California Judge Rejects Bid to Bar Amazon From Contacting Suppliers Before Trial

Key Facts

A San Francisco Superior Court judge rejected California’s request for a preliminary injunction barring Amazon from communicating with suppliers about retail prices until trial, according to a Bloomberg Law report published on August 28, 2026. The request sought to restrict those communications while the case was pending. The ruling puts the precautionary measure sought by the state off the table at this stage, while the underlying case remains active. The lawsuit dates to 2022, when Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an antitrust and unfair competition suit against the company. The available material showed no new development in the case on November 7, 2026.

Reuters reported that Judge Ethan Schulman expressed skepticism about the state’s request, noting that California relied on evidence from 2023. A spokesperson for Bonta said the state was looking forward to trial, signaling that it would continue pursuing the lawsuit after the request for temporary relief was denied. The injunction request was separate from the underlying allegations to be considered in the case. The ruling therefore did not determine, based on the available facts, whether Amazon’s alleged practices violate competition laws. The allegations remain those of the state until the court rules on the merits of the case.

California says its case covers repeated interactions over several years and across different product categories, in which it alleges that Amazon, suppliers and competitors agreed to raise prices for goods sold through other retail websites. According to a court filing cited by the Associated Press, the company asked suppliers to review and raise the prices of their products on other websites, with the possibility of promotional restrictions or removal from its platform if they did not comply. The state presents these practices as a means whose effects could extend to competition and prices beyond Amazon’s own marketplace. Reuters quoted California as describing dozens of alleged instances involving khaki pants, fertilizers, eye drops and dog treats. Those events remain part of the plaintiffs’ allegations in a case whose merits have not yet been decided.

One example cited in the court filing was that Amazon sent Levi Strauss links to khaki pants listed at a lower price on Walmart.com. The filing said Levi Strauss reported the following day that it had contacted Walmart to raise the price to $29.99. The example is presented as part of what California considers evidence of requests to raise prices for products sold by competitors, not as a judicial finding about the conduct of either company. The state says the cases it compiled span multiple products and categories. The assessment of these allegations ultimately depends on the court’s review of the case evidence and the parties’ arguments.

Amazon says its agreements with merchants are lawful and benefit consumers by expanding product choices, improving inventory availability and maintaining competitive prices, Reuters reported. In an earlier response to the state’s request for a preliminary injunction, the company described the attorney general’s move as “a clear attempt to distract from the weakness of its case” and said it would respond in court. This is the company’s account of the agreements at issue, in contrast to California’s allegation that they weakened price competition. In April 2026, the state said the court had rejected Amazon’s motion for judgment in its favor on its seventh defense, a key part of the company’s case. California’s separate injunction request was still pending at the time, before the judge rejected it in August.

EL7 data show that Amazon shares closed at $259.3 on November 6, 2026. The data do not link that close to a new court development the following day, nor do they establish a market move related to the August ruling. The California Attorney General’s Office had said in an earlier statement that trial was scheduled for January 19, 2027. No more recent reliable confirmation of a change to the date was available, so that remains the date stated in the earlier announcement. The case is expected to proceed to trial, where the state’s allegations and Amazon’s defenses will be considered.