Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`DEBBIE CHAVES, on behalf of herself and
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Debbie Chaves (“Plaintiff”), individually and behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated, brings this class action against defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Defendant” or
`
`“Amazon”). Plaintiff makes the following allegations pursuant to the investigation of their
`
`counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to the allegations specifically
`
`pertaining to herself, which are based on personal knowledge
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a class action for breach of contract and consumer protection act violations
`
`arising from Amazon’s unlawful charge of a “sales tax” to United States customers on certain
`
`digital and gift card goods, despite the tax-exempt status of such goods under state law.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Amazon owns and operates Amazon.com, the world’s largest online marketplace.
`
`Amazon’s website contains a page explaining how taxes on purchases are
`
`calculated.1 This webpage states that “The tax rate applied to your order will be the combined
`
`state and local rates of the address where your order is delivered to or fulfilled from.” This page
`
`is incorporated into Amazon’s Conditions of Use.2
`
`4.
`
`Amazon further states that with regard to assessing “Tax on Digital Products and
`
`Services” that “To determine [a customer’s] location, Amazon evaluates the address information
`
`
`1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202036190.
`
`2 See https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GLSBYFE9M
`GKKQXXM (“Please review our other policies, such as our pricing policy, posted on this site.
`These policies also govern your use of Amazon Services.”).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`available in the customer’s account which can be the billing address associated with the method
`
`of payment or the country of residence a device[] is set to.”3
`
`5.
`
`Further, Amazon states that with regard to gift cards: “No tax is charged when
`
`purchasing gift cards; however, purchases paid for with gift cards may be subject to tax.”4
`
`6.
`
`In certain instances, Amazon adheres to this policy. Yet, as demonstrated by the
`
`allegations herein, there are numerous occasions in which Amazon charges sales tax on virtual
`
`gift cards in violation of its own policy, and in violation of the tax laws of Massachusetts and
`
`numerous other states.
`
`7.
`
`On August 3, 2021, Plaintiff purchased the item “Roblox Gift Card – 800 Robux
`
`[Includes Exclusive Virtual Item] [Online Game Code]” (the “Item”).
`
`8.
`
`As shown below, the Item should only cost $10.00. Further, no sales tax should
`
`be assessed because the Item is a virtual good and Plaintiff purchased the Item in Massachusetts,
`
`where no sales tax is assessed on virtual goods:
`
`
`3 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202074730.
`
`4 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202036190 (emphasis
`added).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Moreover, Amazon explicitly represents that it will not charge sales tax on gift
`
`cards, which the Item is.
`
`10.
`
`Yet, Amazon charged Plaintiff Chaves the Massachusetts 6.25% “sales tax”
`
`($0.63) on this purchase even though no such tax was actually owed under Massachusetts state
`
`law, and even though Amazon explicitly represents that “no tax is charged while purchasing gift
`
`cards”:
`
`
`
`11.
`
`The Item was “fulfilled” from within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`Plaintiff listed her home address in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for both her shipping
`
`address and billing address when ordering the Item, and the Item was downloaded in
`
`Massachusetts. Further, “[f]or sales tax purposes, the state that has the right to tax the sale is the
`
`state where delivery occurs,” which is Massachusetts.5
`
`
`5 SALES TAX INSTITUTE, DOES THE SELLER COLLECT TAX FOR THE STATE IT IS LOCATED IN OR
`THE STATE WHERE THE CUSTOMER IS LOCATED?, https://www.salestaxinstitute.com/
`sales_tax_faqs/where_to_collect_sales_tax (emphasis added).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`The Commonwealth of Massachusetts imposes a sales tax of 6.25% on “tangible
`
`personal property or of services performed in the commonwealth.” MA Gen L ch 64H § 2.
`
`Digital goods are exempt from sales tax in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See M.T.G.
`
`TIR 05-8 at VII.B.8 (stating “[d]igital products… delivered electronically, including but not
`
`limited to music, video, reading materials or ring tones” are expressly tax-exempt).
`
`13.
`
`Accordingly the 6.25% ($0.63) sales tax that Amazon charged on the Item was
`
`improperly assessed, in violation of both Massachusetts law and Amazon’s contract with
`
`Plaintiff and the putative Classes.
`
`14.
`
`Amazon’s practice of unlawfully charging sales tax is not limited to the
`
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For instance, Amazon also charges a sales tax on the Item
`
`when the billing address is in the State of New York:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Like Massachusetts, New York also prohibits imposing a sales tax on digital
`
`goods.6 Under New York law, any tax must be authorized by statute,7 and digital products such
`
`as the Item are not included in the goods or services subject to either sales or use tax.8 Further, the
`
`New York State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance has explicitly stated that “G[g]ift
`
`certificates for a stated dollar amount, whether given away for no consideration or sold to a
`
`customer, are not subject to sales tax.”9
`
`16.
`
`Yet, as demonstrated above, Amazon improperly charged a sales tax on a good
`
`purchased in New York with a New York billing address.10
`
`17.
`
`Upon information and belief, Amazon improperly assesses sales tax on certain
`
`digital goods in a number of other states than Massachusetts and New York.
`
`18.
`
`Amazon knows or should know that it is improperly charging sales tax in these
`
`states. Amazon represented to customers that it its tax practices were compliant with applicable
`
`
`6 N.Y. STATE DEP’T OF TAXATION & FIN., REPORT ON THE TAXATION OF THE TELECOM. INDUS. IN
`N.Y. STATE, at 24 (Oct. 2009), https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/stats/policy_special/
`telecommunications/2009/taxation_of_the_telecommunications_industry_in_ny_state_october_2
`009.pdf.
`
`7 See, e.g., Am. Cablevision of Rochester, Inc. v. Jacobs, 474 N.Y.S.2d 653, 655 (N.Y. App. Div.
`1984).
`
`8 See N.Y. Tax L. §§ 1105 (outlining taxable goods under New York law), 1110 (outlining use
`tax); see also Catherine Chen, Taxation of Digital Goods & Servs., 70 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV.
`AM. L. 421, 452–53 & n.169 (2015) (identifying New York as among the U.S. states that “either
`do not affirmatively impose sales tax on digital content or expressly exempt it from taxation”).
`
`9 N.Y. Dep’t of Taxation & Fin., Advisory Op. TSB-A-99(13)S (Mar. 1, 1999), https://
`www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/advisory_opinions/sales/a99_13s.pdf.
`10 For clarity, the Item was purchased in New York with a New York City billing address. The
`sales tax for a tangible good purchased in New York City is 8.875%, or $0.89 (4% NYS sales
`tax + 4.5% NYC sales tax + 0.375% Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District surcharge).
`See NEW YORK STATE SALES AND USE TAX, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/taxes/business-
`nys-sales-tax.page. But such sales tax should not apply to a digital good like the Item.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`state and local laws: “The tax rate applied to your order will be the combined state and local
`
`rates of the address where your order is delivered to or fulfilled from.”11
`
`19.
`
`Digital subscription businesses such as Netflix and Spotify do not charge sales
`
`tax in Massachusetts or New York for streaming services.
`
`20.
`
`Even Amazon itself does not charge sales tax for other digital goods, such as
`
`movies rented or purchased through its Amazon Prime video service:
`
`
`
`21.
`
`In fact, Amazon inconsistently does not charge sales tax on certain digital gift
`
`cards, as can be seen below:
`
`
`11 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202036190
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`Further, even if Amazon were ignorant of state tax laws, Amazon’s assessment of
`
`sales tax would still violate Amazon’s contract with customers because Amazon explicitly
`
`represents that “No tax is charged when purchasing gift cards.”12
`
`23.
`
`Accordingly, Amazon willfully and knowingly overcharged its subscribers a false
`
`and unlawful sales tax on their purchases of digital and gift card items. Amazon falsely
`
`represented that the tax charges imposed on purchases were consistent with the laws of the
`
`relevant states of purchase, and falsely represented that “[n]o tax is charged while purchasing gift
`
`cards.” Although Amazon claims to regularly review its billing and collection practices for tax
`
`compliance purposes, Amazon engaged in a uniform, years-long practice of charging a “sales
`
`tax” on numerous purchases of digital items and gift cards from its marketplace in jurisdictions
`
`that exempt taxation of those products.
`
`24. Worse, it is unclear if Amazon has remitted the unlawfully collected “sales tax” to
`
`state authorities, potentially recouping these overcharges in an effort to maximize profits at their
`
`subscribers’ expense and under the guise of a state-imposed tax.
`
`25.
`
`Amazon’s unlawful practice has harmed Plaintiff and all members of the Classes
`
`in precisely the same way. On a standard and uniform basis, Amazon charges users in several
`
`U.S. states a sales taxes on numerous digital and gift card products available on its website, even
`
`though digital and gift card products in many of those states are not taxable, Amazon has
`
`collected millions of dollars in overcharges on these types of purchases.
`
`
`12 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202036190
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Amazon’s overcharges were material to Plaintiff and all other members of the
`
`Classes. While the $0.63 overcharge to Plaintiff is small, Amazon has repeated this process
`
`potentially millions of times, including on more expensive items. For example, if Plaintiff had
`
`instead purchased the “Roblox Gift Card - 10000 Robux [Includes Exclusive Virtual Item]
`
`[Online Game Code]” for $100, she would have paid a $6.25 sales tax.
`
`27.
`
`Amazon has not reimbursed Plaintiff or members of the Classes for the unlawful
`
`taxes it collected. And, despite its ongoing legal compliance representations and the clear tax
`
`exemption for digital goods in several U.S. states, Amazon’s practice of charging purchasers of
`
`specific digital goods a purported sales tax when no sales tax is in fact owed is still ongoing.
`
`28.
`
`Further, Plaintiff and Class members did not expect Amazon to assess a “sales
`
`tax” on their digital purchases that is not actually required by law, and they would not have paid
`
`the sales tax on their purchases if such charge had not been included automatically by Amazon.
`
`Nor would Plaintiff and members of the Classes have agreed to pay over 6% more for each
`
`purchase if they had known that the purported sales tax collected was not owed under state law
`
`and possibly not remitted to state authorities.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly
`
`situated to challenge Amazon’s breach of contract and its willful and knowing unlawful,
`
`deceptive, and fraudulent overcharging practices. Plaintiff seeks all available compensatory,
`
`statutory, and punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Deb Chaves resides in Raynham, Massachusetts and is a citizen of
`
`Massachusetts. Chaves purchased at least two digital gift card items, on the dates of August 3,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2021 and August 27, 2021, respectively, upon which she was assessed a 6.25% sales tax in
`
`violation of both Massachusetts law and her agreement with Amazon.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its corporate
`
`headquarters and principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`32.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because
`
`this is a class action in which at least one member of the class is a citizen of a state different from
`
`defendant, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and the
`
`proposed class contains more than 100 members.
`
`33.
`
`The Court has general personal jurisdiction over Amazon because Amazon
`
`maintains its principal place of business in this District. The Court also has personal jurisdiction
`
`over Amazon because Amazon’s “Conditions of Use” states that “Any dispute or claim relating
`
`in any way to your use of any Amazon Service will be adjudicated in the state or Federal courts
`
`in King County, Washington, and you consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in these
`
`courts.”13
`
`34.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because
`
`Amazon resides in this District.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`35.
`
`This action is brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the following
`
`Nationwide Classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
`
`
`13 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=508088&ref_=footer_cou
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`The Digital Good Class, defined as: All persons or entities who (1)
`paid sales tax on a digital good sold on Amazon.com, and (2) purchased
`the digital good with a billing address in any state where the digital good
`should have been exempt from sales tax.
`
`The Gift Card Class, defined as: All persons or entities residing in the
`United States who paid sales tax on the purchase of a gift card sold on
`Amazon.com.
`
`Plaintiff also brings this action individually and on behalf of the following
`
`Massachusetts Subclasses pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
`
`The Massachusetts Digital Good Subclass, defined as: All persons or
`entities who (1) paid sales tax on a digital good sold on Amazon.com,
`and (2) purchased the digital good with a billing address located in the
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`
`
`The Massachusetts Gift Card Subclass, defined as: All persons or
`entities residing in Massachusetts who paid tax on a purchase of a gift
`card sold on Amazon.com.
`
`
`37.
`
`Collectively, the Nationwide Classes and the Massachusetts Subclasses are
`
`referred to as the “Classes.”
`
`38.
`
`Excluded from the Classes are Amazon; any of its officers, directors, or
`
`employees; and its legal representatives, successors, and assigns.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend the class
`
`definitions, including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with her motion for
`
`class certification, or at any other time, based on, inter alia, changing circumstances and new
`
`facts obtained.
`
`40.
`
`Numerosity. The members of the proposed Classes are geographically dispersed
`
`throughout the United States and are so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable. Upon
`
`information and belief, Plaintiff reasonably estimates that there are hundreds of thousands of
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`36.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`individuals that are members of the proposed Classes. Although the precise number of proposed
`
`members are unknown to Plaintiff, the true number of members of the Classes are known by
`
`Defendant. Members of the Classes may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail
`
`and/or publication through the distribution records of Defendant and third-party retailers and
`
`vendors.
`
`41.
`
`Typicality. The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of
`
`the Classes in that the representative Plaintiff, like all members of the Classes, purchased a
`
`digital good that should have been exempt from sales tax, but was nonetheless improperly
`
`charged a sales tax by Amazon. The representative Plaintiff, like all members of the Classes, has
`
`been damaged by Defendant’s misconduct in the very same way as the members of the Classes.
`
`Further, the factual bases of Defendant’s misconduct are common to all members of the Classes
`
`and represent a common thread of misconduct resulting in injury to all members of the Classes.
`
`42.
`
`Existence and predominance of common questions of law and fact. Common
`
`questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes and predominate over any
`
`questions affecting only individual members of the Classes. These common legal and factual
`
`questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`(a)
`
`whether Amazon improperly assessed a sales tax on digital
`
`goods purchased by Plaintiff and members of the Classes;
`
`(b)
`
`whether the assessment of a sales tax on digital goods violates
`
`the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the laws
`
`of other states;
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`whether Amazon remitted the collected tax overcharges to the
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`appropriate state taxing authorities;
`
`whether Amazon act knowingly and/or willfully;
`
`whether Amazon breach its contract with consumers by charging
`
`an inapplicable sales tax; and
`
`(f)
`
`whether Plaintiff and members of the Classes entitled to
`
`damages, restitution, equitable relief, statutory damages,
`
`exemplary damages, and/or other relief.
`
`43.
`
`Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the
`
`interests of the Classes. Plaintiff has retained counsel who are highly experienced in complex
`
`consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute this action on
`
`behalf of the Classes. Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic to those of the Classes.
`
`44.
`
`Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages or other financial detriment suffered
`
`by members of the Classes are relatively small compared to the burden and expense of individual
`
`litigation of their claims against Defendant. It would, thus, be virtually impossible for members
`
`of the Classes, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the wrongs committed
`
`against them. Furthermore, even if members of the Classes could afford such individualized
`
`litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation would create the danger of
`
`inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts. Individualized
`
`litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system from the
`
`issues raised by this action. By contrast, the class action device provides the benefits of
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, economies of scale, and comprehensive
`
`supervision by a single court, and presents no unusual management difficulties under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`45.
`
`In the alternative, the Classes may be certified because:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the
`Classes would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
`adjudication with respect to individual members of the Classes
`that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the
`Defendant;
`
`the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the
`Classes would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them
`that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests
`of other members of the Classes not parties to the adjudications,
`or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their
`interests; and/or
`
`(c) Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
`applicable to the Classes as a whole, thereby making appropriate
`final declaratory and/or injunctive relief with respect to the
`members of the Classes as a whole.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`Breach of Contract
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set
`
`43.
`
`forth above as though fully set forth herein.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim individually and behalf of the members of the proposed
`
`Classes against Defendant.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim under Washington law in accordance with the Amazon
`
`Conditions of Use.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiff and members of the Classes
`
`(pursuant to Amazon’s Conditions of Use) to provide goods in the form of gift cards and other
`
`digital or intangible items in exchange for a set amount of money.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Classes paid for their purchases of digital goods and
`
`therefore performed their obligations under their contract with Amazon.
`
`48.
`
`Under the Conditions of Use, Plaintiff and members of the Digital Goods Class
`
`and Massachusetts Digital Goods Subclass did not agree to pay non-applicable, improperly
`
`charged state sales taxes.
`
`49.
`
`Defendant breached these contracts by assessing a sales tax on the purchases of
`
`digital goods made by Plaintiff and members of the Digital Goods Class and Massachusetts
`
`Digital Goods Subclass, even though said digital good were not subject to sales tax under state
`
`law.
`
`50.
`
`Similarly, Plaintiff and members of the Gift Card Class and Massachusetts Gift
`
`Card Subclass did not agree to pay taxes on gift cards, which Amazon represented were not
`
`subject to tax.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant also breached these contracts by assessing a sales tax on the purchases
`
`of gift cards made by Plaintiff and members of the Gift Card Class and Massachusetts Gift Card
`
`Subclass, even though Amazon represents in its Conditions of Use that it does not charge a sales
`
`tax on the purchase of gift cards.
`
`52.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Amazon’s breaches, Plaintiff and members of
`
`the Classes have sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`Violation Of Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”)
`RCW §§ 19.86.010, et seq.)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set
`
`53.
`
`forth above as though fully set forth herein.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim individually and behalf of the members of the proposed
`
`Classes against Defendant.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim under Washington law in accordance with the Amazon
`
`Conditions of Use.
`
`56.
`
` Plaintiff and Class Members are “persons” within the meaning of Washington
`
`Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010(1).
`
`57.
`
`Defendant engaged in deceptive acts that occurred in trade or commerce by
`
`conduct set forth above. These deceptive acts include the representation that the “taxes” charged
`
`to Plaintiff and members of the Classes were “sales tax” in accordance with applicable state
`
`laws.
`
`58.
`
`These deceptive acts also include Amazon’s representation that “[n]o tax is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`charged when purchasing gift cards.”
`
`59.
`
`Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices have occurred in trade or commerce
`
`because they “include the sale of assets or services.” RCW 19.86.101(2).
`
`60.
`
`The WCPA is applicable to Plaintiff and all members of the putative Classes
`
`because Amazon’s Conditions of Use state, “By using any Amazon Service, you agree that
`
`applicable federal law, and the laws of the state of Washington, without regard to principles
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 17 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of conflict of laws, will govern these Conditions of Use and any dispute of any sort that
`
`might arise between you and Amazon.”14
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s deceptive acts or practices have impacted the public interest because
`
`they have injured Plaintiff and thousands of Amazon customers by representing that the “taxes”
`
`charged by Amazon were the result of properly assessed “sales tax.”
`
`62.
`
`Defendant deceived Plaintiff and members of the Classes by representing that the
`
`“taxes” charged by Amazon were the result of properly assessed “sales tax.”
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Classes lost money or property as a result of
`
`Defendants’ WCPA violations because Plaintiff and members of the Classes did not agree to pay
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`non-applicable, improperly charged state taxes.
`
`64. When Amazon charged Plaintiff and members of the Classes additional monies
`
`attributable to sales tax even though the purchases of digital goods were not taxable under and
`
`were not imposed by state law, Amazon charged an inapplicable tax that Plaintiff and members
`
`of the Classes did not agree to pay.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant’s wrongdoing is continuing in nature and represents an ongoing threat
`
`to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, particularly because Defendant continues to charge non-
`
`applicable, improperly charged state taxes. Thus, Plaintiff, members of the Classes, and any
`
`member of the public at large who purchases digital items in the future are suffering and will
`
`suffer continuing, immediate, and irreparable injury absent the issuance of injunctive and
`
`equitable relief.
`
`
`14 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=GLSBYFE9MGKKQXXM
`(emphasis added)
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01213 Document 1 Filed 09/07/21 Page 18 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Classes are entitled to recover actual damages, treble
`
`damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. In addition, Plaintiff and members of the Classes
`
`are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to RCW 19.86.090.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request, individually and on behalf of the alleged
`
`Classes, that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`
`(b)
`
`
`(c)
`
`
`(d)
`
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`
`(g)
`
`
`(h)
`
`For an order certifying the Classes under Rule 23 of the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure and naming Plaintiff as the representative
`for the Classes and Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel;
`
`For an order declaring the Defendant’s conduct violates the causes
`of action referenced herein;
`
`For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Classes on all
`counts asserted herein;
`
`For compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages in amounts to be
`determined by the Court and/or jury;
`
`For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;
`
`For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary
`relief;
`
`For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper;
`and
`
`For an order awarding Plaintiff and the Classes their reasonable
`attorneys’ fees and expenses and costs of suit.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all
`
`claims asserted in this complaint so triable.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO.
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD., SUITE 940
`WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`22
`
`2