Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The FTC alleges that Amazon executives and other employees used Signal’s disappearing-message feature after Amazon was told to preserve records for an antitrust investigation. Amazon disputes that relevant evidence was lost. The filings describe a contested evidence-preservation dispute—not a court finding that Amazon deliberately destroyed antitrust evidence.
What the FTC alleged
In an April 25, 2024 motion, the Federal Trade Commission asked the court to compel documents about Amazon’s preservation efforts and possible loss of Signal messages. The agency alleged that employees used Signal for substantive business communications, manually enabled disappearing messages, and continued using the feature after Amazon received notice of the investigation. It also alleged that Amazon delayed giving employees instructions to preserve Signal communications. The filing was a discovery motion, not a ruling that spoliation had occurred. Read the FTC’s April 25, 2024 motion.
The FTC identified Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy, David Zapolsky, Jeff Wilke, and Dave Clark as Signal users. It cited surviving messages about business subjects including antitrust news, USPS contracting, and advertising. Those examples do not establish that Signal messages proved an antitrust violation or addressed the specific conduct challenged in the case.
Why Signal messages matter to the antitrust case
The FTC’s underlying lawsuit alleges that Amazon unlawfully maintained monopoly power in online retail. Its claims include allegations about treatment of sellers, fulfillment practices, anti-discounting policies, and Project Nessie, an alleged pricing algorithm that the FTC says increased prices. The messages matter to the preservation dispute because the FTC says potentially relevant business communications may have been set to disappear—not because the public record establishes that they proved Project Nessie or another alleged violation. The FTC’s case page lists the complaint, later pleadings, and a September 30, 2024 order on Amazon’s motion to dismiss.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
What Signal’s disappearing-message setting does—and does not show
Signal’s support documentation says messages configured with a disappearing-message timer are automatically deleted when the timer expires. The FTC filings describe deletion from the sender’s and recipients’ devices. A setting or timer change can indicate that automatic deletion was configured, but it does not by itself reveal the contents of every message that may have disappeared. Signal’s end-to-end encryption and its disappearing-message feature are also distinct: encryption protects message contents from unauthorized access; the legal dispute concerns whether messages were set to expire after a preservation obligation allegedly arose. Signal explains how disappearing messages work.
Timeline of the dispute
| Date | What the filings say |
|---|---|
| April 2019 | The FTC says Amazon executives began using Signal’s disappearing-message feature. |
| June 17, 2019 | The FTC says it sent Amazon a document-preservation letter. |
| April 2020 | The FTC alleges Bezos received a preservation notice. Amazon later said it learned during custodian-focused diligence in summer 2020 that some custodians had used Signal. |
| March 4, 2022 | Court materials summarized in the record say Amazon disclosed Signal use to the FTC team. |
| April 25, 2024 | The FTC filed its motion seeking documents about preservation efforts and possible spoliation. |
| May 13, 2024 | Amazon filed its opposition, arguing the FTC had not shown that relevant evidence was destroyed. |
| May 23, 2024 | The FTC replied that its review of screenshots showed more than 300 instances of disappearing messages being enabled or timers changed after Amazon was on notice. |
| January 30, 2026 | The FTC and state plaintiffs filed a later motion seeking spoliation sanctions over alleged failures to retain records, including ephemeral messages. |
The 2024 filing dates and allegations are in the parties’ FTC motion, Amazon opposition, and FTC reply. The later sanctions motion is available in the January 30, 2026 docket entry.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
What the FTC said it found
In its May 23, 2024 reply, the FTC said it had reviewed more than 2,900 screenshots from selected Signal users’ phones and identified over 300 instances in which disappearing messages were enabled or a timer was changed after Amazon was allegedly on notice of the investigation. The agency also pointed to surviving work-related messages and use of Signal by senior executives and other custodians. These are the FTC’s descriptions of its evidence; a screenshot showing a setting change does not establish the text, relevance, or purpose of every message that may have expired.
Amazon’s response
Amazon argued that the FTC had not shown that the missing messages concerned the specific business practices challenged in the antitrust case. It said Signal use was limited, that it voluntarily disclosed the use, collected conversations from employees’ phones, and allowed FTC personnel to inspect them. Amazon also pointed to its production of approximately 1.7 million documents and more than 100 terabytes of data, and argued that the agency was speculating that relevant messages had disappeared without proving they existed. It objected to turning over preservation notices and legal guidance that it considered privileged. Amazon’s opposition sets out its arguments; the company also published an official response.
What “spoliation” means here
Spoliation generally means the destruction, loss, or alteration of potentially relevant evidence when a party had a duty to preserve it. In a civil discovery dispute, the questions can include whether the duty existed, whether relevant information was actually lost, whether the loss can be remedied, and whether the conduct was intentional or prejudicial. Using Signal is not itself spoliation, nor is encryption. The issue is whether relevant messages were deleted after a preservation duty arose and, if so, what consequence is justified. Spoliation in this context should not be confused with a criminal finding of evidence tampering.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What remains unresolved
The FTC’s April 2024 request sought records about preservation notices, employee instructions regarding Signal and other ephemeral messaging apps, and Amazon’s retention and collection efforts. The FTC’s January 2026 filing sought sanctions, but asking for sanctions is not the same as a court granting them. The materials available here establish competing allegations, responses, and motions; they do not establish a final judicial finding that Amazon intentionally destroyed relevant antitrust evidence.
Rank #4
For any company, the practical preservation problem extends beyond Signal: business communications on personal or company devices may become relevant to litigation or an investigation. Legal holds and retention procedures need to address messaging apps, automatic deletion settings, employee instructions, and collection from devices. In this case, the contested questions include which custodians received instructions, when they received them, what messages were relevant, what survived on devices or in screenshots, and whether any alleged loss prejudiced the FTC.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
