For months, Amazon declined to disclose whether it intended to seek refunds on the tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed under emergency powers. That silence turned into a legal liability in May, when consumers filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Seattle. The plaintiffs argued they were entitled to refunds for having paid tariff-inflated prices and accused the company of deliberately declining to pursue refunds in order to "curry favor" with Trump.

On Thursday evening, Chief Financial Officer Brian Olsavsky disclosed that Amazon received approximately $600 million in tariff refunds during the second quarter and committed to automatically reimbursing consumers under a "limited set of circumstances." The disclosure came on Amazon's Q2 earnings call, where the refund question intersected with broader investor concern over how tariff policy is reshaping retail cost structures.

"We are participating in the tariff refund process, and as I mentioned earlier, we received approximately $600 million in Q2. The amount is limited for a couple reasons. First, our teams did a lot of work forward-buying and prepositioning inventory to avoid tariff costs. Second, we are not the importer of record for the large majority of items sold in our store given suppliers typically handle imports and pay relevant tariffs," Olsavsky said on the earnings call.

"In cases where we did see an increase in costs due to tariffs, we largely absorbed those costs rather than pass them on to customers," he added.

Pricing Pressure on the Platform

In January, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy acknowledged that tariffs were beginning to drive up prices on the platform. Amazon and many of its third-party sellers had stockpiled inventory ahead of the tariffs to keep prices stable, Jassy said, but most of that supply had been depleted by the previous fall.

"You start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items, and you see some sellers are deciding that they're passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they'll absorb it to drive demand, and some are doing something in between," Jassy said. "I think you're starting to see more of that impact."

Jassy also noted there were limits to how much Amazon and its sellers could continue shielding shoppers from the added costs.

"At a certain point, because retail is, as you know, a mid-single digit operating margin business, if people's costs go up by 10%, there aren't a lot of places to absorb it," he said. "You don't have endless options."

Amazon's tone represented a shift from the prior year, when Jassy had stated that prices had not risen appreciably following Trump's initial tariff announcement.

Consumer Reimbursement Plans

The refund total came in smaller than some had anticipated. Olsavsky explained that Amazon's figure was limited because the company had stockpiled inventory in advance of the tariffs and because Amazon is not the importer of record for most products sold through its store.

"We have identified a limited set of circumstances where we can trace that we passed specific import charges on to customers, and when we receive those refunds, we will proactively contact affected customers and automatically issue refunds to them. Otherwise, like other large retailers, we'll utilize refunds to continue to invest in low prices for customers," Olsavsky said.

Where Amazon can establish a direct link between a tariff charge and what a customer paid, the company says it will act without requiring customers to submit a claim.

Money that cannot be traced to a specific purchase will be directed elsewhere. "Otherwise, like other large retailers, we'll utilize refunds to continue to invest in low prices for customers," Olsavsky said.

The class-action lawsuit in Seattle remains pending, and Amazon's reimbursement plan could factor into how the court views the plaintiffs' claims that consumers were entitled to refunds they had no mechanism to obtain on their own.

Third-Party Sellers and Marketplace Dynamics

Outside sellers account for more than 60% of goods sold on Amazon's marketplace. Many of those third-party sellers, who import goods from overseas, were forced to raise prices due to the tariffs and have since applied for their own refunds. Some sellers who attempted to pass tariff costs on to shoppers earlier this year reported that Amazon penalized their listings, removing the "Add to Cart" button from their product pages before later easing the restriction.

Because Amazon is typically not the importer of record for third-party sales, those sellers' refund applications are separate from Amazon's $600 million total, meaning the consumer-facing impact of refunds across the marketplace may be fragmented and difficult to trace.

Supreme Court Ruling and Government Repayments

The refunds originate from the courts, not from the lawsuit against Amazon. They stem from a February Supreme Court ruling that struck down the broad tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which required the government to repay duties collected from importers. The ruling curtailed a key legal mechanism the administration had used to levy sweeping tariffs without congressional approval, and the resulting repayments rank among the largest customs refund disbursements in U.S. history.

The Trump administration has since pushed back on how those refunds are being handled, arguing in court filings that a judge overstepped his authority in ordering universal refunds for all eligible importers.

The U.S. Treasury paid out $49.2 billion in customs refunds in June alone, more than double the roughly $22 billion disbursed the previous month. Combined May and June payouts accounted for roughly 42% of the estimated $166 billion in IEEPA-based duties owed back to importers, according to Reuters.

Other Major Retailers

Amazon is not alone in facing the question of what to do with the refunded money. Walmart said it would prioritize using the proceeds to invest in lower prices. Costco indicated it intends to pass at least some of its refund money back to customers, though the retailer acknowledged that the exact amount and timeline remained uncertain. Apple said Thursday that its earnings per share were lifted by 11 cents from tariff refunds in its third quarter.

The divergent approaches reflect an unprecedented situation in which major corporations are simultaneously receiving large, court-ordered duty repayments and must decide—often under legal and political scrutiny—how to allocate the funds among shareholders, price investments, and consumers.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com.