# FTC v. Amazon **Filed:** 26 September 2023 by the [[FTC]] and 17 states · W.D. Wash., **Judge John H. Chun** · No. 2:23-cv-01495-JHC The federal government's monopolization case against [[Amazon]], and the most consequential test of whether platform dominance can be reached under existing antitrust law. Trial is set for 2027. > [!important] Three different Amazon cases exist. Do not merge them. > **This page** covers the **monopolization** case (2:23-cv-01495). Two others are frequently conflated with it: > - **The Prime "dark patterns" case** (2:23-cv-00932, same judge) — a consumer-protection matter under the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act about deceptive Prime enrollment and an obstructed cancellation flow. **Settled 25 September 2025 for $2.5 billion** ($1bn civil penalty, $1.5bn consumer refunds), days into a jury trial. No monopolization claim; no bearing on market definition here. > - **The advertising surcharge case**, filed **31 August 2026** by the FTC and 22 state attorneys general, alleging Amazon inserted an undisclosed "soft reserve price" into its ad auctions from 2019, converting second-price auctions into effectively first-price ones. Pleaded as deception and unfairness, not monopolization. ## The claims Sherman Act **§2** monopolization plus FTC Act **§5(a)** unfair methods of competition, with state antitrust and consumer-protection counts. Two alleged U.S. markets: the **online superstore market** serving shoppers, and the **online marketplace services market** serving sellers. The conduct: - **Anti-discounting / price parity.** Suppressing sellers in search results — burying the Buy Box — when they offer lower prices off Amazon. The FTC frames this as a de facto most-favored-nation constraint that raises prices across the economy, not just on Amazon. - **Prime/FBA tying.** Conditioning Prime badge eligibility on buying Amazon's own fulfillment, foreclosing rival logistics. - **Search degradation and self-preferencing**, and total seller fees approaching roughly half of seller revenue. - **"Project Nessie."** Revealed when the complaint was unredacted in November 2023: an algorithm that raised prices on products where Amazon predicted competitors would follow, then held them there. Alleged excess profit of about **$1.4 billion**. Amazon says it was designed to stop price-matching spirals, "didn't work as intended," and was scrapped; the FTC cites internal documents calling it "an incredible success" and a 2022 proposal to restart it. The state coalition grew: 17 states at filing, then 18 states plus Puerto Rico by the Second Amended Complaint of 31 October 2024. Always attach a date to the count. ## Khan, and the tension inside the case [[Lina Khan]] chaired the FTC from June 2021 to January 2025, and this case is the institutional expression of her 2017 *Yale Law Journal* note *Amazon's Antitrust Paradox* — which argued that the [[Consumer Welfare Standard]]'s focus on price is structurally blind to a platform that sustains low prices while entrenching gatekeeper power. The title answers [[Robert Bork]]'s [[The Antitrust Paradox]], the book that installed the standard. ⭐ **But the complaint as filed pleads substantial price-*raising* harm** — anti-discounting, and Nessie above all. That makes it largely litigable *within* the consumer-welfare standard rather than against it. Critics read this as Khan-the-enforcer retreating from Khan-the-scholar; defenders read it as choosing the ground where the case can actually be won. Either way it is the most important thing to understand about the case: **the [[New Brandeis Movement]]'s flagship litigation is being argued in its opponents' language.** Whatever the verdict, it will not by itself settle whether the standard needed replacing. ## Procedural history **Motion to dismiss denied 30 September 2024** (order unsealed in early October). Judge Chun let the **entire federal case** proceed — both §2 theories and the §5 claim — along with most state antitrust claims, while dismissing certain state counts including Pennsylvania common-law claims. He also **bifurcated liability and remedies**, which means any breakup question is deferred to a second proceeding and is years away even if the FTC wins. **Trial** was originally set for October 2026, moved to February 2027, and now stands at **29 March 2027**, following the autumn 2025 government shutdown that paused the litigation. > [!warning] Provisional date > The March 2027 setting rests on thinner sourcing than the rest of this page, and the trial date has already moved three times. Treat any date here as provisional and check the docket. ## Status, September 2026 The case is alive and in the pretrial and expert phase — neither settled nor dropped — and it **survived the change in FTC leadership**. [[Andrew Ferguson]], chairman since January 2025, continued it, consistent with a posture of maintaining Big Tech enforcement while rejecting Khan's theoretical framing. The stronger evidence that Amazon enforcement is not merely surviving but expanding is the August 2026 advertising case, and specifically its coalition: 22 state attorneys general including Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky — a markedly red-state-inclusive lineup, against the mostly blue-state group that joined in 2023. Antitrust against the large platforms is one of the few areas where enforcement has been genuinely bipartisan across an administration change. ## See Also - [[Lina Khan]] · [[Andrew Ferguson]] · [[FTC]] · [[Amazon]] - [[Consumer Welfare Standard]] · [[The Antitrust Paradox]] · [[New Brandeis Movement]] — the doctrinal fight - [[United States v. Google]] — the parallel monopolization case, and the remedies decision that reframed the breakup question - [[AT&T Breakup]] — the structural-remedy precedent both sides cite - [[US Antitrust and Monopoly Timeline]] · [[Legal Cases Hub]]