New Jersey v. Amazon (DSP Monopsony)

On August 4, 2026, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport filed a civil antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The defendants are Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc. The complaint targets Amazon’s Delivery Service Partner (DSP) program, launched in 2018. Under the program, thousands of small, nominally independent contractors hire drivers to handle last-mile package deliveries for Amazon.

The state alleges that Amazon exercises unlawful “monopsony” power, the buyer-side analogue of monopoly power. The alleged market is DSP delivery-driver services in New Jersey and the New York-Newark-Jersey City metropolitan area. According to the complaint, DSPs depend almost entirely on Amazon for routes, vehicles, technology, and revenue. The state says this lets Amazon dictate driver pay and working conditions while shifting employment risk onto the contractors. New Jersey also alleges that Amazon discouraged unionization, terminated or threatened DSPs whose drivers organized, and enforced a practical no-poach policy that kept drivers from moving between DSPs.

New Jersey asserts five claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act. It argues that Amazon monopsonized the relevant markets or, in the alternative, attempted to do so. It also claims that Amazon’s agreements with DSPs unreasonably restrain trade. The state seeks treble damages for lost driver compensation, civil penalties, restitution, structural remedies, and a permanent injunction barring the alleged practices. Amazon has publicly denied the allegations, with a company spokesperson saying the state’s characterization of the DSP program and driver working conditions is inaccurate.

The complaint, docketed as No. 2:26-cv-09814, was assigned to U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin. New Jersey has brought several other cases against Amazon. They include a 2023 multistate monopoly suit led by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a civil rights complaint over the treatment of pregnant and disabled warehouse workers. The state is also involved in litigation over the classification of Amazon Flex drivers. This case remains at the pleading stage, with no ruling on the merits or on any motion to dismiss.