The relators alleged that Amazon caused foreign manufacturers selling fur products through its platform to submit false customs forms and evade tariffs and import fees in violation of the False Claims Act. The relators also alleged that Amazon conspired with the manufacturers to submit reverse false claims. The court held that the relators failed to plausibly allege scienter or conspiracy and affirmed dismissal of the claims.

United States ex rel. Henig v. Amazon.com, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 25-207-cv.

  • Background – Plaintiffs-Appellants, as relators on behalf of the United States, brought a qui tam action alleging that Amazon knowingly caused foreign manufacturers and distributors of fur products sold through Amazon’s platform to evade tariffs and Fish and Wildlife Service inspection fees by submitting false import declarations and using improper shipping practices. The United States declined to intervene, and the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to adequately plead FCA violations.
  • Scienter Requirement – The Second Circuit held that the relators failed to plausibly allege scienter under the FCA. The court found the complaint did not sufficiently allege that Amazon had actual knowledge, acted with deliberate ignorance, or acted with reckless disregard regarding the allegedly false customs declarations submitted by third-party manufacturers. The court emphasized that allegations about lower product prices and Amazon’s general business operations did not plausibly establish knowledge of fraud.
  • Deliberate Ignorance and Reckless Disregard – The court rejected the relators’ argument that Amazon deliberately avoided learning of the manufacturers’ alleged tariff evasion. The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Amazon took affirmative steps to avoid discovering fraud, and the absence of stronger oversight procedures alone was insufficient to establish deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard under the FCA.
  • Conspiracy Claims – The court also affirmed dismissal of the conspiracy claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C). It held that the relators failed to plausibly allege an agreement between Amazon and the foreign manufacturers to submit reverse false claims or evade import obligations. The allegations described ordinary commercial relationships and platform operations rather than coordinated fraudulent conduct.