In re: Amazon Return Policy Litigation
2:23-cv-01372
W.D. Wash.Apr 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs allege that under Amazon’s “advanced refund policy,” they were given refunds before Amazon received returned items but were later recharged despite having properly returned their products.
- The plaintiffs bring several claims, including breach of contract, the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and quasi-contract claims (money had and received, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel), plus conversion.
- Amazon filed a partial motion to dismiss the quasi-contract and conversion claims, relying on the independent duty doctrine and rules about pleading inconsistent claims.
- The court was required to assess the legal sufficiency of the allegations under Rule 12(b)(6), treating the complaint's factual allegations as true for this motion’s purposes.
- This action arises in the Western District of Washington and is at the pleading stage; no factual findings yet.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the independent duty doctrine bar the conversion claim? | Amazon’s duty not to wrongfully take or retain property exists independently of contract. | The alleged conversion claim is barred as the duty arises only from the contract. | Not barred; this is an independent tort duty under WA law. |
| Can plaintiffs plead quasi-contract claims alongside breach of contract? | Permitted to plead in the alternative under Rule 8; validity of contract not yet determined. | Quasi-contract (unjust enrichment, etc.) cannot coexist with breach of contract. | Permitted at pleading stage as alternative theories. |
| Is it necessary for plaintiffs to plead contract invalidity to maintain alternative claims? | No, alternative pleading doesn’t require admission of contract invalidity. | Plaintiffs must affirmatively plead contract invalidity. | Not required; alternative legal theories may proceed. |
| Sufficiency of conversion and quasi-contract claims in pleading | Alleged facts state plausible conversion/quasi-contract claims. | Claims are insufficiently pled due to dependence on contract theories. | Sufficient under Rule 12(b)(6); motion to dismiss denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (summarizes the legal sufficiency standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- McGary v. Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004) (addresses the proper lens for courts reviewing 12(b)(6) motions)
- Arias v. Raimondo, 860 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2017) (courts take factual allegations as true and construe in plaintiff's favor at this stage)
- Elcon Const., Inc. v. E. Washington Univ., 273 P.3d 965 (Wash. 2012) (addresses the independent duty doctrine’s limited scope under Washington law)
- Chandler v. Washington Toll Bridge Auth., 137 P.2d 97 (Wash. 1943) (parties to an express contract generally can’t pursue implied contract claims for the same matter)