Amazon is facing a new lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 22 states, which accuse the company of secretly charging businesses more for advertising on its platform.
Key Takeaways
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), alongside 22 U.S. states, has filed a landmark lawsuit against Amazon, alleging the tech giant secretly manipulated its online ad auctions to inflate costs for over a million third-party sellers.
- Amazon is accused of abandoning its publicly advertised “second-price” auction model in 2019, surreptitiously introducing a “soft reserve price” and an “invented auction participant” to force advertisers to pay their full bids close to 80% of the time.
- This alleged deceptive practice is claimed to have generated tens of billions of dollars in additional, undisclosed revenue for Amazon, significantly impacting the operational costs and profitability of small and medium-sized businesses.
The lawsuit, filed Monday, claims Amazon spent more than seven years quietly increasing the prices advertisers paid through its online ad auctions. According to the complaint, the alleged practice affected more than one million brands and sellers and may have generated tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue for Amazon.
FTC and States Allege Amazon Secretly Inflated Ad Costs for Sellers
In a significant legal challenge that could redefine how digital advertising platforms operate, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), joined by a formidable coalition of 22 U.S. states, has initiated a lawsuit against Amazon. The core of the complaint levies a serious accusation: that Amazon secretly manipulated its online advertising auctions, forcing businesses to pay substantially more than they were led to believe.
The Deceptive Shift: From Fair Auction to Inflated Bids
The lawsuit centers on Amazon’s highly utilized advertising products, including Sponsored Products, Sponsored Brands, and Display ads, which are prominently featured alongside search results. For years, Amazon reportedly assured over half a million small and medium-sized businesses that its ad auctions operated under a “second-price” model. In this widely adopted auction format, the winning advertiser typically pays only a marginal amount (often just one cent) more than the second-highest bid, rather than the full amount of their own maximum bid. This system is designed to encourage advertisers to bid their true valuation, confident that they won’t overpay, fostering a seemingly fair and efficient marketplace.
The “second-price” mechanism is crucial for building trust, especially among small businesses with limited marketing budgets. It allows them to participate aggressively without the fear of excessive expenditure, knowing their actual cost will be benchmarked against the next competitor. This transparency is vital for maintaining a healthy advertising ecosystem where numerous sellers vie for visibility in Amazon’s crowded marketplace.
The Alleged Secret: “Soft Reserve Price” and “Invented Auction Participant”
However, the FTC alleges a clandestine and “surreptitious” alteration to this system began in 2019, unbeknownst to advertisers. According to the complaint, Amazon introduced a hidden surcharge internally referred to as a “soft reserve price.” More controversially, it purportedly employed what an internal document described as an “invented auction participant” – essentially, a fake bidder. The FTC claims this amounted to a “shill bid”: Amazon itself artificially manufactured a higher price point for legitimate advertisers to beat, rather than allowing prices to be determined purely by genuine competition among sellers.
The impact of this alleged change was profound. What was advertised as a second-price auction, intended to keep costs in check, effectively transformed into a first-price auction for a significant majority of bids. The complaint specifically claims that Sponsored Products advertisers were forced to pay their own full winning bid close to 80% of the time. This meant that businesses, believing they were protected by the second-price mechanism, were in fact paying considerably more, directly impacting their profitability and return on advertising investment.
The Financial Motive and Broad Impact
The FTC posits that Amazon’s motivation was clear: to significantly boost its advertising revenue. The company reported more than $68 billion in advertising revenue last year, a substantial and rapidly growing segment of its business. The lawsuit alleges that disclosing these changes would have inevitably led advertisers to lower their bids, thereby cutting into this lucrative revenue stream. By keeping the modifications hidden, Amazon allegedly ensured advertisers continued to bid high, inadvertently funneling billions in additional, undisclosed revenue to the tech giant.
The scale of this alleged practice is staggering, potentially affecting over a million brands and sellers across the Amazon ecosystem. The financial implications are estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars, directly impacting the operational budgets and competitive viability of countless small and medium-sized businesses that rely heavily on Amazon’s platform to reach consumers. For many, advertising on Amazon is not merely an option but a necessity to survive and thrive in the e-commerce landscape.
Amazon’s Defense: A “Misguided” Understanding
In response to these grave allegations, Amazon has issued a strong denial. In an official blog post, the company described the FTC’s lawsuit as “misguided,” arguing that the complaint “fundamentally misunderstands how advertisers operate.” Amazon maintains that its auction systems are complex, processing billions of bids across diverse placements and formats, which naturally leads to variations in pricing. Furthermore, the company asserts that advertisers are “properly” informed about its pricing system, implying no deception took place.
The broad coalition of 22 states joining the FTC in this legal battle underscores the widespread concern and the perceived gravity of Amazon’s alleged conduct. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington, representing a significant portion of the U.S. economy.
The Bottom Line
This lawsuit against Amazon represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing scrutiny of dominant tech platforms and their operational transparency. At its core, the case challenges the very integrity of the digital advertising ecosystem, particularly concerning the millions of small businesses that are increasingly reliant on these platforms for market access and survival. Should the FTC and its state partners successfully prove their allegations, it could compel Amazon to enact fundamental changes to its advertising practices, potentially leading to substantial financial penalties and a more equitable landscape for advertisers. Conversely, a victory for Amazon could strengthen the current power dynamics and potentially set a precedent that benefits other large platforms. The outcome of this high-stakes legal battle will undoubtedly send significant ripples across the entire e-commerce and digital advertising industries, shaping regulatory frameworks and commercial relationships for years to come.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
{content}
Source:{feed_title}