Amazon Monopoly Practices Harm Rivals, Consumers: DC Suit
Amazon practiced “anticompetitive restraint” at least until two years ago by barring its third-party sellers through a “price parity provision” (PPP) in its contracts from offering their products on a competing online retail sales platform, alleged District of Columbia Attorney…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
General Karl Racine (D) Tuesday in a D.C. Superior Court antitrust complaint. “Competition and consumers were directly harmed by virtue of higher prices, as well as through the loss of choice, innovation, and competition among online retail sales platforms.” Other e-commerce platforms “were not able to use lower product prices to lure buyers and sellers” to “capture some of Amazon’s dominant market share,” it said. Amazon removed the PPPs in 2019 “under intense scrutiny from Congress and U.S. government regulatory officials” but quickly replaced it with “an effectively-identical substitute,” it alleged. “There is a dangerous probability that Amazon will be successful in achieving its goal of obtaining monopoly power in the online retail sales market (if it has not already done so).” The lawsuit seeks statutory and punitive damages and asks for a “corporate monitor” to enforce any remedies the court may order. The D.C. attorney general "has it exactly backwards," responded an Amazon spokesperson. "Sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in our store. Amazon takes pride in the fact that we offer low prices across the broadest selection, and like any store we reserve the right not to highlight offers to customers that are not priced competitively. The relief the AG seeks would force Amazon to feature higher prices to customers, oddly going against core objectives of antitrust law.” But Public Knowledge hails the complaint because consumers "are paying more than they should for what they buy online as a direct result of Amazon’s conduct," said Policy Counsel Alex Petros. "Third-party sellers should be allowed to contract freely with platforms that offer them the best deal to reach customers -- not limited by Amazon’s self-enriching terms."