California Attorney General Rob Bonta unsealed court filings Monday alleging that Amazon pressured major retailers, including Walmart and Levi Strauss, into a price-fixing scheme. According to the filing, Amazon leveraged its market dominance to demand that vendors increase prices on competing websites, threatening them with promotion restrictions or removal from Amazon’s platform if they refused.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022 and scheduled for trial next year, represents a significant challenge to Amazon’s market power at a time when consumer affordability is strained. If successful, the case could reshape how dominant technology platforms enforce pricing policies with retailers and suppliers.

The Filing and the Scheme

According to the unsealed filing, Amazon identified products listed at lower prices on competitor websites, then pressured retailers with a specific choice: raise the price or face consequences.

The khaki pants example illustrates the pattern. Amazon sent Levi Strauss links showing the pants priced lower on Walmart.com, saying it “hop(ed) these can get resolved over the next few days.” The next day, Levi Strauss reported having contacted Walmart to raise the price back to $29.99.

The scheme extended across diverse product categories. Home decor, garden products, and pet care items were all allegedly subject to Amazon’s pricing pressure—a pattern suggesting systematic conduct rather than isolated incidents.

“This is about protecting Californians from paying more than they should for everyday products, especially at a time when affordability feels farther and farther out of reach,” Bonta said Monday at a virtual news conference.

The lawsuit was initially filed in 2022 in San Francisco Superior Court. Bonta is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt Amazon’s alleged practices immediately, even before the case goes to trial. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for July, with the full trial scheduled to begin next year.

Amazon’s Defense and Industry Response

Amazon denied the allegations in a statement, calling Bonta’s motion “a transparent attempt to distract from the weakness of its case” with “supposedly ‘new’” evidence.

“Amazon is consistently identified as America’s lowest-priced online retailer, and we’re proud of the low prices customers find when shopping in our store. Amazon looks forward to responding in court at the appropriate time,” the company said.

Walmart declined to comment, saying only that it “will always work hard on behalf of our customers to keep our prices low.” Levi Strauss did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Future Enforcement

Bonta said his office’s focus on Amazon stems from the conclusion that “the unlawful conduct stems from and originates from Amazon.” He reserved the right to pursue other retailers and vendors who may have participated in the alleged scheme.

The case is one of several antitrust challenges to dominant technology and retail platforms, as state and federal authorities increasingly scrutinize market concentration in digital commerce.