Judge Allows Amazon Antitrust Case to Proceed, Throws Out Few State Claims

Amazon Delivery signage is displayed outside an Amazon hub during Prime Day on July 12, 2022, in Torrance, Calif. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against internet giant Amazon can continue but with more limited claims from state co-plaintiffs, a federal judge ruled in a recently unsealed order.

Unsealed on Monday, the order represented a major defeat for Amazon in its ongoing litigation with the FTC after it filed a complaint in September 2023. The agency and internet giant are scheduled for trial in October 2026 with potentially large-scale changes in store for the company if it’s found to have violated federal and state laws.

The FTC and the attorneys general of 18 states, plus Puerto Rico, have alleged in court the e-commerce behemoth is abusing its position in the marketplace to inflate prices on and off its platform, overcharge sellers and stifle competition that pops up on the market.

FTC spokesperson Doug Farrar said in a prepared statement that the harms Amazon purportedly causes through its conduct will “be on full display at trial.”

Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle noted that the ruling by Judge John Chun, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, was an early one and had to assume the facts alleged in the complaint were true. “They are not,” he said.

Chun’s order, which was filed in the previous week, denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss for the FTC’s claims and majority of states involved. Some of the claims under Oklahoma, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania law were rejected, as well as a count related to Maryland.

“[T]he Amended Complaint does not contain any allegations about whether Amazon’s actions affect economic activity within the state,” Chun said. He added that “the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under Maryland law.”

Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs were given until Oct. 31 to file an amended complaint in the case. Part of Chun’s order also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to bifurcate proceedings to determine liability and those for remedies, if necessary.

The FTC and states’ initial amended complaint, filed in March, requested seemingly broad remedies, including “any preliminary or permanent equitable relief, including but not limited to structural relief, necessary to restore fair competition and remedy the harm to competition caused by Amazon’s violations of the law.”

Amazon filed its motion to dismiss in December, alleging that its conduct was actually “procompetitive” and accusing the FTC of using an unsubstantiated “epithet” in calling their conduct “anticompetitive.” The company’s practice of rapidly matching competitors’ prices, it said, was a form of discounting that was “affirmatively” encouraged by antitrust laws.

The motion argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to punish the company for featuring competitively priced offers rather than uncompetitive ones. “Under the Complaint’s theory, Amazon would be required to feature what it knows are bad deals,” the motion read.

It added that “the [c]omplaint does not acknowledge the facially procompetitive effects of featuring well-priced offers, let alone assert facts plausibly showing that despite those effects, market-wide prices have risen—whether on average or for any particular product.”

Chun rejected Amazon’s arguments about its conduct having procompetitive effects, stating it was improper to consider them at this stage in the case. He added that the plaintiffs “plausibly” alleged that Amazon’s conduct was anticompetitive.

Chun’s order came amid a flurry of FTC and Justice Department (DOJ) complaints against tech giants and leaders in other industries.

In Virginia, Google is currently litigating an antitrust lawsuit DOJ brought over its advertising technology practices. A federal judge ruled in July that the company violated antitrust law in the market for search and set up a timetable for delivering remedies by August 2025, The New York Times reported.

Like Google and Apple, Amazon maintained that its conduct was allowed under law and that the government’s case against it was inconsistent with antitrust precedent.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.