A San Francisco Superior Court judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction sought by the California attorney general’s office in its antitrust case against Amazon.com Inc., finding that the requested relief arrived late in the litigation and was not supported by a substantial showing of ongoing conduct. The dispute centers on allegations that Amazon maintains an artificial price floor by pressuring sellers and, in a later established evidence, by leveraging relationships with major brands to influence downstream pricing at other retailers. While the court acknowledged that the evidentiary record raised questions about certain historic communications, it concluded the state had not met the prerequisites for extraordinary interim relief ahead of a January 2027 trial.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the Court’s Denial
On Thursday, Superior Court Judge Ethan P. Schulman refused to block the alleged conduct on a preliminary basis, concluding that a permanent injunction request at trial would be the more appropriate procedural vehicle. The court evaluated the state’s bid for interim relief within an antitrust case first filed in September 2022, with a trial currently set to begin on January 19, 2027. In denying the motion, the judge emphasized that preliminary injunctive relief requires a substantial showing that the challenged conduct is ongoing or likely to recur absent court intervention.
Judge Schulman found that the state’s evidentiary presentation did not satisfy that threshold. The ruling described the record as largely anchored in materials dated 2019 through 2022, with only one exhibit from 2023 and none from 2024-2026. The court also characterized the evidence as limited—focused on email exchanges involving just over a couple of dozen vendors—against the backdrop of Amazon’s undisputed size. In the court’s view, the absence of persuasive proof of current or imminent conduct was dispositive, regardless of whether earlier communications could be construed as raising serious antitrust concerns.
Alleged Price-Floor Effects Through Platform Policies and Brand Relationships
The underlying lawsuit challenges Amazon’s practices regarding third-party sellers, including allegations that merchants face consequences—such as loss of buy box access—if they offer lower prices on other platforms. The attorney general’s office has portrayed this as coercive price-fixing that effectively creates a price floor across online retail channels. The motion at issue arose from an additional theory advanced in February, when the state asserted it had uncovered evidence that Amazon used relationships with major brands, including Levi Strauss & Co. and Hanesbrands Inc., to pressure retailers such as Walmart and Target Corp. to increase prices on certain products.
Amazon disputed the characterization of these communications and argued that the price-fixing narrative relied on a narrow slice of the discovery record. In opposing preliminary relief, Amazon maintained that enforcers were distorting a handful of emails involving four vendors, in a case where nearly a million vendor communications were produced. The judge’s order reflected skepticism that the state had demonstrated the type of present, continuing conduct necessary for interim relief, particularly where the submitted record was dominated by older materials and offered little support that the asserted conduct was ongoing at the time of the motion.
Pleading Scope, Cartwright Act Standards, and Case Posture Heading to Trial
Although the court denied the injunction, Judge Schulman rejected Amazon’s contention that the state was procedurally barred from seeking injunctive relief based on inconsistency with the operative complaint. The ruling concluded that the attorney general’s office could pursue an injunction under the complaint as filed. The judge pointed to allegations that Amazon’s agreements with first-party wholesale suppliers constituted contracts and/or combinations in restraint of trade under California’s Cartwright Act. The court further noted that the state was not required to plead evidentiary facts to state a legally sufficient claim.
At the same time, the court criticized the state’s continued framing of the challenged conduct as a per se Cartwright Act violation. Judge Schulman referenced his prior order rejecting per se illegality in favor of rule-of-reason analysis, which allows consideration of procompetitive justifications. The ruling stated that the state reasserted its per se position in the injunction briefing without addressing the court’s earlier reasoning and authorities. The decision also took account of timing and case management concerns, finding that the February request—made long after the September 2022 filing—created practical risks to trial preparation and the court’s ability to conduct the proceeding efficiently.
Discovery Record, Timing Concerns, and Parallel Enforcement Actions
Judge Schulman rejected arguments that the thinness of recent evidence resulted from Amazon’s production decisions, stating that the state’s apparent decision to forego discovery into more recent conduct was its own choice and could not excuse failure to meet the prerequisites for extraordinary relief. The ruling emphasized that formal document discovery concluded in 2024, and that many deposition excerpts cited by the state came from depositions taken in the summer and fall of 2025. The court found those excerpts supplied little, if any, evidence that the complained-of conduct was ongoing or likely to recur unless enjoined.
The decision also underscored the practical impact of a late-stage preliminary injunction request. Judge Schulman stated that granting the motion would require careful crafting of a narrow and clear order, potentially disrupting the parties’ and the court’s ability to prepare for the January 2027 trial and jeopardizing timely resolution. The California attorney general’s office said it was disappointed but intended to prove its case at trial and maintained its view that Amazon’s conduct harms consumers. Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Amazon is represented in part by Covington & Burling LLP and part by Williams & Connolly. Separately, the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit against Amazon is set for trial in March in Washington federal court, reflecting broader scrutiny of similar allegations involving online retail pricing dynamics.
