A Long Island, New York, man is suing Amazon, seeking to force the online retail giant to reimburse him for what he says were higher prices on his purchases resulting from President Donald Trump’s tariffs that were ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
In the complaint filed earlier this month, Gregory Rittenhouse said that he had purchased hose nozzles, hose splitters, electric wood chipper shredders and other items that were imported into the U.S. from other countries, as well as products produced domestically and not subject to import taxes. Rittenhouse alleged that both sets of goods had “inflated” prices because Amazon had spread the costs “across its product line.”
Amazon did not return multiple requests for comment and has not filed a response to the suit, according to court records. A request made to attorneys representing Amazon in a separate suit seeking pass-through tariff refunds for consumers was not immediately returned.
In the filing, Rittenhouse’s lawyers are asking a federal judge to certify a proposed class of plaintiffs to include all customers and asked for buyers to get back “all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest.”
"Amazon knew consumers were bearing these tariff costs," Rittenhouse's attorney, Hunter J. Shkolnik, said in a statement.
In an interview with CNBC in January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said the company had pre-purchased inventory in hopes of keeping prices low for consumers, but most of that supply had run out.
“So you start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items, and you see some sellers are deciding that they’re passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they’ll absorb it to drive demand, and some are doing something in between,” he acknowledged.
A number of researchers have sought to examine the impact of the president’s tariffs on the cost of goods, and Rittenhouse’s lawsuit contended that independent economic analysis confirmed that a “substantial portion of the tariff costs” was passed along to buyers.
“Prices of everyday household items began increasing a few months after tariffs were implemented,” Federal Reserve economists wrote in a study published in April. “As of December 2025, tariffs do not appear as a one-time price spike, but rather as a pattern of gradual and slow adjustments to retail prices that US consumers see on store shelves.”
It is not clear if Amazon has taken steps to seek repayment for the tariffs it paid, and Rittenhouse’s suit alleges that the company failed to disclose to its customers that it would not try to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars that it could theoretically collect.
A third lawsuit filed last month in Seattle seeking tariff refunds from Amazon makes similar contentions, saying the company was forgoing the repayment process to “acquiescence to the President.” Trump had said in April that U.S. companies would be “brilliant” if they opted not to try to get back the money they paid in duties.
The trio of legal challenges are among dozens filed by consumers aimed at forcing importers to pass along at least some of the refunds they stand to receive from the federal government after the import taxes were invalidated.
In February, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that Trump had overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on imported goods from most U.S. trading partners.
U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton later ordered the federal government to develop a system by which importers could apply for and receive refunds of their import duty payments.
A Customs and Border Protection official told the court earlier this month that roughly $90 billion in refunds have since been processed and approved after being entered into what is called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries, or CAPE, portal.