Inside an Amazon Prime Now warehouse in Manhattan in 2015.

Ben Fox Ruby / CNET

The court rejected an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon that targeted the e-merchant’s ability to sanction third-party vendors on its platform to charge lower prices on its own websites.

the suit filed last May by DC Attorney General Carl Racine on behalf of the District of Columbia, claims that Amazon has too much control over how much outside suppliers can charge for their products, raising prices and harming consumers.

However, on Friday, a judge from the District Court of the District of Columbia granted Amazon’s request for rejection, The Wall Street Journal reported. Lawsuits do not provide a reason for the dismissal, according to The New York Times, but Act 360 said the court found no evidence that Amazon’s policies led to higher prices.

Racine’s office opposed the dismissal, saying it was considering legal options.

“We think the Supreme Court made a mistake,” Racine’s office said in a statement to the media. “His oral ruling did not seem to take into account the detailed allegations in the complaint, the full scope of the anti-competitive agreements, the extensive briefing and the recent decision by a federal court to allow an almost identical claim to proceed.

Amazon did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

In 2019, the e-retailer will get rid of a contractual provision that explicitly prohibits third-party sellers from charging lower prices outside of Amazon. However, the trial argues that such a provision essentially maintains the restriction in force. Third-party vendors whose products can be found at a lower price outside of Amazon may lose the “buy box” button in their ads, allowing customers to buy items with one click, according to Inc. They may also lose their sales privileges.

“Like any store, we reserve the right not to highlight offers to customers who are not competitively priced,” an Amazon spokesman said at the time of the lawsuit. “The relief that AG is seeking would force Amazon to offer higher prices to customers, which is strangely at odds with the main objectives of antitrust law.

However, Racine argues that third-party vendors who have raised their prices on Amazon to offset the reduction taken by the e-retailer will be forced to raise prices elsewhere or risk being deprived of their Amazon privileges.

Laura Hautala of CNET contributed to this report.