New Jersey Sues Amazon Over Its Delivery Driver Network, Alleging a First-of-Its-Kind Labor Monopoly
New Jersey filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Amazon on August 4, accusing the company of controlling the labor market for its Delivery Service Partner drivers to the point of suppressing wages and blocking unionization. Attorney General Jennifer Davenport's office says it's the first state to bring what's called a monopsony claim against a company, a legal theory built around a single dominant buyer controlling a labor market rather than the more familiar antitrust complaint about one seller dominating a product market.
This isn't happening in isolation. It's the fourth active lawsuit New Jersey has running against Amazon, and it lands right as Amazon's much larger FTC antitrust case, over how the company treats third-party sellers and marketplace competition, heads toward trial in October 2026.
What New Jersey Is Actually Alleging
Amazon's DSP program, launched in 2018, recruits small independent businesses to hire drivers and handle last-mile package delivery, roughly 20 million packages a day nationwide. Amazon has long described these DSPs as independent operators making their own hiring and business decisions.
The complaint argues that framing doesn't hold up under how the program actually functions. According to the filing, Amazon dictates routes, hiring standards, performance metrics, uniforms, vehicle branding, and software down to granular detail, while DSPs remain almost entirely dependent on Amazon as their only real customer. That dependency, the state argues, is what makes this a monopsony rather than a legitimate independent contractor relationship.
The No-Poach Allegation
A specific mechanism at the center of the case is what the complaint calls a no-poach policy. New Jersey alleges Amazon restricts DSPs in its network from hiring one another's drivers, which removes the one lever that would normally let a driver leverage competing job offers into better pay. Without that competition, the complaint argues, DSPs have little incentive to offer higher wages or improved conditions than their neighbors in the same network.
The result, according to the state: DSP drivers earn substantially less than workers at UPS, FedEx, and USPS, while working under constant electronic monitoring and pressure to meet delivery quotas.
The Queens Union Incident
The complaint points to a specific case study to illustrate the unionization allegation. At an Amazon delivery station in Queens, New York, the state alleges Amazon cut routes, reduced staffing, and eventually ended its relationship with a contractor after workers there moved to organize. Separately, the complaint alleges Amazon flew drones over a strike at that facility to record participants and installed additional security cameras there, and that drivers who supported union organizing were later rejected or fired by other DSPs across Amazon's network.
Amazon's Response
Amazon spokesperson Steve Kelly pushed back directly: “This complaint is not grounded in fact. The Attorney General's characterization of the DSP Program and the claims about working conditions are just wrong.” He said DSPs “manage their drivers' workday and route execution” and that “DSP employees are free to choose their employer and associate with who they want, full stop.” Kelly also said Davenport's office never raised its core claims with Amazon before filing.
This Is One Piece of a Much Bigger Legal Picture
New Jersey already has three other active cases against Amazon. One, filed in October 2025, alleges Amazon misclassifies Flex delivery drivers as independent contractors to avoid paying wages and benefits. A second alleges civil rights violations affecting pregnant workers and workers with disabilities, a case where a judge just denied Amazon's motion to dismiss on July 31. A third is New Jersey's participation in the FTC's broader antitrust case.
That FTC case is the one worth watching most closely if you sell on Amazon. The FTC's 2023 complaint centers on how Amazon uses its logistics and fulfillment leverage over sellers, alleging the company effectively forces sellers into FBA to win Prime eligibility and featured placement, then extracts fees from that dependency. A federal judge allowed the case to proceed to trial, currently set for October 2026, rejecting Amazon's motion to dismiss.
The through-line across all of these cases, the NJ driver lawsuit, the FTC seller case, and the earlier Flex misclassification suit, is the same structural argument: Amazon builds programs that look like independent partnerships on paper, then uses its scale to control the terms so tightly that the independence is more theoretical than real. Courts are now being asked to decide, across multiple separate cases and jurisdictions, whether that argument holds.
What This Means If You Sell on Amazon
If DSP drivers unionize or a court forces Amazon to change how DSPs operate, that changes the cost structure and reliability of Amazon's last-mile delivery network, the same network your Prime delivery promise and FBA fulfillment speed depend on. Higher driver wages or new labor requirements imposed on DSPs would likely flow into Amazon's fulfillment costs over time, the same way any major logistics cost shift eventually does.
None of this changes anything about your account or your fees today. These are ongoing legal proceedings, not finalized rulings, and Amazon is contesting every claim. But the October 2026 FTC trial date makes this the closest window in years where a court could actually rule on whether core parts of how Amazon runs its marketplace and logistics network are lawful, not just under investigation.
