← Cases
United StatesRetail and e-commerce2014–2019

Amazon

Project Nessie predictive pricing

Amazon stopped Project Nessie after using predictions of competitors' reactions to raise retail prices

StoppedRegulator, audit or court

Problem

Amazon said price matching sometimes pushed prices to unsustainable levels. The FTC alleged that Amazon instead used Project Nessie to increase profits by predicting which competitors would follow its price increases.

Approach

According to the FTC complaint, Amazon deployed Nessie in 2014 to predict competitors' responses and retain higher prices when other stores followed. The FTC alleged that Amazon paused it in 2019 as regulatory scrutiny increased, after repeatedly switching it on and off. Amazon disputed that account and said it scrapped the system because it did not work as intended.

Results

More than $1 billionadditional proceeds from shoppers alleged by the FTC, not an adjudicated damages awardRegulator, audit or court[1]

Takeaway

The system's intended purpose and its effects on competing retailers became central disputed issues. Amazon's explanation for discontinuing it differed from the regulator's account.

Categories

Business function
Marketing and sales
Innovation type
Process innovation
AI technology
Optimization
Evidence
Regulator, audit or court

Sources

  1. COMPLAINT [PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]
    Federal Trade Commission2 Nov 2023Regulator, audit or court document

Source summaries

[1]Federal Trade Commission2 Nov 2023

The complaint alleged that Nessie predicted whether competitors would follow Amazon's price increases. It identified deployment beginning in 2014, a pause in 2019 and more than $1 billion extracted from shoppers. These were allegations in the enforcement action.

[2]Associated Press2 Nov 2023

Amazon disputed the FTC's description of Nessie. Its spokesperson said the tool addressed unsustainable price matching and had been scrapped because it failed to work as intended.

Full details are in the original sources.

Added 4 Nov 2026 · Updated 4 Nov 2026
Open case page ↗