Antitrust lawsuit accuses Amazon of restricting hiring, retaliating against union organizers, and using its control over delivery contractors to impose harsh working conditions

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport sued Amazon on Tuesday, accusing the online retail giant of suppressing delivery drivers’ wages, discouraging union organizing, and preventing contractors in its delivery network from competing for workers.

The antitrust lawsuit alleges that Amazon used its control over companies in its Delivery Service Partner program to impose demanding working conditions while limiting drivers’ ability to find better-paying jobs elsewhere in the network.

Thousands of New Jersey drivers have received lower wages and endured worse working conditions as a result, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey.

Amazon launched the delivery partner program in 2018, recruiting small businesses to hire drivers and deliver packages. Although Amazon describes those companies as independently owned businesses, the lawsuit alleges that the retailer controls nearly every important aspect of their operations.

Amazon supplies the packages, establishes delivery routes, monitors drivers’ performance, and provides the software, branded uniforms, and delivery vans used by the contractors, according to the complaint. It also imposes operational requirements that leave delivery partners with little ability to raise wages or improve working conditions, the state alleges.

“Amazon built a company worth trillions while subjecting drivers in its delivery network to artificially low pay and punishing working conditions thanks to its overwhelming power in the labor market,” Davenport said in a statement.

The lawsuit accuses Amazon of exercising unlawful “monopsony power,” which occurs when a dominant buyer uses its market position to reduce competition among suppliers. In this case, New Jersey argues that Amazon is the dominant buyer of delivery drivers’ labor and has used that position to hold down their compensation.

The case is the first monopsony conduct lawsuit filed by a state, according to the Attorney General’s Office.

Amazon has also sought to prevent delivery partners from hiring drivers who worked for other contractors in its network, the lawsuit alleges. Such restrictions, commonly known as “no-poach” agreements, can limit workers’ ability to change jobs for higher pay or better conditions.

Some drivers who supported union organizing at an Amazon delivery station were subsequently rejected or fired by other delivery partners, according to the complaint.

The state also accuses Amazon of using artificial intelligence, cameras inside delivery vehicles, and other technology to monitor drivers closely. In one case cited in the lawsuit, Amazon allegedly deployed drones near a facility where drivers were organizing a union. In another, the company allegedly retaliated against union supporters by ending a delivery partner’s work at a facility, causing the operation to close and drivers to lose their jobs.

Drivers have reported that they had to urinate in bottles because Amazon’s delivery requirements did not leave them enough time to use restrooms, the complaint alleges. Delivery partner drivers also suffered more injuries requiring time away from work than comparable workers while earning less, according to the state.

The lawsuit names Amazon and two subsidiaries, Amazon.com Services and Amazon Logistics. It alleges that their conduct violated federal and state antitrust laws.

New Jersey is asking the court to order Amazon to stop the practices and to award drivers three times the compensation they allegedly lost due to the company’s conduct.

The lawsuit is one of several ongoing New Jersey cases against Amazon. The state has also joined a Federal Trade Commission antitrust case accusing the company of restricting competition among online retailers.

In separate lawsuits, the state has accused Amazon of discriminating against pregnant workers and employees with disabilities and of improperly treating drivers in its Flex delivery program as independent contractors. A judge denied Amazon’s request to dismiss the discrimination case on Friday.

Steve Kelly, a spokesman for Amazon, told The Vindicator the lawsuit is not grounded in facts.

“The Attorney General’s characterization of the DSP Program and the claims about working conditions are just wrong.,” Kelly said.

Kelly said the drivers are independent business owners who make their own decisions about hiring, fleet management, and capacity planning. They choose whether to work with other companies besides Amazon, he said.

“Had the Attorney General bothered to look at the facts, they would have also seen that the vast majority of routes are finished on-time or early — built on real-world data accounting for stop complexity, traffic, and geography. DSPs manage their drivers’ workday and route execution, and DSP employees are free to choose their employer and associate with who they want, full stop,” Kelly said.

“Despite our cooperation, the Attorney General’s office did not raise the central claims in this complaint with us before filing suit,” Kelly said. “They chose a press conference over a conversation or real effort to understand the truth, but we’re confident the facts will speak for themselves in court.”