According to PPC Land (15 October 2026), the FTC and 22 states filed on 31 August 2026, in a federal court in Washington state, a 181-page complaint against Amazon: they allege about 20 billion dollars in hidden surcharges to about 1.2 million US advertisers, via a “soft reserve” price added to a second-price auction. Amazon disputes it and says no advertiser pays more than their bid. No liability has been found. These are allegations, not proven facts.
What is alleged
The complaint was filed on 31 August 2026 by the FTC and 22 states, in the Western District of Washington (case 2:26-cv-03097), with 181 pages. It alleges about 20 billion dollars in hidden surcharges, to about 1.2 million US advertisers, more than 500,000 of them small and medium businesses.
The alleged mechanism is a “soft reserve” price added on top of a second-price auction, capped only by the winning bid. The complaint covers Sponsored Products, Sponsored Brands and Display, bought through the console, according to AdExchanger cited by the source. It doesn’t cover the DSP.
The accusation's central figure
The complaint alleges that the share of clicks billed at the advertiser’s own bid rose from about 4% in late 2020 to 79.1% in 2024. In a “pure” second-price auction, the winning advertiser normally pays less than their maximum bid. If most clicks come to be charged at the bid value, the auction’s benefit diminishes.
It’s an FTC allegation. The source clearly indicates that no liability has been found.
FTC complaint against Amazon (allegations)
79.1%
of clicks billed at the advertiser’s bid in 2024, according to the complaint
Alleged: about 4% in late 2020. Amazon disputes it. No liability has been found. Source: PPC Land.
Amazon's position
Amazon disputes it. It says advertisers saved more than 8 billion dollars between 2021 and 2025, that about 92% of selected Sponsored Products ads in 2024 were not the highest bid and that “in no scenario does an advertiser pay more than their bid”. These are the company’s statements, according to the source.
We have, therefore, two opposing narratives, and the decision will fall to the court. For an advertiser, the lesson isn’t picking a side: it’s realising that an auction’s transparency can’t be assumed.
Why this matters to those advertising in Portugal
The complaint concerns US advertisers and Amazon Ads. But it raises a general question that applies to any auction platform: what determines the price you pay per click? Search and social platforms also use auctions, reserve prices, quality adjustments and “improvements” the advertiser doesn’t see.
There is no allegation against Google or Meta in this case. The lesson is about method, not accusation.
An auction's transparency isn't assumed. It's reconciled.
Lesson 1: measure your effective cost
Reconcile what the platform says it spent with what your invoice shows and with what came in as sales. Calculate real cost per sale, margin and ROAS based on your accounting, not just the platform.
If the difference between report and invoice is systematically large, ask why. A good agency does this reconciliation every month.
Lesson 2: ask for pricing model documentation
Ask the platform or representative for documentation of the auction model: how price is determined, what reserve prices exist, what adjustments apply, what fees add up. Record the answers. If the answer is vague, take note.
Small advertisers have little bargaining power, but the record helps in disputes and in deciding where to put budget.
Lesson 3: diversify without scattering
Depending on one platform increases risk. But splitting a small budget across five channels leaves all without data. A practical rule: two main channels, well measured, and one test channel with little budget.
With Black Friday in sight, it’s not the time to change everything. It’s the time to reconcile and plan.
Questions for your manager
Do we reconcile platform spend with the invoice and sales monthly? Do we know how each platform defines price per click? What share of the budget depends on a single channel? Who follows the sector’s regulatory news?
If you want to set up a simple monthly reconciliation between platforms, invoice and sales, I can help create the template.
An illustrative monthly reconciliation example
A shop with 3,000 euros of monthly spend on a platform compares three numbers: spend in the platform report, amount invoiced and real sales. If the report says 3,000 and the invoice 3,150, it asks why: fees, taxes, adjustments? If sales attributed by the platform are double confirmed real sales, it investigates attribution. The example is hypothetical. Reconciliation takes half an hour and protects decisions worth thousands of euros.
Summary in three lines
The FTC and 22 states allege hidden surcharges in Amazon Ads. Amazon disputes it and no liability has been found. Any advertiser should reconcile spend, invoice and sales every month, and ask for pricing model documentation.
What to do if you detect differences
Record the date, amount and campaign. Ask the platform or representative for a written explanation. If the answer isn’t satisfactory, escalate to support and keep the replies. Inform accounting. If differences are recurring and relevant, seek legal advice on your rights as a customer.
Frequently asked questions
Has Amazon been convicted?
No. According to the source, no liability has been found. These are allegations by the FTC and 22 states.
Does this affect Portuguese advertisers?
The complaint refers to US advertisers. The transparency lesson applies to any auction platform.
Are Google and Meta involved?
Not in this case, according to the source.
Sources consulted
Keep reading
- Amazon Ads Agent and DVA+: what Amazon announced on 29 September, what is claim and what to verify
- Microsoft Advertising brings AI Max to all accounts and shows news at Activate 2026: is it worth testing in Portugal?
- Microsoft retires Max CPC and ChatGPT sets “Maximize results”: the default is less bid control