FOLLOW US

In Thursday's filing, the FTC and states noted there is nothing inherently problematic about using Signal, but a company's choice to use the app does not alter its document preservation obligations during an enforcement action or government investigation. They seek Amazon's preservation notices and instructions to determine whether Amazon adequately and timely instructed its employees to preserve Signal messages, which is relevant to the legal standard for spoliation.

Additionally, both Amazon and the FTC opposed a motion to intervene in the case from the American Booksellers Association (ABA). The FTC and states argue that the ABA's claims, while potentially legitimate, differ from the current enforcement action and could complicate and delay proceedings.

Amazon antitrust investigation showed that the company similarly labeled the ABA's motion to intervene as "procedurally and substantively deficient," asserting that it seeks to introduce new issues and arguments that diverge from the current complaint, causing inconsistent arguments.

In their April motion to compel, the FTC and states said Amazon tightly controls employee communications, requiring detailed six-page memos instead of PowerPoint decks and restricting discussions on sensitive topics, including competition. They highlighted "ample evidence suggesting that spoliation occurred," noting that Amazon's legal team admitted since April 2019, executives, including Bezos, primarily used Signal instead of email for communication.

Amazon Antitrust Investigation Arguments

Amazon in its anti trust investigation trial argued that executives began using Signal as a "secure and informal means of short-form messaging" after Bezos's phone was hacked in 2018 by agents of a foreign government. Amazon maintained that using Signal was an appropriate response to the hacking incident, as secure messaging applications are widely used for their security advantages.

The FTC declined to comment, and Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.

The FTC is represented by Susan A. Musser, Edward H. Takashima, Emily K. Bolles, Kara King, and Eric Zepp.

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general.

Amazon is represented by Heidi K. Hubbard and Kevin M. Hodges of Williams & Connolly LLP, Thomas O. Barnett of Covington & Burling LLP, and Molly A. Terwilliger and Patricia A. Eakes of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Federal Trade Commission et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., case number 2:23-cv-01495, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.