
1 Sep 2026
The FTC Just Sued Amazon Over Sponsored Ads Pricing. Here Is What Every Advertiser Should Understand.
On August 31, 2026, the FTC and 22 state attorneys general filed suit against Amazon in federal court. The complaint alleges that for over seven years Amazon secretly inflated the prices that more than one million brands and sellers paid to advertise on its platform, extracting tens of billions of dollars from advertisers who believed they were participating in a fair auction.
This does not change how you run campaigns today. But it changes what you know.
What Amazon Told Advertisers – and What the FTC Alleges
Amazon described its advertising auctions as generalized second-price (GSP) auctions. The promise: you bid your maximum, and if you win, you pay just enough to beat the next highest bidder, not your full bid. That framing appeared on Amazon’s website, in training materials, and in direct presentations to advertisers.
The FTC alleges that starting in 2019, Amazon changed how the auction actually worked without telling anyone. Amazon introduced what it internally called a “soft reserve price”, a hidden minimum calculated after the auction determined the winner. If the soft reserve exceeded the price generated by competition, Amazon charged that amount instead. One internal document described the result as a “surchargedSecondPrice” with “a surcharge hidden in it.” Another referenced what Amazon called an “invented auction participant”, effectively a shill bid to push prices higher.
By 2024, Sponsored Products advertisers were allegedly paying their own bid amount approximately 80% of the time, up from 30-40% in 2021. A nominally second-price auction was functionally operating as first-price the vast majority of the time.
Internal documents quoted in the complaint show Amazon acknowledged that revealing the surcharges would cause “irrevocable damage to advertiser trust.” A 2024 discussion between senior Amazon executives described the approach as a “clever non-transparent way to charge first price” that had been “incredibly effective” at driving revenue.
Amazon’s Response
Amazon called the lawsuit “misguided” and disputed every core allegation.
Its main arguments: average winning bids for Sponsored Products fell 50% from 2019 to 2025. Average cost-per-click remained flat adjusted for inflation from 2019 through 2024, while conversion rates grew 24%. Advertisers paid the same or less and got better results. In 2026, Amazon estimates advertisers will deliver 58% higher sales and 46% better ROAS compared to a bid-only ranking model.
On soft reserve pricing, Amazon says it is a standard industry tool reflecting the true market value of a placement, similar to minimum prices on physical retail shelf space. It says advertisers never pay more than their bid, and that the materials the FTC calls misleading were low-reach training content with a combined 1,849 enrollments across three courses over their entire lifetimes.
What Is Actually in Dispute
Both sides agree on the core facts: Amazon introduced soft reserve pricing in 2018-2019 and did not proactively disclose this to advertisers. The dispute is whether that constituted deception and caused measurable harm.
The FTC says advertisers bid higher than they would have known the auction was effectively first-price. Amazon says advertisers optimize on real-world performance, not auction format descriptions, so the mechanism did not change behavior or outcomes.
These are genuine legal disputes that will be resolved in court over months or years.
What This Means for Your Campaigns
The lawsuit does not change how the auction works today. The soft reserve pricing has been operating throughout the entire period of your campaign history.
What it does raise: if Amazon’s auction functions closer to first-price than second-price for most transactions, the optimal bidding strategy differs from a second-price assumption. In a genuine second-price auction, bidding your true value is rational; you only pay the next bidder’s price. In a first-price environment, that means consistently paying your full bid. The rational response is bid shading, lowering bids to find the actual clearing price.
Look at your account data. If you pay close to your maximum bid most of the time, your bidding strategy may not be calibrated for the auction you are actually participating in.
The case is filed, and Amazon will contest it. Follow the developments; the outcome could affect how Amazon is required to operate and communicate its advertising auctions going forward.
This post reflects publicly available information from the FTC complaint, Amazon’s official response, and reporting as of August 31, 2026. It does not constitute legal or financial advice.
If you want to stay updated on Amazon changes, subscribe to our blog.
If you need support with PPC, DSP, AMC, analytics, or a long-term growth strategy, contact the ANavigator team at info@anavigator.co
Book a call to get a FREE AUDIT using the link below: 

Book a call – FREE AUDIT
Follow my Weekly Newsletter on LinkedIn:
/ amazon-digest-for-brands-7232361008185372672
Follow me on LinkedIn:
/ ookovalov
Follow ANavigator on social media:
/ anavigator
/@anavigator_official
/ anavigator7
/ @anavigators
LinkedIn page to contact us:





