CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ONLINE MERCHANTS GUILD,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANIEL J. CAMERON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Kentucky,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 20-5723
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort.
No. 3:20-cv-00029—Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, District Judge.
Argued: March 10, 2021
Decided and Filed: April 29, 2021
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, some sought to capitalize on consumers’ fear and uncertainty by charging outrageous prices for hand sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, masks, and other cleaning and protective products. In response, the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Attorney General, Daniel J. Cameron, announced that his office would enforce the Commonwealth’s price-gouging laws against Kentucky businesses involved in such schemes. True to his word, the Attorney General opened civil price-gouging investigations into various Kentucky-based merchants, including at least one member of Plaintiff Online Merchants Guild (the “Guild”) that was selling goods to Kentuckians through Amazon’s online marketplace.

The Guild brought suit against Attorney General Cameron to challenge the constitutionality of Kentucky’s price-gouging laws as applied to sellers on Amazon, invoking, among other things, the extraterritoriality doctrine of the dormant commerce clause. Accepting that the Attorney General sought only to enforce the Commonwealth’s price-gouging laws against Kentucky-based sellers in connection with sales to Kentucky consumers through Amazon’s platform, the district court nevertheless granted the Guild’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that enforcing the laws in connection with Amazon sales would have impermissible extraterritorial effects. Because we conclude that the Attorney General’s enforcement of Kentucky’s price-gouging laws in this fashion is unlikely to run afoul of the dormant commerce clause’s extraterritoriality doctrine, we VACATE the preliminary injunction and REMAND for further proceedings.