FTC and 22 States Sue Amazon Over Alleged Hidden Ad Surcharges
The bipartisan complaint, filed in federal court in Washington state, tests whether the FTC under its current leadership can sustain a major antitrust action against one of the country's largest...
The Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of 22 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday against Amazon, alleging the company secretly imposed hidden surcharges on roughly 1.2 million advertising customers over a seven-year period, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The complaint, as reported by the Washington Examiner, alleges that Amazon inflated the prices advertisers were required to pay for placing ads on its shopping platform without disclosing those increases transparently. The state coalition is described as bipartisan, meaning it includes attorneys general from both Republican- and Democratic-led states, though the full list of participating states had not been published in full at time of publication.
The FTC filed the case in the Western District of Washington, the federal jurisdiction that covers Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered. Amazon had not issued a formal public response to the complaint as of the time this story was filed. What Amazon stated in court filings, if anything, is not yet part of the public record.
The lawsuit adds to a pattern of federal antitrust scrutiny of large technology companies. The FTC filed a separate case against Amazon in September 2023 alleging the company used anticompetitive tactics to maintain its dominance in online retail, a case that was still active as of mid-2026. The current complaint is distinct, focusing specifically on the company's advertising business rather than its retail marketplace practices.
Amazon's advertising segment has grown substantially in recent years. Amazon reported advertising services revenue of approximately 46.9 billion dollars for the full year 2023, according to the company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint does not specify a total dollar amount that advertisers are alleged to have been overcharged, and that figure is not yet part of the public court record.
The mechanism alleged in the complaint centers on technology Amazon used to set or adjust the prices advertisers paid without clear disclosure, according to the Washington Examiner's reporting on the filing. The precise technical details of how the surcharges were calculated and applied are contained in the complaint itself, which is a public document available through the PACER federal court records system.
The FTC is currently chaired by Andrew Ferguson, who was confirmed by the Senate after President Trump nominated him. Ferguson has continued several ongoing FTC antitrust cases while also initiating new enforcement actions. Whether this complaint was initiated under the current leadership or carried over from prior FTC action is not stated in available reporting and would require review of internal FTC records or a formal agency statement to confirm.
The involvement of 22 states in the complaint increases the legal and resource weight behind the case. Multi-state coalitions in antitrust actions are procedurally significant because state attorneys general can pursue parallel remedies under their own consumer protection statutes in addition to federal antitrust law. The division of enforcement authority between the federal complaint and any state-level claims would be defined by the terms of the joint filing, which was not available in full text at time of publication.
If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, available remedies under the FTC Act and applicable state laws could include monetary relief for affected advertisers, injunctive orders requiring Amazon to change its pricing disclosure practices, or both. A judgment on the merits is typically years away from the date a complaint is filed in cases of this complexity.
Several material facts remain unknown at this stage. The full list of 22 participating states has not been confirmed through a primary source. The total dollar amount of alleged overcharges has not been publicly quantified in available reporting. Amazon's legal response, which will be filed as an answer or a motion to dismiss, does not yet exist in the public record. The case docket number, which would allow public tracking of filings through PACER, had not been independently confirmed at time of publication. Those documents, once filed, will define the factual and legal disputes the court will be asked to resolve.