Amazon refused to pursue refunds after charging customers extra during President Donald Trump’s later-invalidated tariff policy, a new lawsuit alleges.
Hagens Berman, a Seattle-based law firm that often takes Amazon to court, sued the retailer on May 15 in federal court. It says the company could have sought refunds from the federal government after the U.S. Supreme Court found the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Federal officials have designed a new claims system to repay companies that paid those tariffs. Amazon, the suit says, is not taking part in order to “curry” political favor at the expense of customers, Hagens Berman says.
“The problem is that the funds Amazon is using to stay in the President’s good graces do not belong to Amazon,” the lawsuit states. “These funds were wrongfully taken from consumers to cover IEEPA Tariffs that have since been invalidated.”
The case is styled as a class action lawsuit, and the firm is looking for class members who purchased imported products on Amazon between February 2025 and February 2026. Lead plaintiff Lisa Markland bought a vacuum cleaner made in China and an audio adapter made in Vietnam during that time.
She paid $41.19 for the vacuum, a price higher than before the IEPA tariffs went into effect. The same is said about the $100 she spent on a Belkin SoundForm Connect Airplay Adapter & Receiver.
In April 2025, Amazon announced it would start displaying how much of a product’s cost came from tariffs, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the move “a hostile and political act,” the suit notes. Amazon abandoned that plan.
“Although the plan was never implemented, it demonstrates that Amazon can identify exactly how much of a product’s price was due to the IEEPA tariffs,” the suit says. “And it demonstrates that Amazon has the record-keeping ability to identify each consumer who paid a higher cost due to a Trump tariff.”
Nearly 2,000 importers sought refunds after the Supreme Court’s decision. But the lawsuit says Amazon has heeded Trump’s promise to “remember” companies that don’t take part in the refund program.
“Those funds belong to the consumers who paid them,” the suit says. “Amazon’s use of these funds to curry political favor does not make consumers whole and is not a legally cognizable substitute for the relief sought in this lawsuit.”
The suit charges Amazon with violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and unjust enrichment.
Earlier this year, a federal judge let Hagens Berman’s lawsuit alleging price-gouging by Amazon during the COVID pandemic move forward.
