The dispute centers on Amazon's Conditions of Use, which previously prohibited consumers from mentioning Amazon or its trademarks "in any manner that disparages or discredits Amazon." Plaintiffs Marcos Ramos, Sahara Antrim, Marissa Barriga, Esme Nicolson-Singh, and Eldaa Soto alleged that inserting this clause violated California Civil Code section 1670.8.
Amazon removed the non-disparagement clause from its Conditions of Use on May 29, 2025. Plaintiffs seek civil penalties, injunctive relief, and public injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California consumers who completed transactions between November 23, 2022, and that removal date.
The federal court granted Amazon's motion to stay the case under Landis v. North American Company, reasoning that the orderly course of justice favors a pause. The stay is necessary because the California Court of Appeal is actively considering whether section 1670.8(a)(1) creates a private right of action absent enforcement or threatened enforcement under section 1670.8(a)(2).
Six related appeals are pending before the California Court of Appeal, including Scott v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., and Moss v. GoDaddy.com, LLC. These cases present the identical legal question regarding the viability of standalone claims based solely on the inclusion of non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts.
The district court noted that the plaintiffs' class-certification briefing defines the putative class without reference to any enforcement or threatened enforcement activity. The court described the case as a "pure section 1670.8(a)(1) case," meaning its viability turns entirely on whether that subsection authorizes a private right of action.
The court found that a brief stay would not unduly prejudice the plaintiffs. The alleged injury is retrospective, and injunctive relief directed at the non-disparagement clause is functionally moot because the clause is no longer operative. The court also rejected plaintiffs' arguments that evidence might be lost or that consumers continue to suffer chilling effects from a removed contractual provision.
Conversely, the court found that proceeding without a state-law resolution would impose significant hardship on Amazon. Litigating a class action through certification and potentially to trial on a legal theory that state appellate courts may soon foreclose would waste substantial judicial and party resources.
The court denied Amazon's alternative motion to remand for lack of Article III standing, noting that the standing question is close and contested. The court will address jurisdictional issues if necessary once the stay is lifted and the California Court of Appeal has issued its decision.
The case remains stayed in its entirety pending a decision in one or more of the pending state appeals. The parties must file a joint status report every ninety days and within ten days of any decision on the merits in the related state proceedings.