L. Tucker, Matthew Denn, Thomas Walsh

Their participation does not establish the merits or guarantee any recovery.

What Legal Claims Are Asserted?

Washington Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86)

The Washington CPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce (RCW 19.86.020). Washington courts generally require five elements: an unfair or deceptive act, in trade or commerce, affecting the public interest, injury to business or property, and causation (Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986)). RCW 19.86.090 allows a private action for actual damages and attorney fees, and a court may increase damages up to three times, subject to a statutory cap. The limitations period is generally four years (RCW 19.86.120). Plaintiffs from other states may rely on their own consumer-protection laws.

Unjust Enrichment

This claim argues Amazon received a benefit from customers through allegedly tariff-inflated prices and should not keep it. Elements vary by state, and courts often require that no adequate remedy at law exists.

Money Had and Received

This claim seeks return of money allegedly held by a defendant that in equity and good conscience should be returned to the plaintiff.

Legal Hurdles the Plaintiffs May Face

These are possible defenses and issues, not rulings.

• Whose money is the refund? The refund of duties belongs to the importer of record. Amazon may argue customers have no claim to it. This echoes the “indirect purchaser” problem in antitrust law (Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968)), though those are antitrust cases and are not controlling here.
• Causation and pass-through: Plaintiffs must tie specific price increases to tariff costs rather than to ordinary market changes.
• Primary jurisdiction and customs law: Amazon may argue that disputes over duty refunds belong before customs authorities or the Court of International Trade.
• Class certification: Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance and superiority for damages classes. Different products, sellers and prices may make a class hard to certify.
• Standing and the voluntary payment doctrine: Amazon may argue plaintiffs voluntarily paid the listed price or lack injury.
• Motion to dismiss: Amazon will likely seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

How Much Could Customers Receive?

The original complaint alleges Amazon collected hundreds of millions of dollars in tariff-related costs. It seeks restitution or other monetary relief and interest. That is an allegation, not an approved fund. No settlement fund, payment formula or guaranteed amount exists, and any recovery would depend on the evidence, the court’s rulings and any approved class. It is too early to estimate a payment for any individual shopper.

Is There a Settlement or Claim Form?

No settlement or court-authorized claim form was identified as of October 16, 2026. The MDL order only centralizes the litigation for pretrial proceedings. Be wary of websites, emails or social posts claiming a tariff refund program is already paying shoppers, and do not pay a fee or share financial details to “secure” a payment.

To preserve records, keep Amazon order confirmations, receipts and product listings showing the seller and purchase date. That is a precaution, not confirmation that a purchase qualifies.

Part of a Bigger Wave of Tariff Refund Lawsuits

Many large retailers have faced proposed class actions on similar theories. In a separate proceeding, In re Retailer Tariff Litigation, the JPML has been weighing whether to consolidate suits against other major retailers. The Amazon MDL could shape how courts treat whether businesses must pass tariff refunds on to consumers. For related coverage, see Walmart, Puma, Abercrombie & Fitch and Peloton Face Tariff Refund Class Action Lawsuits.

What Happens Next?

Judge Chun will supervise coordinated pretrial proceedings. Typical next steps include appointing lead counsel (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)), filing a consolidated complaint, Amazon’s motion to dismiss, discovery and, later, any class-certification ruling. MDLs can take years, and many end without a payout. The public MDL docket reviewed showed transfer and assignment records through October 5, 2026, so check PACER for later orders.

Key Dates

Date	Event
February 4, 2025	Start of proposed purchase period in the original complaint
February 20, 2026	Supreme Court decides Learning Resources v. Trump; end of the proposed period
May 15, 2026	First proposed class action filed against Amazon in W.D. Wash.
June 29, 2026	Judge Tana Lin consolidates two early Washington suits (per reporting)
August 1, 2026	Motion to centralize filed with the JPML (per reporting)
September 24, 2026	JPML oral argument in Chicago
October 2, 2026	JPML centralizes the actions in the W.D. Wash.; MDL 3197 created
TBD	Lead counsel, consolidated complaint, Amazon’s response

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a class action lawsuit against Amazon over tariff overcharges?

Yes. Multiple proposed class actions are coordinated in MDL No. 3197.

What is the MDL case number and who is the judge?

2:26-md-03197 in the Western District of Washington, overseen by U.S. District Judge John H. Chun.

Which Amazon orders could fall within the proposed class?

The original complaint proposes purchases of goods subject to IEEPA tariffs from Amazon’s own online stores between February 4, 2025 and February 20, 2026. The court has not approved this definition.

Did the Supreme Court order Amazon to refund tariff costs?

No. It ruled IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs. Whether Amazon must return alleged price increases is a separate question.

Has Amazon been found liable?

No. Amazon disputes the claims.

Has the court certified a class?

No class-certification order was identified.

Can I file a refund claim now?

No court-approved claim form or settlement exists as of October 16, 2026.

Do I need to join the lawsuit?

Not at this stage. If a class is certified or a settlement reached, notice would come through a court-approved process.

What is the difference between an MDL and a class action?

An MDL combines related federal cases before one judge for pretrial matters. It is not a single class action, and each case keeps its own identity.

Sources and Court Records

1. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, In re: Amazon Tariff Litigation, MDL No. 3197, transfer order. https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/none/jpml/8:2026cv02019/1761441/17
2. U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, Amazon Tariff Litigation MDL docket. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2026md03197/369626
3. Original Markland and Cartagenova class action complaint. https://www.classaction.org/media/amazon-ieepa-complaint.pdf
4. U.S. Supreme Court, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf
5. Hagens Berman, Amazon Import Tariff Consumer Class Action. https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/amazon-import-tariff-consumer-class-action
6. Bloomberg Law, “Amazon Tariff Refund Suits Combined in Washington Federal Court” (October 5, 2026); MLex, “Amazon Shoppers’ Tariff Refund Suits Sent To Seattle As MDL” (October 6, 2026); Law360 case page for the Western District of Washington action; HarrisMartin, “MDL Sought for Amazon Consumer Tariff Recovery Class Actions.”
7. Statutes, rules and cases: 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1407 and 1581; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1484, 1504, 1505 and 1514; RCW 19.86.020, 19.86.090 and 19.86.120; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 23 and 23(g); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss, 523 U.S. 26 (1998); Hangman Ridge Training Stables v. Safeco Title, 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986); Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977); Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery, 392 U.S. 481 (1968).
8. PACER, for docket activity after October 5, 2026. https://pacer.uscourts.gov/

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com provides general information about pending litigation and is not legal advice. Allegations in a complaint are not findings of fact or liability. Consult a licensed attorney about your situation.