L-R
Ramniklal Solanki, BBC Asian Network presenter Tommy Sandhu, Rishika Lulla and Shailesh Solanki
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Related News
More For You
How Amazon allegedly used Levi’s and Hanes to push rivals to raise prices
iStock
How Amazon allegedly used Levi’s and Hanes to push rivals to raise prices
Apr 21, 2026
- Court filing alleges Amazon used brands to influence rival pricing
- Levi’s and Hanes cited in internal exchanges over price hikes
- Case adds to growing regulatory pressure on Amazon in the US
Fresh details from a California antitrust lawsuit against Amazon are shedding light on how the company may have handled pricing behind the scenes. Newly unsealed court documents suggest Amazon pressured major brands to intervene with rival retailers when prices dropped elsewhere, raising fresh concerns around Amazon price fixing and competition in online retail.
The filings, part of an ongoing case led by Rob Bonta, offer a closer look at what regulators describe as a structured approach to keeping prices in check across platforms. The case, first filed in 2022, is expected to go to trial in 2027.
Not direct pressure, but through the brands
At the centre of the case is a simple claim. When Amazon spotted lower prices on competing platforms such as Walmart or Target, it did not directly ask those retailers to raise prices. Instead, it allegedly contacted the brands supplying those products and flagged the issue.
The brands would then approach the rival retailers and request price increases. According to the court documents, this chain of communication often resulted in higher prices across platforms.
In one example from 2021, Amazon flagged discounted trousers listed by Levi's on Walmart’s website. The brand later confirmed that Walmart had agreed to raise the price to around £24 ($29.99) as part of what it described as a test, as quoted in a news report. Amazon, which had been selling the same product for less, subsequently matched the higher price.
A similar pattern appeared in communications with Hanes in 2022. After Amazon pointed out lower prices elsewhere, the brand said it had reached out to retailers including Walmart and Target to push prices up.
In another instance, a kitchen appliance from Maxi-Matic was removed from Amazon after being listed at a significantly lower price on another platform. Amazon noted it could not sustain losses at that level, reportedly stated in internal communication. The brand later indicated it had acted with other retailers to address the pricing gap.
California argues that these exchanges show a pattern. “You don’t see price fixing so explicitly… in writing like this,” Bonta said, as quoted in a news report.
Amazon pushes back as scrutiny grows
Amazon has strongly denied the allegations. A company spokesperson said the claims were a “transparent attempt to distract from the weakness of its case,” as quoted in a news report, adding that the company is known for offering low prices to customers.
Other companies mentioned in the filings, including Walmart, declined to comment on ongoing litigation. Several brands, including Levi’s and Hanes, did not respond to queries.
The case comes at a time when Amazon is facing increasing regulatory pressure in the US. The Federal Trade Commission and multiple states have already filed a separate lawsuit accusing the company of maintaining monopoly power and driving up prices.
In another case, Amazon agreed to pay up to £2 billion ($2.5 billion) to settle allegations related to its Prime subscription practices, without admitting wrongdoing.
The outcome of the California lawsuit could hinge on Amazon’s scale. As the largest online retailer in the US, its platform plays a critical role for brands trying to reach customers.
Regulators argue that this influence gave Amazon leverage. If products were removed or made less visible on its platform, the impact on sales could be significant. That, in turn, may have pushed brands to comply when pricing concerns were raised.
The state’s argument is straightforward. If prices remain high across platforms, competition weakens and consumers end up paying more.
For now, the documents offer a detailed look at how pricing discussions may have unfolded behind closed doors. Whether they amount to illegal conduct will be decided in court, but the case is already adding to the broader debate around how much power large tech platforms should hold over the market.
Keep ReadingShow less
