Amazon Battles Fraud Allegations in Arizona Courtroom Showdown

Amazon faced off against the Arizona Attorney General’s office in state court on Thursday, defending its sales practices amid allegations that its “buy box” feature misleads consumers.

Defense attorney Meredith Dearborn argued that the case presented is devoid of any actual consumer deception, claiming, “This is a consumer fraud case without a single untrue statement or a single deceived customer.” This statement was made during a hearing regarding Amazon’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed in May by Arizona AG Kris Mayes.

In his lawsuit, Mayes contends that Amazon’s buy box misguides shoppers into thinking that the prices displayed through the feature are the best available, potentially violating both state consumer fraud and antitrust laws.

When browsing for a product, users see two main options: “add to cart” or “buy now.” Amazon maintains that the latter is designed to streamline the purchasing process by highlighting the most favorable deal. However, Mayes argues that this approach misleads consumers into believing they are obtaining the lowest price, ultimately leading to confusion.

Dearborn countered these claims, asserting that users can readily view other available prices without any need for scrolling. “Consumers can see in front of their eyes… Other offers are available on the exact same page,” she stated emphatically.

The attorney general’s lawsuit raises additional concerns about the buy box algorithm, suggesting it favors Amazon and sellers using its logistics services. In response, Dearborn described the process as non-deceptive and challenged the state’s shift toward claiming unfairness.

Barbara Mahoney, representing Mayes, countered that most consumers do not see alternative offers, as they typically assume the first option presented by Amazon is the best available. “Amazon banks on consumer inattention,” Mahoney remarked, highlighting a critical point in the state’s argument.

Moreover, the lawsuit addresses Amazon’s seller code of conduct, which allegedly constrains sellers from offering lower prices on other platforms. This practice, which mirrors a policy Amazon abandoned in 2019 to avoid scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission, drew focus during the proceedings. Dearborn clarified that the code is meant to prevent sellers from diverting traffic to other sites, not to enforce price parity across different platforms.

As the hearing concluded, Maricopa County Judge Danielle Viola indicated that her decision on Amazon’s motion to dismiss might extend into the new year.