Stock Markets February 24, 2026

California Seeks Court Order to Halt Amazon’s Alleged Price-Restricting Practices

Attorney General asks judge for preliminary injunction and monitor as antitrust suit accuses Amazon of using merchants to prevent lower prices elsewhere

By Priya Menon
California Seeks Court Order to Halt Amazon’s Alleged Price-Restricting Practices

California’s attorney general has requested a preliminary injunction against Amazon, alleging the company pressured third-party sellers to avoid offering lower prices on rival sites and used access to its Buy Box as leverage. The filing seeks to stop the conduct during litigation and to have a monitor enforce compliance; Amazon says its arrangements are procompetitive and benefit consumers. A trial is scheduled for January 2027.

Key Points

  • California seeks a preliminary injunction to stop alleged Amazon practices that the state says prevent lower retail prices and inflate consumer costs - impacts e-commerce and legal sectors.
  • The attorney general alleges coordinated conduct involving Amazon, rival retailers and merchants to raise prices or make products unavailable on other sites such as eBay, Target and Walmart - impacting online retail competition and merchant relations.
  • Amazon contends its merchant agreements are procompetitive and benefit consumers through increased selection, appropriate stocking and competitive prices - relevant to marketplace governance and consumer-facing operations.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta asked a state court on Tuesday to impose an injunction that would bar Amazon.com from engaging in conduct the state says inflates consumer prices. The request is part of a 3-1/2-year-old antitrust lawsuit in California Superior Court in San Francisco that also seeks to recover profits the state alleges were wrongfully obtained.

In a heavily redacted filing, Bonta argued that Amazon’s practices are intended to shield the company from price competition by directing vendors on the prices they should present so Amazon can preserve its own margins. "Amazon tells vendors what prices it wants to see to maintain its own profitability," the filing states.

The attorney general’s office says it has documented numerous instances in which Amazon, rival platforms and merchants coordinated to avoid price competition. According to the filing, merchants and competing retailers often agreed to raise prices or temporarily remove items from sale, or merchants served as intermediaries in arrangements that ensured Amazon would not be undercut on other websites such as eBay, Target and Walmart.

Bonta’s filing adds that merchants who refused Amazon’s price-related requests were at risk of being cut off from Amazon’s "Buy Box" - the prominent purchase option where shoppers can click "Add to Cart" or "Buy Now." The Buy Box is described in the filing as accounting for the vast majority of sales on Amazon’s site.

The proposed preliminary injunction would bar the conduct the state has identified while the lawsuit proceeds, and would require a monitor to oversee Amazon’s compliance with the court order.

Amazon has pushed back in its court papers, characterizing its agreements with merchants as "procompetitive," common across the industry, and beneficial to consumers by expanding product selection, ensuring appropriate stocking and maintaining competitive prices. The company is contesting the state’s claims.

The lawsuit remains pending, with a trial currently scheduled for January 2027.


Case context and legal step requested

The state’s motion seeks temporary injunctive relief - a courtroom remedy intended to prevent the continuation of the conduct alleged while the broader case is litigated. The filing also requests restitution of profits the state says were obtained through the challenged conduct.

Positions stated

  • California alleges Amazon employed pressure tactics and coordinated practices that eliminated price competition across multiple retail platforms.
  • Amazon maintains that its contractual arrangements with merchants are lawful, industry-standard and procompetitive, contending they lead to broader selection and competitive pricing for shoppers.

Risks

  • Legal uncertainty while the case proceeds through the courts - the outcome could change marketplace rules that affect e-commerce platforms and third-party sellers.
  • Potential operational impacts if a court-imposed monitor or injunction alters how Amazon manages merchant relationships and Buy Box access - this could affect seller access and sales distribution across online channels.

More from Stock Markets

Neuberger Berman Weighs Broader Insurance Role, Considering Life-Asset Purchases Feb 24, 2026 Wolf Research Picks 10 Dividend Aristocrats for Dividend Strength and Stability Feb 24, 2026 Alcoa to Sell 10 Idle Sites to Data Centre Operators, Shares Tick Up Feb 24, 2026 CarGurus Shares Climb as Investor Anxiety Over AI Competition Recedes Feb 24, 2026 Colgate Rejects Push to Remove Diversity Criteria from Board Selection Feb 24, 2026