Loading
Retail
12 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Antitrust, Economics, E-Commerce, Data Science, Consumer Survey
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Western District of Washington
Court:
De Coster et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC, is a nationwide consumer antitrust class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs allege that Amazon used its e-commerce marketplace pricing policies to limit competition and increase the prices consumers paid for products offered by third-party sellers. Amazon denies the allegations, and the court has not determined whether Amazon violated the antitrust laws or whether the certified class is entitled to damages or other relief. On August 6, 2025, Judge John H. Chun certified a nationwide class covering people in the United States who purchased at least five new physical goods from third-party sellers through Amazon’s marketplace on or after May 26, 2017. Plaintiffs’ counsel publicly estimated that the class could include approximately 288 million consumers, while the certification order cited Dr. Parag Pathak’s estimate that approximately 300 million consumers had been affected by Amazon’s conduct. Neither figure represents a final determination of how many consumers satisfy the class definition.
The plaintiffs contend that Amazon’s price-parity or most-favored-nation policy discouraged sellers from offering lower prices on competing platforms, including Walmart, Target, and eBay. They allege that Amazon enforced its pricing expectations through the Featured Offer, formerly known as the Buy Box, along with product-ranking systems and marketplace visibility controls, creating an artificial price floor across multiple online retail platforms. Amazon removed its express Price Parity Clause in March 2019, but the plaintiffs allege that similar anti-discounting effects continued through other marketplace policies and enforcement mechanisms, including Featured Offer disqualification, Standards for Brands, the Seller Code of Conduct, and the Marketplace Fair Pricing Policy.
Elizabeth De Coster and other consumers filed the antitrust lawsuit against Amazon in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs alleged that Amazon imposed marketplace pricing restraints that discouraged third-party sellers from listing products at lower prices on competing websites. They asserted that the alleged conduct restrained competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and supported claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2. The complaint sought relief for consumers who allegedly paid prices above competitive levels for products purchased through Amazon’s third-party marketplace.
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted Amazon’s first motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that Amazon’s conduct qualified as a per se violation of Section 1. The rule-of-reason claim under Section 1 and the monopolization and attempted-monopolization claims under Section 2 remained in the case. At the pleading stage, the court found that the plaintiffs had alleged a sufficiently plausible connection between Amazon’s marketplace policies and higher consumer prices.
The plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint containing additional allegations concerning Amazon’s seller policies and marketplace operations. The amended complaint addressed Amazon’s former Price Parity Clause, Featured Offer eligibility, marketplace fees, and alleged restrictions on prices listed through competing websites. Amazon renewed its request for dismissal of the federal antitrust claims. The amended complaint became the operative pleading for the discovery and class-certification proceedings that followed.
Judge John H. Chun denied Amazon’s renewed motion to dismiss in a sealed order entered on November 19, 2024. A public version was filed on December 3, 2024. The court concluded that the amended allegations were sufficient for the rule-of-reason, monopolization, and attempted-monopolization claims to proceed. The litigation then continued through document discovery, expert analysis, and class-certification briefing.
Following a January 31 hearing, Judge Chun directed Amazon to complete its review of all documents withheld based on attorney-client privilege and provide a final privilege log by February 25, 2025. The court also permitted the plaintiffs to select up to 100 documents from the final privilege log for judicial review.
After reviewing 85 disputed documents, Judge Chun determined that 54 had to be produced in full or with limited redactions. The court found that many of the communications concerned operational, business, public-relations, technical, or strategic matters rather than requests for or provision of legal advice. The order also addressed Amazon’s work-product assertions and requests to retrieve materials that Amazon maintained had been produced by mistake.
Amazon moved to exclude testimony from Dr. Parag Pathak, the plaintiffs’ publicly named economics expert. Dr. Pathak presented analyses concerning Amazon’s alleged marketplace restraints, fees charged to third-party sellers, competitive effects, classwide injury, and proposed damages methods. Amazon challenged his assumptions, economic models, and treatment of differences among sellers, products, and individual transactions. Judge Chun denied the motion and considered Dr. Pathak’s analysis during the class-certification proceedings.
Judge Chun selected retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte to serve as special discovery master. Her assigned responsibilities included disputes involving attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, waiver, document redactions, and the retrieval of materials allegedly produced by mistake.
Judge Chun certified a nationwide consumer class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The class consists of people in the United States who, on or after May 26, 2017, purchased at least five new physical goods from third-party sellers through Amazon’s marketplace.
The court found that the plaintiffs had presented common evidence capable of addressing Amazon’s challenged marketplace policies, the alleged effects of those policies on competition, and the claimed injury to consumers. The certification analysis included opinions from Dr. Pathak and Amazon’s publicly named economics expert, Dr. Loren Hitt. The estimates of approximately 288 million potential class members and approximately 300 million affected consumers remain estimates rather than a final class count. Class certification determines whether the claims may proceed collectively under Rule 23; it does not decide whether Amazon is liable.
The plaintiffs requested information concerning economists, scholars, and research organizations whose work had allegedly been requested, financed, or edited by Amazon. They asserted that Dr. Hitt relied on research connected to authors or organizations that had financial or other relationships with the company. The court ordered Amazon to produce responsive, nonprivileged information concerning the identified research and related economic opinions. The requested discovery covered communications, funding arrangements, editing activity, and other connections associated with the cited work.
Amazon petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the class-certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, leaving the certified class in place while the case continued in the district court. The denial prevented an immediate interlocutory appeal of the certification ruling but did not determine the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or foreclose appellate review after a final judgment.
Judge Chun moved the trial from its earlier October 5, 2026 date to June 14, 2027 after finding that Amazon had shown good cause to reset the trial. The court directed the parties to confer and submit a revised pretrial schedule. The scheduled trial date remains subject to later court orders.
Judge Chun approved the proposed form and manner of notice to members of the certified class, subject to modifications required by the court. The court later adjusted deadlines connected to the production and review of class-member data before notice began.
After the class administrator approved the data needed for the notice program, Judge Chun set June 1, 2026 as the notice-start date and August 31, 2026 as the deadline for eligible consumers to request exclusion from the certified class.
The court-authorized notice states that eligible consumers who do not request exclusion will remain part of the class and will be bound by the outcome of the litigation.
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Case Name:
De Coster et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Economic Analysis
Econometrics
Microeconomics
Monopolization
Marketplace Pricing
De Coster et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC, is a nationwide consumer antitrust class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs allege that Amazon used its e-commerce marketplace pricing policies to limit competition and increase the prices consumers paid for products offered by third-party sellers. Amazon denies the allegations, and the court has not determined whether Amazon violated the antitrust laws or whether the certified class is entitled to damages or other relief. On August 6, 2025, Judge John H. Chun certified a nationwide class covering people in the United States who purchased at least five new physical goods from third-party sellers through Amazon’s marketplace on or after May 26, 2017. Plaintiffs’ counsel publicly estimated that the class could include approximately 288 million consumers, while the certification order cited Dr. Parag Pathak’s estimate that approximately 300 million consumers had been affected by Amazon’s conduct. Neither figure represents a final determination of how many consumers satisfy the class definition.
The plaintiffs contend that Amazon’s price-parity or most-favored-nation policy discouraged sellers from offering lower prices on competing platforms, including Walmart, Target, and eBay. They allege that Amazon enforced its pricing expectations through the Featured Offer, formerly known as the Buy Box, along with product-ranking systems and marketplace visibility controls, creating an artificial price floor across multiple online retail platforms. Amazon removed its express Price Parity Clause in March 2019, but the plaintiffs allege that similar anti-discounting effects continued through other marketplace policies and enforcement mechanisms, including Featured Offer disqualification, Standards for Brands, the Seller Code of Conduct, and the Marketplace Fair Pricing Policy.
Elizabeth De Coster and other consumers filed the antitrust lawsuit against Amazon in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs alleged that Amazon imposed marketplace pricing restraints that discouraged third-party sellers from listing products at lower prices on competing websites. They asserted that the alleged conduct restrained competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and supported claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2. The complaint sought relief for consumers who allegedly paid prices above competitive levels for products purchased through Amazon’s third-party marketplace.
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted Amazon’s first motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that Amazon’s conduct qualified as a per se violation of Section 1. The rule-of-reason claim under Section 1 and the monopolization and attempted-monopolization claims under Section 2 remained in the case. At the pleading stage, the court found that the plaintiffs had alleged a sufficiently plausible connection between Amazon’s marketplace policies and higher consumer prices.
The plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint containing additional allegations concerning Amazon’s seller policies and marketplace operations. The amended complaint addressed Amazon’s former Price Parity Clause, Featured Offer eligibility, marketplace fees, and alleged restrictions on prices listed through competing websites. Amazon renewed its request for dismissal of the federal antitrust claims. The amended complaint became the operative pleading for the discovery and class-certification proceedings that followed.
Judge John H. Chun denied Amazon’s renewed motion to dismiss in a sealed order entered on November 19, 2024. A public version was filed on December 3, 2024. The court concluded that the amended allegations were sufficient for the rule-of-reason, monopolization, and attempted-monopolization claims to proceed. The litigation then continued through document discovery, expert analysis, and class-certification briefing.
Following a January 31 hearing, Judge Chun directed Amazon to complete its review of all documents withheld based on attorney-client privilege and provide a final privilege log by February 25, 2025. The court also permitted the plaintiffs to select up to 100 documents from the final privilege log for judicial review.
After reviewing 85 disputed documents, Judge Chun determined that 54 had to be produced in full or with limited redactions. The court found that many of the communications concerned operational, business, public-relations, technical, or strategic matters rather than requests for or provision of legal advice. The order also addressed Amazon’s work-product assertions and requests to retrieve materials that Amazon maintained had been produced by mistake.
Amazon moved to exclude testimony from Dr. Parag Pathak, the plaintiffs’ publicly named economics expert. Dr. Pathak presented analyses concerning Amazon’s alleged marketplace restraints, fees charged to third-party sellers, competitive effects, classwide injury, and proposed damages methods. Amazon challenged his assumptions, economic models, and treatment of differences among sellers, products, and individual transactions. Judge Chun denied the motion and considered Dr. Pathak’s analysis during the class-certification proceedings.
Judge Chun selected retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte to serve as special discovery master. Her assigned responsibilities included disputes involving attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, waiver, document redactions, and the retrieval of materials allegedly produced by mistake.
Judge Chun certified a nationwide consumer class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The class consists of people in the United States who, on or after May 26, 2017, purchased at least five new physical goods from third-party sellers through Amazon’s marketplace.
The court found that the plaintiffs had presented common evidence capable of addressing Amazon’s challenged marketplace policies, the alleged effects of those policies on competition, and the claimed injury to consumers. The certification analysis included opinions from Dr. Pathak and Amazon’s publicly named economics expert, Dr. Loren Hitt. The estimates of approximately 288 million potential class members and approximately 300 million affected consumers remain estimates rather than a final class count. Class certification determines whether the claims may proceed collectively under Rule 23; it does not decide whether Amazon is liable.
The plaintiffs requested information concerning economists, scholars, and research organizations whose work had allegedly been requested, financed, or edited by Amazon. They asserted that Dr. Hitt relied on research connected to authors or organizations that had financial or other relationships with the company. The court ordered Amazon to produce responsive, nonprivileged information concerning the identified research and related economic opinions. The requested discovery covered communications, funding arrangements, editing activity, and other connections associated with the cited work.
Amazon petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the class-certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, leaving the certified class in place while the case continued in the district court. The denial prevented an immediate interlocutory appeal of the certification ruling but did not determine the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or foreclose appellate review after a final judgment.
Judge Chun moved the trial from its earlier October 5, 2026 date to June 14, 2027 after finding that Amazon had shown good cause to reset the trial. The court directed the parties to confer and submit a revised pretrial schedule. The scheduled trial date remains subject to later court orders.
Judge Chun approved the proposed form and manner of notice to members of the certified class, subject to modifications required by the court. The court later adjusted deadlines connected to the production and review of class-member data before notice began.
After the class administrator approved the data needed for the notice program, Judge Chun set June 1, 2026 as the notice-start date and August 31, 2026 as the deadline for eligible consumers to request exclusion from the certified class.
The court-authorized notice states that eligible consumers who do not request exclusion will remain part of the class and will be bound by the outcome of the litigation.
In a separate action, the Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general filed FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc. in September 2023. The group of government plaintiffs later expanded, and the FTC’s current case materials identify the FTC, 18 state attorneys general, and Puerto Rico as plaintiffs.
The government plaintiffs allege that Amazon unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the online superstore market and the market for online marketplace services. The FTC complaint addresses conduct also raised in De Coster v. Amazon, including anti-discounting policies, seller restrictions, marketplace pricing practices, and seller fees.
The FTC action also includes separate allegations concerning Amazon’s alleged practice of generally conditioning Prime eligibility on sellers’ use of Fulfillment by Amazon, or FBA, and the pricing algorithm known as Project Nessie. The government action seeks injunctive and potentially structural remedies directed at Amazon’s marketplace operations.
The FTC lawsuit and De Coster remain separate proceedings. De Coster is a private consumer class action seeking monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of qualifying purchasers. The FTC case is a government enforcement action involving allegations of monopoly maintenance in the online superstore and online marketplace-services markets.
1. Economics Expert Witness (Plaintiff and Defense)
Dr. Parag Pathak presented economic analyses for the plaintiffs concerning Amazon’s alleged marketplace restraints, seller fees, classwide injury, and proposed damages methods. Dr. Loren Hitt presented economic opinions for Amazon addressing differences among sellers, products, prices, fees, and individual marketplace transactions. Their competing analyses were considered during the class-certification proceedings.
2. Antitrust Expert Witness
Antitrust experts may analyze the markets in which Amazon and third-party sellers operate, Amazon’s alleged market power, marketplace fees, and the competitive effects of the challenged anti-discounting policies. In this litigation, those analyses may include the relationship between seller fees and retail prices, whether Amazon’s policies restricted price competition on other websites, and whether common economic evidence can measure alleged consumer injury.
3. E-Commerce and Marketplace Expert Witness
E-commerce experts may examine how Amazon’s third-party marketplace operates, including seller rules, product rankings, Featured Offer eligibility, and marketplace visibility. Their work may address whether policies such as Featured Offer disqualification, Standards for Brands, the Seller Code of Conduct, and the Marketplace Fair Pricing Policy affected seller pricing decisions or product placement across multiple retail websites.
4. Data Science and Algorithm Expert Witness
Data science and algorithm experts may assess transaction records, price-comparison systems, ranking tools, and marketplace analytics. Their analyses could address how Amazon’s systems identified lower off-platform prices, how those findings affected Featured Offer eligibility or product visibility, and whether transaction-level data support common methods for evaluating consumer purchases and alleged price effects.
5. Consumer Behavior Expert Witness
Consumer behavior experts may examine how Featured Offer placement, rankings, search results, price information, and other platform cues affect purchasing decisions. Their work could evaluate whether consumers are more likely to purchase an offer selected for prominent placement and how changes in product visibility may affect sales through Amazon’s marketplace.
1. Sherman Act Section 1 Claims
The plaintiffs allege that Amazon imposed unlawful restraints on competition through marketplace pricing and anti-discounting policies. The remaining Section 1 claim is being evaluated under the rule of reason, which examines the alleged restraint within the conditions of the relevant market. The plaintiffs’ earlier per se claim was dismissed in January 2023.
2. Sherman Act Section 2 Claims
The operative complaint includes claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization. These claims address Amazon’s alleged market power and its conduct toward third-party sellers and competing online marketplaces. The disputed questions include market definition, monopoly power, exclusionary conduct, competitive effects, and causation.
3. Rule 23 Class Certification
The court certified the consumer class after finding that the plaintiffs satisfied the applicable requirements under Rule 23. The certification analysis addressed commonality, predominance, common economic evidence, and methods for evaluating alleged consumer injury. The court also considered whether the plaintiffs’ proposed economic methods could address central questions across the certified class.
Certification permits the qualifying claims to proceed on a classwide basis. It does not establish that Amazon violated the Sherman Act or that every person who may fall within the class definition suffered compensable injury.
4. Discovery and Attorney-Client Privilege
The discovery proceedings addressed the distinction between ordinary business communications and communications made primarily to request or provide legal advice. The court required Amazon to complete an additional privilege review and provide a final privilege log. After reviewing a sample of disputed documents, the court ordered certain materials to be produced in full or with limited redactions. It later appointed a special discovery master to address continuing privilege, work-product, waiver, and document-production disputes.
5. Economic Models and Marketplace Data
The class-certification proceedings included statistical models, marketplace transaction records, seller-fee data, retail price comparisons, and analyses of alleged classwide impact. The parties presented competing opinions concerning whether common evidence could measure consumer injury and damages. Classwide injury methodology and the calculation of individual damages are related but distinct questions, and both may be addressed through later expert motions, dispositive proceedings, and trial testimony.
De Coster v. Amazon remains active after nationwide class certification, the Ninth Circuit’s denial of immediate Rule 23(f) review, and approval of the class-notice program. Court-authorized notice began on June 1, 2026, and the deadline for eligible consumers to request exclusion is August 31, 2026.
The case is currently scheduled for trial on June 14, 2027. Before trial, the parties may address further expert challenges, dispositive motions, evidentiary issues, and other pretrial matters. The scheduled date and remaining deadlines are subject to later court orders.
The disputed issues include market definition, monopoly power, competitive effects, causation, classwide injury, damages, and the operation of Amazon’s marketplace pricing and seller policies. The court has not decided whether Amazon is liable or whether the certified class is entitled to monetary or injunctive relief.
Who qualifies for the De Coster v. Amazon class action?
The certified class includes consumers in the United States who purchased five or more new physical goods from third-party sellers through Amazon’s marketplace on or after May 26, 2017.
The class excludes Amazon and certain affiliated people and entities, assigned judges and specified judicial personnel, governmental entities, people already pursuing specified Amazon most-favored-nation antitrust claims individually before the American Arbitration Association, consumers whose purchases consisted of used goods, digital goods, or prescription products, and people who properly request exclusion. Class membership remains subject to the complete qualifications and exclusions contained in the court’s certification order and class notice.
How many consumers are included in the Amazon antitrust class?
Plaintiffs’ counsel estimated that the class could include approximately 288 million consumers, while Dr. Pathak estimated that approximately 300 million consumers had been affected by the challenged conduct. The court did not adopt either estimate as the final number of consumers who satisfy the certified class definition. The final count depends on Amazon purchase records, the five-purchase requirement, applicable exclusions, and valid exclusion requests.
What compensation or relief are the plaintiffs seeking?
The plaintiffs seek treble damages under federal antitrust law and injunctive relief addressing Amazon’s challenged marketplace pricing and seller policies. Any recovery will depend on the outcome of the litigation, a future settlement, and additional court proceedings. No money or benefits are currently available to class members.
What is the current status of De Coster v. Amazon, and when is the trial?
The case remains active. Class notice began on June 1, 2026, and the deadline to request exclusion is August 31, 2026. Trial is currently scheduled for June 14, 2027, subject to later court orders.
In a separate action, the Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general filed FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc. in September 2023. The group of government plaintiffs later expanded, and the FTC’s current case materials identify the FTC, 18 state attorneys general, and Puerto Rico as plaintiffs.
The government plaintiffs allege that Amazon unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the online superstore market and the market for online marketplace services. The FTC complaint addresses conduct also raised in De Coster v. Amazon, including anti-discounting policies, seller restrictions, marketplace pricing practices, and seller fees.
The FTC action also includes separate allegations concerning Amazon’s alleged practice of generally conditioning Prime eligibility on sellers’ use of Fulfillment by Amazon, or FBA, and the pricing algorithm known as Project Nessie. The government action seeks injunctive and potentially structural remedies directed at Amazon’s marketplace operations.
The FTC lawsuit and De Coster remain separate proceedings. De Coster is a private consumer class action seeking monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of qualifying purchasers. The FTC case is a government enforcement action involving allegations of monopoly maintenance in the online superstore and online marketplace-services markets.
1. Economics Expert Witness (Plaintiff and Defense)
Dr. Parag Pathak presented economic analyses for the plaintiffs concerning Amazon’s alleged marketplace restraints, seller fees, classwide injury, and proposed damages methods. Dr. Loren Hitt presented economic opinions for Amazon addressing differences among sellers, products, prices, fees, and individual marketplace transactions. Their competing analyses were considered during the class-certification proceedings.
2. Antitrust Expert Witness
Antitrust experts may analyze the markets in which Amazon and third-party sellers operate, Amazon’s alleged market power, marketplace fees, and the competitive effects of the challenged anti-discounting policies. In this litigation, those analyses may include the relationship between seller fees and retail prices, whether Amazon’s policies restricted price competition on other websites, and whether common economic evidence can measure alleged consumer injury.
3. E-Commerce and Marketplace Expert Witness
E-commerce experts may examine how Amazon’s third-party marketplace operates, including seller rules, product rankings, Featured Offer eligibility, and marketplace visibility. Their work may address whether policies such as Featured Offer disqualification, Standards for Brands, the Seller Code of Conduct, and the Marketplace Fair Pricing Policy affected seller pricing decisions or product placement across multiple retail websites.
4. Data Science and Algorithm Expert Witness
Data science and algorithm experts may assess transaction records, price-comparison systems, ranking tools, and marketplace analytics. Their analyses could address how Amazon’s systems identified lower off-platform prices, how those findings affected Featured Offer eligibility or product visibility, and whether transaction-level data support common methods for evaluating consumer purchases and alleged price effects.
5. Consumer Behavior Expert Witness
Consumer behavior experts may examine how Featured Offer placement, rankings, search results, price information, and other platform cues affect purchasing decisions. Their work could evaluate whether consumers are more likely to purchase an offer selected for prominent placement and how changes in product visibility may affect sales through Amazon’s marketplace.
1. Sherman Act Section 1 Claims
The plaintiffs allege that Amazon imposed unlawful restraints on competition through marketplace pricing and anti-discounting policies. The remaining Section 1 claim is being evaluated under the rule of reason, which examines the alleged restraint within the conditions of the relevant market. The plaintiffs’ earlier per se claim was dismissed in January 2023.
2. Sherman Act Section 2 Claims
The operative complaint includes claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization. These claims address Amazon’s alleged market power and its conduct toward third-party sellers and competing online marketplaces. The disputed questions include market definition, monopoly power, exclusionary conduct, competitive effects, and causation.
3. Rule 23 Class Certification
The court certified the consumer class after finding that the plaintiffs satisfied the applicable requirements under Rule 23. The certification analysis addressed commonality, predominance, common economic evidence, and methods for evaluating alleged consumer injury. The court also considered whether the plaintiffs’ proposed economic methods could address central questions across the certified class.
Certification permits the qualifying claims to proceed on a classwide basis. It does not establish that Amazon violated the Sherman Act or that every person who may fall within the class definition suffered compensable injury.
4. Discovery and Attorney-Client Privilege
The discovery proceedings addressed the distinction between ordinary business communications and communications made primarily to request or provide legal advice. The court required Amazon to complete an additional privilege review and provide a final privilege log. After reviewing a sample of disputed documents, the court ordered certain materials to be produced in full or with limited redactions. It later appointed a special discovery master to address continuing privilege, work-product, waiver, and document-production disputes.
5. Economic Models and Marketplace Data
The class-certification proceedings included statistical models, marketplace transaction records, seller-fee data, retail price comparisons, and analyses of alleged classwide impact. The parties presented competing opinions concerning whether common evidence could measure consumer injury and damages. Classwide injury methodology and the calculation of individual damages are related but distinct questions, and both may be addressed through later expert motions, dispositive proceedings, and trial testimony.
De Coster v. Amazon remains active after nationwide class certification, the Ninth Circuit’s denial of immediate Rule 23(f) review, and approval of the class-notice program. Court-authorized notice began on June 1, 2026, and the deadline for eligible consumers to request exclusion is August 31, 2026.
The case is currently scheduled for trial on June 14, 2027. Before trial, the parties may address further expert challenges, dispositive motions, evidentiary issues, and other pretrial matters. The scheduled date and remaining deadlines are subject to later court orders.
The disputed issues include market definition, monopoly power, competitive effects, causation, classwide injury, damages, and the operation of Amazon’s marketplace pricing and seller policies. The court has not decided whether Amazon is liable or whether the certified class is entitled to monetary or injunctive relief.
Who qualifies for the De Coster v. Amazon class action?
The certified class includes consumers in the United States who purchased five or more new physical goods from third-party sellers through Amazon’s marketplace on or after May 26, 2017.
The class excludes Amazon and certain affiliated people and entities, assigned judges and specified judicial personnel, governmental entities, people already pursuing specified Amazon most-favored-nation antitrust claims individually before the American Arbitration Association, consumers whose purchases consisted of used goods, digital goods, or prescription products, and people who properly request exclusion. Class membership remains subject to the complete qualifications and exclusions contained in the court’s certification order and class notice.
How many consumers are included in the Amazon antitrust class?
Plaintiffs’ counsel estimated that the class could include approximately 288 million consumers, while Dr. Pathak estimated that approximately 300 million consumers had been affected by the challenged conduct. The court did not adopt either estimate as the final number of consumers who satisfy the certified class definition. The final count depends on Amazon purchase records, the five-purchase requirement, applicable exclusions, and valid exclusion requests.
What compensation or relief are the plaintiffs seeking?
The plaintiffs seek treble damages under federal antitrust law and injunctive relief addressing Amazon’s challenged marketplace pricing and seller policies. Any recovery will depend on the outcome of the litigation, a future settlement, and additional court proceedings. No money or benefits are currently available to class members.
What is the current status of De Coster v. Amazon, and when is the trial?
The case remains active. Class notice began on June 1, 2026, and the deadline to request exclusion is August 31, 2026. Trial is currently scheduled for June 14, 2027, subject to later court orders.
What laws are involved in the Amazon antitrust lawsuit?
The remaining claims arise under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. They include a rule-of-reason restraint-of-trade claim under Section 1 and claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2.
Economic Analysis
Econometrics
Microeconomics
Monopolization
Marketplace Pricing
Elevator & Escalator, +4
Retail
Product Liability, +4
Retail
What laws are involved in the Amazon antitrust lawsuit?
The remaining claims arise under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. They include a rule-of-reason restraint-of-trade claim under Section 1 and claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2.