The Federal Trade Commission and state partners accuse Amazon of using practices that harmed competition in two markets: online shopping and services for third-party sellers. A federal court let the FTC’s core claims and many state claims proceed in September 2024, but that ruling did not decide whether Amazon broke the law. The later status of the 2023 case is not established in the available official timeline, which ends with a filing dated October 31, 2024.
What is the FTC lawsuit against Amazon about?
In September 2023, the FTC, 18 state attorneys general and Puerto Rico sued Amazon over alleged monopolization. The plaintiffs say Amazon used interlocking practices to maintain monopoly power in two markets. These are the government’s market definitions and allegations—not findings that Amazon has monopoly power or violated antitrust law.
The case is not simply a claim that Amazon is large or popular. The plaintiffs’ theory connects particular business practices to harm in separate markets affecting shoppers and sellers. Their claims must be evaluated under antitrust law and proved in court; the complaint itself does not establish that the alleged conduct occurred as described or caused unlawful harm.
What did the FTC accuse Amazon of?
The FTC’s public account emphasizes two alleged mechanisms. One concerns the visibility of sellers’ offers when they charge less elsewhere. The other concerns the conditions sellers face when seeking to make products eligible for Prime. The agency argues that these practices helped Amazon protect its position in the markets it identified.
#1 Best Overall
Alleged effects on shoppers
For shoppers, the FTC’s online-superstore theory focuses in part on price competition and product discovery. The agency alleges that when a seller offered a lower price on another site, Amazon could make that seller’s product harder to find in Amazon search results. The FTC says this type of alleged anti-discounting measure can discourage sellers from offering lower prices elsewhere and weaken competition over price.
Alleged effects on third-party sellers
For sellers, the FTC’s theory centers on the market for online marketplace services. The agency alleges that access to Prime eligibility was conditioned on using Amazon’s fulfillment service. It argues that this could raise the cost of selling across other platforms by pressuring sellers to use Amazon’s logistics rather than choosing fulfillment arrangements independently.
The FTC presents these practices as connected: one concerns how sellers’ offers appear to shoppers, and the other concerns the terms sellers face when using Amazon’s marketplace and seeking Prime eligibility. Whether either practice occurred as alleged, harmed competition, or violated the law remains a matter for the case—not a conclusion established by the complaint.
How do the two alleged markets differ?
| The government’s theory | Who is affected | Alleged mechanism | Harm the FTC says may follow |
|---|---|---|---|
| Online superstore market | Shoppers | Products from sellers offering lower prices elsewhere could allegedly become harder to find in Amazon search results. | Less effective price competition and fewer visible lower-priced offers. |
| Online marketplace services market | Third-party sellers | Prime eligibility was allegedly tied to using Amazon’s fulfillment service. | Higher costs or less flexibility for sellers seeking to sell across other platforms. |
This comparison describes the plaintiffs’ allegations, not an independent finding that the markets are correctly defined or that the predicted harms occurred. The case should not be reduced to a single, unspecified claim about Amazon’s market share: the complaint advances different theories for shoppers and for sellers purchasing marketplace services.
Did the court rule that Amazon broke antitrust law?
No. On September 30, 2024, the district court ruled on Amazon’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion to bifurcate. It allowed the FTC’s core federal claims and many state claims to proceed, while dismissing some state-law claims.
A motion-to-dismiss ruling addresses whether pleaded claims may move forward at an early stage. It does not decide whether the allegations are true, whether Amazon is liable, or what remedy should apply. Allowing claims to proceed is therefore not a trial verdict or a finding that Amazon broke antitrust law.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happens next in the Amazon antitrust case?
The FTC’s official case timeline available for this account ends with a redacted second amended complaint dated October 31, 2024. It does not establish the complete later procedural status of the 2023 antitrust lawsuit as of October 8, 2026. On this record, it is not possible to state whether the case has since reached trial, produced later rulings, or been resolved. Readers looking for a current case schedule or outcome should verify the docket for this specific lawsuit rather than infer one from the early ruling.
That distinction matters because another FTC case against Amazon is separate. An October 6, 2026 order concerns a case filed August 31, 2026, docket 2:26-cv-03097, and sets deadlines in that matter. Those dates do not describe the schedule of the 2023 antitrust action.
What the lawsuit does—and does not—establish for shoppers and sellers
The complaint puts alleged effects on prices, product visibility, seller costs and marketplace choice at the center of the FTC’s case. Those issues may matter to household shopping decisions and to businesses that sell online, but a lawsuit’s allegations are not evidence that a particular shopper paid more or that a particular seller’s costs rose. The court’s September 2024 ruling allowed major claims to continue; it did not resolve those questions.
The FTC’s case announcement included 18 state attorneys general and Puerto Rico as partners. FTC Chair Lina M. Khan described the complaint as alleging “punitive and coercive tactics,” while Deputy Director John Newman said the case had the potential to benefit many people. Those are agency officials’ statements advocating the case, not neutral judicial findings.
Quick Recap
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.
