If you've ever wondered whether the prices you see at different online retailers are truly independent, California's attorney general just gave you a reason to be skeptical.

On Monday, Attorney General Rob Bonta secured public access to a largely unredacted version of a preliminary injunction filing in the state's 2022 antitrust lawsuit against Amazon. The newly revealed documents include internal communications that, according to the AG's office, show Amazon systematically pressuring major brands to raise prices on rival platforms — and those brands complying, sometimes within hours.

The Hanes Example

CNBC obtained details of the communications. In one exchange from 2022, Amazon sent Hanes links to product listings on Target and Walmart's websites where prices were lower than on Amazon. Hanes confirmed that it "reached out to Target and Walmart to have the prices increased."

The implication is striking: Amazon didn't just want to be the cheapest option. According to the filing, it wanted to ensure no one else could undercut its prices either — not by lowering its own, but by forcing brands to raise everyone else's.

The Levi's Exchange

The Levi's communications are equally direct. According to documents cited by IBTimes, Amazon sent Levi's links to Khaki pants priced between $25.47 and $26.99 on Walmart.com, saying it "hop[ed] these can get resolved over the next few days." The next day, Levi's reported back that it had "talked to Walmart and they have partnered with us to take Easy Khaki Classic fit back up to $29.99 immediately."

"The evidence is clear as day," Bonta said in a statement. The filing names additional major vendors and retailers beyond Hanes and Levi's, with Claims Journal reporting that the alleged scheme extended to Walmart, Target, Home Depot, and Chewy.

What This Means for Retail

The case strikes at a foundational assumption of e-commerce: that competition between platforms drives prices down for consumers. If Amazon was effectively coordinating prices upward across platforms through its vendor relationships, the competitive dynamics that shoppers rely on were an illusion.

WWD noted that the scope of the alleged behavior isn't limited to a few product categories. The unredacted filings suggest a broad, systematic practice that touched multiple product verticals and major retail competitors.

Amazon has denied the allegations and previously argued that its pricing policies are designed to benefit consumers. The company did not immediately respond to the latest round of unredacted filings.

What Happens Next

A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for July 23, 2026, with the full trial set for January 19, 2027. If the court grants the injunction, it could force Amazon to change its vendor pricing practices while the case proceeds — a move that would ripple across every major online marketplace.

For Walmart, Target, and other retailers named in the filings, the documents raise uncomfortable questions about how much agency they actually had in their own pricing decisions. For consumers, the takeaway is simpler: the price you see may not have been set by the store you're shopping at.