California Attorney General Rob Bonta is asking a San Francisco judge to put Amazon on a short legal leash, pushing for an order that would stop the company from pressuring merchants to keep prices artificially high while a major antitrust fight plays out. The request, a motion for a preliminary injunction in a 3½-year-old lawsuit, aims to both claw back what the state calls ill-gotten profits and force changes to how the online giant runs its marketplace. The full trial is not set to begin until January 2027.
What California Says It Found
In court papers highlighted by the California Department of Justice, Bonta's office says its motion, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, is meant to shut down what it bluntly calls a campaign to bully merchants into jacking up retail prices. The state wants a judge to appoint an independent monitor to keep tabs on Amazon while the case is underway.
According to the filing, discovery in the case turned up countless instances in which Amazon, merchants and competing retailers allegedly coordinated to raise prices or temporarily pull products so Amazon would not be undercut. The motion also says sellers who balked at Amazon's demands were threatened with losing prime placement in the site's all-important Buy Box, a move that can gut a merchant's sales almost overnight.
Why The Buy Box Matters
California argues that the Buy Box, the familiar Add to Cart and Buy Now section, is a powerful choke point that steers the bulk of Amazon purchases and gives the company major leverage over sellers. The state says that leverage is used to keep merchants from offering lower prices that would undercut Amazon's own listings.
According to Reuters, the proposed injunction would freeze the practices California is challenging and put Amazon under court supervision while the case moves forward. The motion portrays that step as necessary to prevent more consumer harm in the years before trial.
Amazon's Response
Amazon is not exactly conceding. The company insists its arrangements with merchants are pro-competitive and argues that sellers ultimately control their own prices, a line it has repeated in court filings and public statements.
In a statement quoted by Engadget, Amazon said California has it exactly backwards and warned that the kind of court order Bonta wants could actually push prices higher for shoppers instead of bringing them down.
How This Fits Into A Broader Fight
The California case is part of a growing pile of state and federal challenges to how Amazon uses its market power. The allegations echo a similar lawsuit from the District of Columbia that a judge tossed in 2022, a reminder that these kinds of cases are anything but slam dunks.
When California first filed its complaint in 2022, coverage focused on claims that Amazon strong-arms merchants into contracts that blunt price competition off the platform. SFist noted the central role of the Buy Box in that theory, describing how control over that slot gives Amazon serious negotiating power with sellers.
Legal Implications
In its latest motion, the state is asking the court to bar Amazon from engaging in explicit price-fixing, to block communications that pressure vendors into pricing deals, and to install a court-appointed monitor to police compliance as the case unfolds, according to the California Department of Justice.
If the judge grants the preliminary injunction, Amazon could be restricted from enforcing the contested contract provisions until the lawsuit is resolved, while California seeks to recover what it calls ill-gotten gains at trial. Given Amazon's enormous customer base, including hundreds of millions of Prime members, any court order in this case would likely send shock waves through online retail and the economics of third-party selling.
What's Next In Court
The state lodged its motion for an injunction yesterday. Amazon will get its say in written arguments before a San Francisco judge decides whether to impose temporary limits on the company's conduct while the case proceeds.
Reuters reports that the trial is scheduled for January 2027, leaving both sides with months to dig through more evidence and sharpen their legal and economic arguments before they square off in court.
