California Attorney General Rob Bonta revealed new court filings on Monday that, according to the state, document efforts by Amazon.com to prompt retailers and third-party merchants to raise prices on certain items so that Amazon would not be undercut on its own marketplace listings. The evidence was unsealed as part of a 3 1/2-year-old antitrust lawsuit filed by the state, which aims to recover what Bonta has called ill-gotten profits.
The lawsuit names Amazon as the sole defendant and seeks both monetary recovery and injunctive relief to halt the practices while the case proceeds. A trial date has been set for January 19, 2027, and a hearing concerning the requested injunction is scheduled for July 23.
Specific instances cited
In its filing to San Francisco Superior Court, California lays out dozens of alleged examples in which Amazon expressed concern about lower prices and merchants or competitors subsequently lifted their prices. The filing cites a range of consumer goods, including khaki pants, fertilizer, eye drops and dog treats, and it attributes changes in retail pricing to communications involving Amazon.
One cited episode involves Levi Strauss. According to the filing, Levi Strauss sought to persuade Walmart to raise the price of Easy Khaki Classic pants to $29.99 after Amazon flagged Walmart’s initial $25.47 price. In another instance, the state says Amazon complained about lower fertilizer prices and Home Depot agreed "to raise the prices this time."
The filing also describes outreach to Allergan, now part of AbbVie, in which Amazon reportedly checked whether Walmart would list a bottle of eye drops for $16.99 so Amazon would avoid a price match at $13.59. Separately, the state recounts an effort to disrupt a price match with Chewy relating to Canine Naturals pet treats; an intermediary merchant observed that prices that rose on Amazon "immediately went up on Chewy," adding a smiley-face emoji and noting, "Overall this looks like it’s working!"
Responses and positioning
California quoted Attorney General Bonta as saying, "Amazon is illegally working to rake in the profits by making sure consumers have nowhere else to turn to for lower prices." The filing was unsealed on Monday and the Seattle-based retailer did not immediately respond to requests for comment, the state noted.
In materials cited by the state, Amazon argues that its agreements with merchants are lawful and that they provide benefits to consumers through broader product selection, improved stocking and competitive pricing. The filings also note that Amazon’s revenue in 2025 surpassed that of Walmart, which long held the title of the world’s largest retailer by revenue.
Legal posture and next steps
Beyond seeking to recover alleged ill-gotten gains, Bonta has asked the court for an injunction to prevent the conduct while the litigation is pending. The state’s filing of specific instances is part of the evidentiary record that will underpin the case ahead of the January 2027 trial; a July 23 hearing will consider the preliminary injunction request.
What this means for markets and consumers
The unsealed filing frames the dispute as one over pricing conduct on a major online marketplace and its interactions with large national retailers and brand owners. The allegations, if proven, speak directly to pricing dynamics in e-commerce and to how merchant agreements and competitive responses can influence consumer prices across multiple retail channels.