Of course; I know very little about Japan's antitrust laws, it's really beside the point whether they are democratically defined or not. It's on Amazon to argue about their interpretation through Japanese courts or by whatever is the mechanism of redress they have in this case, if any.
I was responding to the parent comment calling the arrangement as described in article unfair.
The linked article heavily implies that legal action could be taken against Amazon for this, by bringing up other antitrust investigations that are happening. Hence the debate about legality.
Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation!
To clarify I don't work for Amazon nor related to them in any way. The situation just seemed unfair to me ...
This is an antitrust lawsuit filed by the FTC, not an accusation of specifically illegal conduct.
They're not saying amazon committed a crime by doing this, they're saying that it's evidence of amazon abusing their market position to create a monopoly. "most favoured nation" status is legal, creating a monopoly isn't.
You can disagree on whether or not Amazon is pricing things ethically, or whether or not antitrust laws should cover Amazon's actions, but the article title is "Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws" which, in the current state of US law, it (probably) isn't.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can if you can prove to the court that the behaviour is anti-competitive. Amazon being so dominant in the web retail space makes that argument easier.
Both. Amazon is not a monopoly, therefore they aren't subject to any legal restrictions other than the same ones any retailer faces. And Amazon has no moral obligation to bend over backwards for third party sellers. Amazon created and nurtured the customer relationship. They should guard it fiercely.
This lawsuit is the equivalent of a consumer goods brand bitching and moaning because a supermarket imposes conditions on them if they want to get valuable shelf real estate.
The legal wheels are grinding on Amazon for a while because it’s a unique case in america. American courts check if something harms consumers, and Amazon is able to show that it transfers the lowest cost to its customers.
One of the biggest legal changes in the past few years was a new direction altogether to determine anticompetitive behavior.
If I recall correctly, FB’a recent acquisition of giphy (?) was also stopped on anti competitive grounds.
Point being that this stuff isn’t necessarily easy, the other side has very good lawyers who tell them what not to do on top of this being novel.
Can Amazon appeal this? They were not a party to the case. And the parties reached a "consent position" (essentially a negotiated settlement), and the commissioner's decision was just over whether to approve or reject it.
You need to re-read the announcement. It literally says they are looking into whether Amazon acted in an anti competitive manner and abused its market position. Half of the announcement is them listing actions that are not abuse of dominance.
You also need to reread the section on EU antitrust you posted, since abuse of dominance is just one of many potential antitrust concerns they can investigate.
I would have thought the same. Perhaps the 'Amazon' that is bound under this settlement is a different corporate entity as the 'Amazon' in this case. E.g. Amazon.com vs. Amazon.co.uk
Yes, I agree that Amazon is behaving perfectly rationally given the legal environment. My point is that the legal environment has been designed in an un-optimal way from a technical perspective. Identifying such a situation was rayiner's request.
Yeah, even I was under this impression. OP should cite a source if they know otherwise as from their comment it seems like Amazon is the only one abusing their position like this.
I was responding to the parent comment calling the arrangement as described in article unfair.
reply