A Washington federal court has again refused to revive a proposed consumer class action alleging that Apple and Amazon unlawfully restrained competition in the sale of iPhones and iPads through an agreement affecting third-party resellers on Amazon’s platforms. The ruling turns less on antitrust merits than on case-management and counsel-conduct issues that emerged after the original named plaintiff sought to exit the litigation. U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson denied a motion for reconsideration, concluding that plaintiffs failed to show extraordinary circumstances or clear error in the court’s earlier dismissal. The decision underscores how diligence, timing, and candor in seeking plaintiff substitutions can determine whether a putative class action proceeds.
Alleged Restraints on iPhone and iPad Resales
The lawsuit began in 2022 with Steven Floyd as the sole named plaintiff, asserting that Apple and Amazon entered a pact that restricted competition by eliminating third-party Apple resellers from Amazon’s marketplaces. According to the complaint’s theory, the alleged arrangement reduced consumer choice and affected pricing and availability for Apple devices sold through the platform. The case was framed as a putative class action on behalf of consumers who allegedly paid higher prices or faced diminished competitive options due to the challenged conduct.
Procedurally, the litigation later shifted toward whether the suit could continue once Floyd no longer wished to serve as the representative plaintiff. In May 2024, the court allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding two new consumers—Jolene Furdek and Jonathan Ryan—based on the understanding that Floyd would remain a member of the putative class even if he ceased to be the lead. The court later concluded that this understanding was undermined by Floyd’s earlier communications expressing a desire to withdraw, and that counsel should have sought substitution sooner to maintain a properly supported class claim.
The Court’s Sanctions and Dismissal Based on Diligence and Candor
After reviewing the timeline of counsel’s interactions with Floyd, Judge Evanson determined that plaintiffs’ counsel had not been candid with the court regarding when Floyd first indicated he wanted out of the case. In May 2025, the court ordered sanctions totaling $223,000 to be paid toward Apple’s and Amazon’s attorney fees, reflecting the court’s view that the litigation had proceeded under inaccurate representations about the need to substitute plaintiffs and amend pleadings. The sanctions ruling set the stage for the later dismissal by emphasizing the court’s expectations for prompt action and accurate disclosures.
In September, the court declined to allow the amended complaint to move forward, effectively ending the action in its current form. At the same time, Judge Evanson indicated that Furdek and Ryan—or any other putative class member—could file a new lawsuit, reasoning that prospective class members were “not responsible for Floyd’s change of heart nor counsel’s lack of candor” and should not be penalized by procedural failures attributed to the existing case’s management. The defense is represented in part by O’Melveny & Myers LLP, according to court filings.
Reconsideration Denied: No Clear Error or Extraordinary Circumstances
Furdek and Ryan moved for reconsideration, arguing that earlier steps to withdraw Floyd or disclose his intentions would have risked violating Washington Rules of Professional Conduct and client confidentiality obligations . They supported the motion with declarations from three legal ethics experts, including a law professor, a former Washington State Bar Association discipline counsel, and an attorney who advises lawyers on professional responsibility issues. Their position was that counsel’s timing was constrained by ethical duties, and that the court should revisit its conclusion about diligence and the necessity of earlier amendment.
Judge Evanson rejected that framing, emphasizing that disagreement with the court’s application of law to the record does not satisfy the high bar for reconsideration. The court found that third-party opinions on counsel’s ethical compliance did not demonstrate clear error because the underlying dismissal order did not fault counsel for failing to follow professional conduct rules; rather, it focused on the adequacy and timing of counsel’s litigation steps and the accuracy of representations made to the court and opposing counsel. Judge Evanson stated that plaintiffs had not identified “extraordinary circumstances” requiring the court to revisit its prior analysis.
Practical Implications and Next Procedural Options
The reconsideration motion also relied on a February 2024 email that plaintiffs argued showed counsel attempting to clarify Floyd’s intent to proceed before seeking amendment to add new plaintiffs. The court concluded the email could have been presented earlier and, in any event, did not cure the deficiencies identified in prior rulings. Judge Evanson found that the message did not actually seek clarification of Floyd’s earlier communications in a way that would demonstrate diligence, and it did not alleviate concerns about the accuracy of counsel’s disclosures regarding why amendment became necessary.
Although the current action remains dismissed, the court’s prior statements leave open a path for Furdek, Ryan, or other consumers to bring a new case, unencumbered by the procedural history associated with Floyd’s departure. More broadly, the rulings illustrate how substitution of named plaintiffs in putative class actions can become dispositive when counsel’s timeline and disclosures are challenged, even where the underlying claims sound in antitrust—and may ultimately intersect with strategies for defeating class certification. The matter is captioned *Steven Floyd et al. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.*, No. 2:22-cv-01599 (W.D. Wash.).
