A PYMNTS Company

Delaware Supreme Court Orders Amazon to Disclose Antitrust Records to Shareholder

By  |  July 28, 2025
Delaware Supreme Court Orders Amazon to Disclose Antitrust Records to Shareholder

Amazon.com Inc. has been ordered to produce internal records related to antitrust concerns after the Delaware Supreme Court ruled against the company’s attempt to block a shareholder’s request for access. The decision marks a significant development in a legal effort to uncover details about the ecommerce giant’s regulatory challenges.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    Subscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    According to Bloomberg, the high court concluded on Monday that a lower court judge had used the wrong legal standard when denying the shareholder’s demand for documents. The shareholder, an investment trust, had sought access to internal files to investigate potential wrongdoing linked to Amazon’s growing antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad.

    We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

    Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

    Add as Preferred Source

    The ruling sends the case back to Delaware’s Court of Chancery, instructing the original judge to reassess the document request using the correct legal approach. As per Bloomberg, this decision is particularly notable because it is the first major ruling on shareholder records requests by the Delaware Supreme Court since recent legislative changes affecting corporate transparency.

    Read more: Canada Orders Amazon to Hand Over Records in Ongoing Antitrust Probe

    Amazon’s efforts to shield the materials were rooted in claims that the shareholder’s demands were overly broad. However, the justices disagreed, siding with the plaintiff and emphasizing the importance of shareholders’ rights to investigate possible corporate misconduct.

    Source: Bloomberg