Amazon ran a rigged casino. That is the allegation at the center of a federal lawsuit filed Monday by the FTC and a bipartisan coalition of 22 states, who say the company secretly manipulated its own online advertising auctions to overcharge more than a million advertisers and pocket an estimated $20 billion since 2019. Amazon, naturally, strongly disagrees.
The Auction That Wasn't
Here is the setup. Brands and sellers compete on Amazon to place ads when shoppers search for products. Those ad placements go to auction. Amazon uses what's called a "second price" auction, a format specifically designed to feel fair: you submit your bid, and if you win, you pay just one cent more than whoever came in second. You bid what something is worth to you, and the market sorts it out.
Except, according to the complaint filed in Washington state, that's not what Amazon actually did. The FTC alleges that Amazon charged Sponsored Products advertisers their own full winning bid nearly 80% of the time, rather than the lower second-place price the auction format promised. In other words, Amazon told advertisers they were playing one game and quietly ran a different one behind the curtain.
The complaint puts it plainly: "Amazon overrides and replaces the actual auction results with higher prices set by Amazon to increase its profits." Why? Because, the lawsuit states, Amazon "was unhappy about how much revenue its advertising auctions were generating." So they fixed that. Allegedly.
Who Gets Hurt and How Much
The FTC is not just going to bat for advertisers here. The suit argues that consumers have been harmed too, because advertisers don't just absorb extra costs cheerfully. They pass them on. Every time Amazon allegedly overcharged a seller for an ad, that seller had less margin to work with and more reason to bump up the price of whatever they were selling.
The complaint says consumers "are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result." That's the kind of language lawyers use when they want a judge to take something seriously. Over a million advertising customers affected. Twenty billion dollars in alleged overcharges. Six years of this, if the FTC's timeline is right.
Amazon's stock felt it immediately. Shares closed down 2.5% on Monday after the lawsuit dropped, which, for a company of Amazon's size, is not nothing.
Amazon's Defense, Such As It Is
Amazon came out swinging with a statement calling the suit "misguided" and accusing the FTC of fundamentally misunderstanding how advertisers operate. Their argument: advertisers adjust their bids based on real-world performance, not on technical descriptions of auction mechanics, so any deviation from the textbook second-price format is basically irrelevant in practice.
The company also dropped a statistic it clearly thinks is exculpatory. "Average winning bids fell 50% from 2019 to 2025 on Sponsored Products search ads," Amazon said, adding that "roughly 92% of placed ads are not given to the highest bid." Which sounds reassuring until you remember that the allegation isn't about every ad category or every auction structure. It's about a specific, systematic practice the company allegedly ran while telling advertisers something different was happening.
"The FTC wants the public to believe this case is about higher prices for consumers. It is not," Amazon said. Whether that denial holds up in a courtroom is a separate question from whether it holds up in a press release.
This Is Not Amazon's First FTC Rodeo
Amazon settled a different FTC case just last year, in September 2025, over allegations that it enrolled millions of consumers in Amazon Prime without their consent and then deliberately made it difficult to cancel. That settlement cost Amazon $2.5 billion, including civil penalties and consumer refunds. Two and a half billion dollars, and the company kept growing.
The pattern here is worth sitting with. These are not accusations of rogue employees or isolated technical glitches. Both cases, the Prime enrollment scheme and now the alleged ad auction manipulation, describe deliberate design choices made to extract more money from people who didn't know they were being taken for a ride. One was aimed at consumers. The other at businesses. Amazon is an equal-opportunity alleged grifter.
The FTC has been sharpening its focus on Amazon for years. This lawsuit, with 22 states signed on in a rare bipartisan show of force, suggests regulators are done treating the company as too complicated or too important to hold accountable.
What Happens Next
The lawsuit was filed in Washington state, Amazon's home turf, which makes for an interesting jurisdictional wrinkle. From here, it goes through the standard federal litigation grind: motions, discovery, probably years of legal maneuvering before anything resembling a verdict.
The FTC under its current leadership has shown more appetite than previous administrations for actually fighting these cases rather than settling for a fine that amounts to a rounding error on a quarterly earnings call. Whether that appetite survives whatever political winds blow through Washington over the next few years is an open question. Twenty billion dollars in alleged ill-gotten ad revenue is a lot of money to just let sit there.
The Dingo Take
You are supposed to believe that Amazon, a company that generated roughly $56 billion in advertising revenue last year alone, was so concerned about serving its advertiser customers well that it simply couldn't be bothered to run its auctions the way it told those customers it was running them. That the mechanics were too confusing, too technical, too beside the point. That the real story is bids went down over time so stop making a fuss.
That is not a defense. That is a company that got caught with its hand in a very specific pocket hoping you'll look at a different pocket. The FTC's allegation is not that Amazon's ad business produced bad outcomes on average. It's that Amazon made a deliberate choice to charge advertisers more than the auction rules said they'd pay, did it close to 80% of the time on Sponsored Products, and collected roughly $20 billion in the process. If your bank told you it was charging you 1% interest and then charged you 4% on 80% of your statements, "but interest rates came down overall" would not be a satisfying explanation.
Amazon has now settled one massive FTC case for $2.5 billion and is staring down another one with twenty billion dollars at stake. At some point the cost-benefit math on "build the predatory practice into the product and fight it in court later" has to stop working out. That point has apparently not yet arrived.
Comments