Berman
SEATTLE – A federal judge will allow price-gouging claims to continue against Amazon, in a lawsuit that in 2024 featured a first-of-its-kind ruling that gave plaintiff lawyers a new way to sue.
Seattle judge Robert Lasnik yesterday denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the class action firm Hagens Berman, which alleges the online retailer unlawfully hiked up prices during the COVID pandemic.
Plaintiff Alvin Greenberg said he paid $58 for three bottles of Clorox bleach during a shelter-in-place order – a price that represented a 168% increase from January 2020, before the disease spread worldwide.
“This is a significant victory for consumers who allege that Amazon made billions in excess profits during the pandemic,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.
“As Judge Lasnik noted in his order, Amazon’s internal documents show that the company recognized price gouging as a harmful force to consumers, such that it specifically designed systems to address such excessive pricing and represented to the Washington Attorney General that it was actively protecting consumers from it.”
Lasnik had previously asked the Washington Supreme Court to address whether price-gouging is an unfair trade practice under the state’s Consumer Protection Act. In April 2024, the court said it is.
A dissenting justice lamented that Washington’s became the first state supreme court to recognize such a claim for damages.
"The decision about whether to create such a claim and whether to include other market-based elements or defenses should be based on economic policy considerations; weighing those numerous, difficult, competing considerations is the job of the legislature, not the courts,” Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote.
Still, the majority’s ruling gave Hagens Berman the power to pursue those CPA claims in federal court. Amazon moved to strike class action allegations and the case entirely, which was opposed by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown.
AG Brown intervened in the case to defend the Washington Supreme Court’s decision on price-gouging, which was called “unconstitutionally vague” by Amazon.
“The Washington Supreme Court’s ruling is a straightforward interpretation of state law,” Brown’s brief said.
“Indeed, Amazon publicly opposes price-gouging on its platforms and has pointed its customers and sellers to Washington Attorney General’s Office statements that such conduct violates the CPA as support for its stance.
“Amazon’s argument that the CPA as construed by the Washington Supreme Court is both facially and specifically void for vagueness is a constitutional Hail Mary that defies common sense and the facts in the record.”
Lasnik agreed, finding the complaint adequately alleged price-gouging, though he wrote a “price increase during a declared emergency is not enough to establish that the increase is unfair.” Whether Amazon’s increased prices were unfair will be debated as the litigation continues.
The complaint also adequately alleges Amazon had the ability to implement systems that would root out price-gouging on its platform, Lasnik wrote.
