Amazon fights deception claims in Arizona court

PHOENIX (CN) — Amazon defended its sales practices in Arizona state court Thursday against accusations that its “buy box” function deceives consumers.

“This is a consumer fraud case without a single untrue statement or a single deceived customer,” defense attorney Meredith Dearborn said in a Phoenix courtroom during a hearing on the company’s motion to dismiss.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes sued the online shopping giant in May, accusing it of tricking consumers into believing that the deal first offered through the site’s buy box is the best available, in violation of state consumer fraud and antitrust laws.

When a user goes to purchase a product on Amazon, they are met with one of two options: “add to cart” or “buy now.” The latter function, Amazon says, is intended to expedite the shopping process by drawing a shopper’s attention to the most preferable deal and skipping the “add to cart” step.

Mayes says the option confuses and tricks consumers into believing they are paying the lowest possible price.

But Dearborn said the website “didn’t do anything to induce that belief.”

“Consumers can see in front of their eyes, with no scrolling required, the prices for other products,” she said. “Other offers are available on the exact same page.”

Mayes further claims that the buy box algorithm gives preferential treatment to Amazon and sellers who pay to pack and ship their orders through Amazon’s warehouses.

But Dearborn again held in Thursday’s hearing that nothing about the process is inherently deceptive — and said the state can’t now shift course and claim unfairness instead.

Barbara Mahoney represented the state attorney general. She said most consumers never see other offers for different products because they assume the one first presented by Amazon is the best.

“Amazon banks on consumer inattention,” the Hagens Berman attorney said.

That most consumers choose the suggested deal, Dearborn argued, is a testament to Amazon’s knowledge of what its customers are looking for. She said the algorithm considers not only the cost of a product but also the shipping time and whether the item is new or used.

Mayes also claims that Amazon’s seller code of conduct prevents sellers from offering prices in other markets lower than the prices they list on Amazon, mirroring a price parity policy the company dropped in 2019 under threat of investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.

On that point, Dearborn said the code of conduct is intended to prevent sellers from unfairly drawing traffic onto other sites by offering discounts and coupons that they don’t also offer on Amazon. It doesn’t, however, require that prices on and off Amazon be identical.

Maricopa County Judge Danielle Viola said it may take her past the new year to rule on Amazon’s motion to dismiss.

Follow @JournalistJoeAZ