Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Medal et al v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

2:23-cv-01975

Court:

Washington Western

Nature of Suit:

Other Fraud

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action

Judge:

John H. Chun

Firms

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. January 22, 2026

    FDA Action Shouldn't Halt Amazon Labeling Suit, Plaintiffs Say

    Shoppers accusing Amazon of failing to make required disclosures on dietary supplement product pages told a Washington federal judge there's no need to pause their proposed class action amid possible rulemaking by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, arguing that the supposed rule change wouldn't negate the suit's claims under California law.

  2. January 07, 2026

    Amazon Seeks To Halt Supplement Suit As FDA Nixes Rule

    Amazon called on a Seattle federal judge to pause a proposed class action accusing the e-commerce platform of failing to make certain disclosures on supplement product pages, saying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration plans to revoke the so-called each panel labeling rule at the center of the case.

  3. November 14, 2025

    Amazon Blasts Claim It Destroyed Evidence In Labeling Suit

    Amazon.com Services LLC is fighting calls for sanctions in a proposed class action accusing it of failing to follow federal labeling laws for dietary supplements, saying it shouldn't be penalized for allegedly failing to preserve online product pages for the supplements.

  4. October 07, 2025

    Amazon Supplement Buyers Seek Spoliation Penalties

    Consumers in a proposed class action accusing Amazon of peddling dietary supplements without making federally required disclosures urged a Washington federal judge on Tuesday to punish the e-commerce giant for allegedly failing to preserve product detail webpages they say are key to the litigation. 

  5. June 10, 2025

    Amazon Can't Duck Suit Over Non-FDA Approved Supplements

    Amazon must face a proposed class action alleging it sells non-FDA approved supplements touting health-related claims without mandatory disclaimers, after a Washington federal judge rejected the company's argument the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims over supplements they never bought, finding the plaintiffs allege a uniform, systematic marketing practice.