New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Amazon on August 4, 2026, accusing the company of unlawfully wielding monopsony power over its third-party delivery contractors and their drivers. The complaint, filed in federal court and published by the New Jersey AG's office NJOAG, marks what the AG's office describes as the first state complaint of its kind: no U.S. state has previously filed a monopsony conduct complaint Engadget. Reuters confirmed the filing via court records Reuters.

The lawsuit centers on Amazon's Delivery Service Partner (DSP) program, launched in 2018 to build out a delivery network using third-party contractors classified as independent operators. The complaint alleges that Amazon is the sole buyer of DSP services, leaving delivery contractors dependent on the company and enabling it to function as a monopsonist — defined in the filing as a dominant buyer of specific goods or services that can control or dictate the terms of payment for the services it demands. The AG's press release states Amazon is able to maintain its anticompetitive environment because it is the dominant purchaser of labor for DSP delivery services NJOAG.

CNBC reported that the complaint alleges Amazon's third-party delivery model leads to lower wages, unfair working conditions, and a lack of competition CNBC. According to the complaint, DSP drivers earn significantly less than workers at the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, and FedEx Engadget.

Beyond wage suppression, the lawsuit alleges Amazon actively prevents DSP drivers from unionizing and limits competition for labor among contractors in its delivery network. The complaint claims Amazon controls DSPs' hiring practices. Specifically, some workers who supported union organizing at an Amazon delivery station were later rejected or terminated by other DSPs within Amazon's network Engadget.

Amazon spokesperson Steve Kelly denied the complaint's claims, stating that DSPs are independent business owners who make their own decisions about hiring, fleet management, and capacity planning Engadget. Quartz reported that the lawsuit was filed as a federal antitrust action Quartz.

The legal theory at the center of this case warrants attention. Monopsony claims in U.S. antitrust law have historically been rarer than monopoly claims, in part because proving that a buyer holds dominant purchasing power in a defined labor or services market is factually demanding. The complaint's framing of Amazon as the sole purchaser of DSP services, combined with allegations that the company controls downstream hiring decisions, is designed to establish that Amazon's purchasing power directly shapes labor conditions for drivers it technically does not employ. If the court accepts the market definition — DSP services as a distinct labor market with Amazon as the only buyer — the case could establish a precedent for applying monopsony doctrine to platform-mediated labor arrangements where a single company orchestrates a large contractor workforce without direct employment relationships.

The independent-contractor classification that underpins the DSP program is central to the dispute. Amazon launched the program in 2018 to scale its last-mile delivery capacity without taking on the obligations of a direct employer. The complaint alleges that despite classifying DSPs as independent operators, Amazon exercises sufficient control over their operations — particularly hiring — that the independence is largely formal. Amazon's public position, as articulated by Kelly, maintains that DSPs retain genuine operational autonomy.

The allegation that pro-union workers were rejected or terminated by other DSPs in Amazon's network is among the most pointed claims in the complaint. If supported by evidence, it would suggest that Amazon's influence over DSP hiring extends to suppressing specific worker organizing activity, which would carry implications beyond antitrust law and into labor-rights territory.

Worth flagging: the outcome of this case could influence how other states approach platform-mediated labor models that rely on contractor networks. The AG's office has positioned this as a first-of-its-kind state monopsony complaint, and the legal theory — if it survives early motions to dismiss — may provide a template for similar actions elsewhere. The gap the complaint identifies between DSP driver compensation and wages at USPS, UPS, and FedEx is the kind of concrete, comparative metric that gives a monopsony claim traction, because it suggests that workers in a comparable logistics role earn less when a single buyer controls the labor market.

Amazon will likely contest both the market definition and the degree of control it exercises over DSP operations. The company has prevailed in previous disputes over its classification of delivery workers, though those cases typically addressed employment status rather than antitrust monopsony doctrine. This case operates on different legal terrain, and the distinction matters: a finding that Amazon is a monopsonist in the DSP services market would not necessarily reclassify drivers as employees, but it could constrain how Amazon structures its relationships with delivery contractors going forward.