Amazon is facing one of its most sensitive legal challenges in Europe, with Italian authorities accusing the company of serving as a “Trojan horse” in a customs fraud scheme that could be worth hundreds of millions of euros. The investigation lands at a moment when the retailer is already under intense scrutiny from regulators and courts over its market power, data practices, and treatment of customers and partners.
The emerging picture is of a company whose logistics network and subscription ecosystem have become so pervasive that they can be weaponized, intentionally or not, by others seeking to dodge rules and siphon off what should be public funds. For policymakers in Italy and across the European Union, the case is rapidly turning into a test of how far they are willing to go to rein in a platform that underpins much of modern online commerce.
The “Trojan horse” customs probe in Italy
Italian investigators say the core of the customs case is deceptively simple: goods shipped from Chinese sellers into Italy were allegedly under‑declared or misclassified so that import duties and value‑added tax could be avoided, while still flowing seamlessly through Amazon’s powerful delivery network. According to accounts of the probe, Italian police raided two Amazon facilities in Italy as part of a broader tax and smuggling investigation into the movement of goods within the country. Authorities suspect that the platform’s fulfillment centers and last‑mile services were used as a conduit for merchandise that had slipped past proper border checks.
Officials have described Amazon’s role as that of a Trojan horse, a seemingly benign commercial partner whose infrastructure allegedly allowed suspect consignments from Chinese exporters to blend into the legitimate flow of parcels. Reporting on the raids in Italy indicates that Italian customs and tax police are focusing on whether the company’s systems were exploited to disguise the true value and origin of products, potentially depriving the state of hundreds of millions in revenue.
Raids, scale of the scheme, and European alarm
The scale of the suspected fraud is what has jolted officials in MILAN and beyond. Italian police operations in MILAN have reportedly targeted IT equipment and records that could show how consignments were booked, labeled, and routed. Investigators believe that as many as one million products may be implicated in the alleged customs evasion, a volume that would only be possible through a platform with Amazon’s reach. Italian authorities have framed the suspected losses as a direct hit to public finances, arguing that money that should have supported schools, hospitals, and infrastructure was instead siphoned off through manipulated declarations.
For European policymakers, the case is not just about one country’s tax take but about whether a dominant marketplace can be trusted to police its own ecosystem. Coverage of the probe has stressed that Italian investigators see the alleged scheme as a drain on what should be public funds, and that the investigation is expected to be closely viewed in Washington and Brussels as a bellwether for how aggressively governments will confront digital platforms over tax and customs enforcement. Separate analysis has noted that Amazon already places a major strain on local infrastructure in Italy, from roads to delivery hubs, which only heightens political pressure to ensure that the company and its partners are paying their full share.
Amazon’s defense and the “Trojan horse” narrative
Amazon has not been formally charged with a crime in the Italian case, and the company has historically argued that it complies with all applicable tax and customs rules in the markets where it operates. The “Trojan horse” label, however, cuts to the heart of a reputational risk that goes beyond narrow legal liability. If Italian and European investigators conclude that the platform’s systems were systematically used to channel under‑declared goods, even by third‑party sellers, regulators could demand far more intrusive oversight of how Amazon vets and monitors cross‑border shipments from Chinese exporters and other high‑risk regions.
Reporting on the raids has emphasized that the investigation is expected to be closely viewed in Washington and Brussels, where lawmakers are already debating stricter rules on platform liability. Environmental and consumer advocates have also seized on the case, arguing that alleged tax evasion through a logistics giant like Amazon distorts competition, encourages overconsumption of cheap imported goods, and undermines efforts to fund climate and social programs. The “Trojan” metaphor has become a shorthand for the fear that the company’s scale allows abuses to hide in plain sight.
Parallel pressure from U.S. regulators and courts
The Italian customs probe is unfolding against a backdrop of mounting legal challenges in the United States, where the Federal Trade Commission is pursuing both antitrust and consumer‑protection cases against the company. The Federal Trade Commission has set up a dedicated Amazon Refunds page explaining that The FTC is not contacting people about refunds in the Amazon matter and warning consumers that anyone who calls claiming to be from the agency about such payments is a scammer. That refund program stems from allegations that Amazon made it difficult for users to cancel their Prime subscriptions, a pattern that regulators say reflects broader concerns about how the company designs its interfaces and subscription flows.
Separately, the FTC has brought a monopolization case accusing the retailer of using its market power and algorithms to raise prices and disadvantage rivals. An Update from Washington notes that a federal judge has scheduled a bench trial on the Federal Trade Commission’s monopolization claims, and a separate briefing explains that the FTC antitrust trial against Amazon will not start until mid‑2026 at the earliest. Together, these cases underscore that regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are converging on a view of Amazon as a systemic actor whose choices can shape entire markets, from pricing to tax compliance.
Prime refunds, consumer redress, and the $2.5 billion question
While Italian authorities focus on customs and tax, U.S. regulators are forcing Amazon to return money directly to customers. Consumer guidance from the FTC explains that You might have heard that Amazon agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle the FTC’s charges that it enrolled millions of people in Pri without their consent or made it too hard to cancel after they enrolled in Prime. The agency’s consumer‑facing materials walk people through who is eligible for a refund and stress that any outreach about payments will come through official channels, not unsolicited calls or texts.
Financial advice coverage has echoed that message, noting that You may be eligible for part of a record $2.5 billion settlement the online giant approved after complaints that it enrolled millions of users in Prime without clear consent. The FTC’s own Amazon Refunds page reiterates that The FTC is not contacting people about refunds in the Amazon matter and that anyone who claims otherwise is attempting fraud. For critics in Europe, these consumer‑protection findings feed into a broader narrative that the company has been too willing to push the limits of legality and transparency in pursuit of growth.
More from Decluttering Mom: