The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 18 states, and Puerto Rico allege in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington that Amazon illegally maintains an online marketplace monopoly. In October 2026, the court refused Amazon’s request to delay trial, and Amazon moved to narrow the FTC’s fulfillment and Project Nessie claims. A bench trial is set to begin on March 29, 2027.
Latest development Oct 19, 2026
On October 19, 2026, Amazon asked the court to narrow the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) claims tied to its fulfillment business and the Project Nessie pricing algorithm. The FTC moved to narrow one of Amazon’s defenses. The bench trial is set to begin on March 29, 2027.
Why it matters
The court will decide whether Amazon’s anti-discounting measures and its linking of Prime eligibility to its fulfillment service unlawfully maintain its monopoly and raise costs for sellers and shoppers. Potential remedies include structural relief against the marketplace, which would affect Amazon’s sellers and the wider e-commerce market.
Background
On September 26, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 18 state attorneys general, and Puerto Rico sued Amazon.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. They allege that Amazon maintains monopoly power in markets for an “online superstore” and for marketplace services. The complaint asserts claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), and describes interlocking tactics. Amazon allegedly uses algorithms to punish sellers who offer lower prices elsewhere, suppressing them in search results and the buy box. The plaintiffs also claim that Amazon conditions Prime eligibility on use of its fulfillment service, degrades search results with paid advertising, and extracts escalating fees that overcharge sellers by billions.
On September 30, 2024, Judge John H. Chun largely denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss. The court allowed all federal claims under the Sherman Act and the FTC Act to proceed, along with most state claims. It dismissed a handful of state-law counts. On November 14, 2024, Amazon challenged the remaining state-law counts.
Trial was initially set for October 13, 2026, and was later reset. A December 2025 scheduling order fixed a bench trial to begin on March 29, 2027, with a pretrial conference on March 15, 2027, and trial briefs due March 22, 2027. On October 9, 2026, the court denied Amazon’s request to postpone the trial to June 2027. Amazon had cited overlapping proceedings in a separate antitrust case brought by California’s attorney general, but the court found insufficient justification to change the date.
The case is now in pretrial proceedings. On October 19, 2026, Amazon asked the court to narrow the FTC’s claims tied to its fulfillment business and the Project Nessie pricing algorithm. The FTC moved to narrow one of Amazon’s defenses. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and potentially structural relief against the marketplace. The case is separate from the FTC’s consumer-protection case over “dark patterns” in Prime enrollment, which Amazon settled for $2.5B in September 2025.
Timeline 7 events
-
FilingAmazon moves to narrow FTC’s Project Nessie and fulfillment claims
Amazon asked the court to pare down the FTC’s claims tied to its fulfillment business and the Project Nessie pricing algorithm ahead of the March 2027 trial. The FTC moved to narrow one of Amazon’s defenses.
Amazon Seeks To Nix 'Project Nessie' Claims From FTC SuitAmazon moves for judgment in US antitrust case brought by FTC, states
-
OrderJudge denies Amazon’s bid to delay FTC trial
Judge John Chun rejected Amazon’s request to move the bench trial from March 29, 2027, to June 2027. He cited insufficient justification and noted the court’s preparation for the scheduled dates.
Amazon's bid to delay US FTC monopolization trial rejected by judgeAmazon Can't Push Back FTC Antitrust Trial
-
OrderCourt resets bench trial to March 29, 2027
Judge Chun’s scheduling order also set a pretrial conference for March 15, 2027, and a deadline of March 22, 2027, for trial briefs.
US FTC-Amazon antitrust trial pushed back to March 2027 (MLex)
-
OrderAmazon challenges remaining state-law counts
-
OrderCourt largely denies Amazon’s motion to dismiss
Judge Chun allowed all federal Sherman Act and FTC Act claims and most state claims to proceed. The court dismissed a handful of state-law counts.
-
OrderCourt initially sets trial for October 13, 2026
-
FilingFTC and states sue Amazon
The complaint alleged monopoly maintenance through anti-discounting measures, coercion linking Prime eligibility to Amazon’s fulfillment service, search-ad degradation, and escalating seller fees.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the court find Amazon liable on at least one federal monopolization claim by September 30, 2028?
- Court finds Amazon liable44%
- Amazon defeats all federal claims22%
- Still pending on September 30, 202821%
- FTC settles or drops federal claims13%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2028in 23 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely outcome is that the court finds Amazon liable on at least one federal claim by September 30, 2028 (44%). All federal claims survived dismissal, and the court refused to delay the March 29, 2027, bench trial. A liability ruling should follow within months of trial.
How it resolves. Resolves “Court finds Amazon liable” if, by September 30, 2028, the W.D. Wash. court issues findings, a judgment, or a summary judgment ruling holding Amazon liable on at least one Sherman Act § 2 or FTC Act § 5 claim. Resolves “Amazon defeats all federal claims” if the court enters summary judgment or post-trial findings rejecting every federal claim. Resolves “FTC settles or drops federal claims” if a consent decree, settlement, or voluntary dismissal ends all federal claims before any liability ruling. Otherwise resolves “Still pending.” Later appeals do not affect resolution.
Reasoning
Starting point. U.S. government Sherman Act § 2 monopolization cases against large technology platforms that survived dismissal and reached trial: Recent tried government platform monopolization cases found liability in roughly 60% to 75% of decided cases (Microsoft, Google Search, Google Ad Tech for, FTC v. Meta against). Pre-trial settlements of federal structural cases run roughly 10% to 20%.
Recent government monopolization cases against large platforms that reached trial produced liability findings in most, but not all, decided cases. FTC v. Meta shows that market definition can defeat the government at trial. The record shows all federal claims survived Amazon’s motion to dismiss in September 2024. The court denied Amazon’s bid to push trial to June 2027, so the March 29, 2027, bench trial appears firm. Complex § 2 bench trials typically yield findings three to nine months after closing arguments, which leaves margin before September 30, 2028. Amazon’s October 19, 2026, motion to narrow the fulfillment and Project Nessie claims could trim the case, but it does not target every theory. A ruling for Amazon on market definition remains the leading alternative. A negotiated consent decree is possible given Amazon’s 2025 settlement of the separate Prime case, though structural relief demands make a deal harder. This forecast asks the same question as the October 17, 2026, forecast, and nothing in the record since then moves any outcome by five points or more.
All federal claims survived the motion to dismiss · Court refused to delay the March 2027 bench trial · Market definition risk for the online superstore theory · Pending motions to narrow fulfillment and Nessie claims · Settlement incentives versus the FTC’s structural relief demands
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 5, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made
Disclosure: Anthropic, which makes the model that wrote this forecast, competes with or has commercial ties to a party to this case.
What it would mean
If the court finds Amazon liable on at least one federal monopolization claim (44%), that ruling alone would move no money. The FTC and the states seek injunctive and possibly structural relief, not damages. The business in play is third-party seller services, which earned Amazon about $170B in 2025 out of about $720B in total revenue. Any order on seller fees, anti-discounting tools, or the link between Prime and fulfillment would come only after a remedies decision and any Ninth Circuit appeal.
The largest consequence would be a liability finding followed by structural relief against the marketplace or its fulfillment business. That would reach a revenue line of about $170B and reset the terms on which sellers reach Amazon shoppers, including listed sellers that rely on Fulfillment by Amazon. If Amazon defeats all federal claims (22%), its current marketplace model would stand, and the challenge would shift to the separate California case. A settlement (13%) would likely mean conduct commitments rather than a payment, unlike the $2.5B Prime settlement of 2025.
Money, who pays, markets and what to watch
Two steps ahead. If liability is found, the real money would sit with private plaintiffs, not the FTC, because the federal claims seek no damages. Detailed bench-trial findings could become the backbone of follow-on suits over a fee line worth about $170B a year. That makes the period between trial and a written ruling the moment when Amazon’s settlement incentive peaks. A consent decree without findings would avoid that record.
The money
- Amazon.com: $172.2B a year of revenue at stake. Annual revenue a remedy would put at stake: Amazon’s third-party seller services line (commissions, related fulfillment and shipping fees, and other seller services) for fiscal 2025, $172.162B. A structural remedy against the marketplace or fulfillment would reach this line. A narrower conduct remedy would touch only part of it, and that part is not separately disclosed, so low and high are the same figure. The federal claims seek no damages, so no payment is sized. No cash changes hands. Any remedy would take effect only after a post-trial liability ruling (trial starts March 29, 2027), a remedies decision, and any appeal to the Ninth Circuit.[1][2][3] That is 24% of its annual revenue ($716.9B, Dec 31, 2025).
- Figures used: Amazon.com, annual revenue $716.9B (Dec 31, 2025)[1][3]
Who pays
- Amazon.com, Inc. would bear the full cost of any injunction or structural remedy. The federal claims seek conduct and structural relief, so there is no damages award for an insurer or co-defendant to share.
- Third-party sellers would feel any change first. Seller services revenue, made up of commissions and fulfillment and shipping fees, rose from $156.1B in 2024 to $172.2B in 2025.[2][3]
- Listed sellers such as Hour Loop and My Size’s Orgad unit earn practically all their revenue on Amazon.com and pay Amazon fees for fulfillment, so a remedy on fees or Prime eligibility would flow through their costs.[4][5]
- The $2.5B Prime enrollment settlement of September 2025 is a separate case and does not offset or cap any remedy here.
Markets
- Amazon.com, Inc. common stock (Nasdaq: AMZN) and its bonds are the securities that would price any liability or remedy ruling. Amazon reported fiscal 2025 revenue of $716.9B.[1][3]
- Third-party seller services were 24.0% of Amazon’s fiscal 2025 revenue, the line a structural remedy would reach most directly.[3]
- Small listed sellers that depend on Fulfillment by Amazon, including Hour Loop and My Size, are third parties whose cost structure turns on the fee and Prime eligibility practices at issue.[4][5]
Collecting
- No money judgment is sought on the federal claims, so collection is a matter of compliance. A court order would be enforced through monitoring and contempt against a U.S.-domiciled company.
- Amazon could appeal any liability and remedy judgment to the Ninth Circuit and ask for a stay of structural relief pending appeal. That would push any operational change well past the trial year.
- The case reaches U.S. conduct only. U.S. revenue was $489.7B of Amazon’s 2025 total, the footprint a remedy would govern.[3]
Beyond the parties
- A liability ruling on anti-discounting tools and Prime-fulfillment linkage would set a test for marketplace pricing rules. It would bind courts in the Ninth Circuit if affirmed and persuade courts elsewhere.
- Findings after a bench trial could give sellers and shoppers a factual record for follow-on private suits seeking the damages that the FTC itself cannot obtain.
- The California attorney general’s separate antitrust case overlaps on the same conduct, and its outcome could reinforce or diverge from this ruling.
- If Amazon prevails, the ruling would weaken monopolization theories against platform fee and ranking practices in the wider e-commerce market.
What to watch
- Before March 2027Court rules on Amazon’s motion to narrow Project Nessie and fulfillment claims
- Mar 15, 2027Court holds pretrial conference in FTC v. Amazon
- Mar 22, 2027Parties file trial briefs ahead of bench trial
- Mar 29, 2027Bench trial begins in Seattle before Judge Chun
Sources
- Amazon.com, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 sec.gov · 2026
- Amazon Third-Party Seller Services Sales 2015-2026 marketplacepulse.com
- Amazon (AMZN) FY2025 10-K Review app.dhicapitalgroup.com
- Hour Loop, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 sec.gov · 2026
- My Size, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 sec.gov · 2026
Experimental AI analysis by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 5, 2026, built on the forecast above from this case’s record and public sources found by the model’s own web search. Figures are estimates as of the dates shown, and shares of value are computed by the site from the figures cited. Published without editorial review. Nothing here predicts the price of any security or is investment advice. How it is made
Disclosure: Anthropic, which makes the model that wrote this analysis, competes with or has commercial ties to a party to this case.