FTC v. Amazon Court Filing, retrieved on Sep 26, 2023, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series Case Number: 2:23-cv-01495 Plaintiff: Federal Trade Commission Defendant: Amazon Filing Date: Sep 26, 2023 Location: United States District Court Western District of Washington TABLE OF CONTENT I. NATURE OF THE CASE II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE III. THE PARTIES IV. AMAZON’S OPERATIONS A. Amazon's First-Party Retail And Third-Party Marketplace Business Units B. Amazon's Online Superstore C. Amazon's Advertising Services D. Amazon Prime E. Fulfillment By Amazon V. AMAZON POSSESSES MONOPOLY POWER IN TWO RELEVANT MARKETS A. Amazon Has Durable Monopoly Power In The Online Superstore Market 1. The U.S. online superstore market is a relevant market a. Online superstores offer shoppers a unique set of features b. Online superstores are not reasonably interchangeable with brick-and-mortar stores c. Online superstores are not reasonably interchangeable with other online stores that lack breadth and depth of product selection d. The online perishable grocery category is properly excluded from the online superstore market e. The relevant geographic market is the United States 2. Amazon has a dominant share of the online superstore market 3. Amazon's dominant position in the online superstore market is protected by significant barriers to entry B. Amazon Has Durable Monopoly Power In The Online Marketplace Services Market 1. Online marketplace services is a relevant market a. Online marketplace services offer sellers a unique set of features b. Online marketplace services are not reasonably interchangeable with selling as a vendor c. Online marketplace services are not reasonably interchangeable with services sold by SaaS providers d. Online marketplace services are not reasonably interchangeable with services that primarily provide access to non-U.S. shoppers e. The relevant geographic market for online marketplace services for sales to U.S. shoppers is worldwide 2. Amazon has a dominant share of the online marketplace services market 3. Amazon’s dominant position in the online marketplace services market is protected by significant barriers to entry C. Feedback Loops Between The Relevant Markets Further Amplify The Cumulative Impact Of Scale And Related Network Effect D. Direct Evidence Further Demonstrates Amazon's Monopoly Power 1. Amazon has (redacted) 2. Amazon degrades its search quality by stacking the deck against third-party competitors of Amazon's private label products 3. Amazon increases prices to sellers without losing meaningful business VI. AMAZON IS ENGAGED IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT ILLEGALLY MAINTAINS ITS MONOPOLIES IN BOTH RELEVANT MARKETS A. Amazon Maintains Its Monopolies In Both Relevant Markets Through Exclusionary Anti-Discounting Conduct That Stifles Price Competition 1. Amazon engages in price surveillance to support its anti-discounting scheme 2. Amazon maintains its monopolies by punishing third-party sellers when Amazon detects lower prices on other online stores a. Amazon penalizes sellers when Amazon finds lower prices off Amazon b. Amazon continues to contractually prohibit its most important sellers from discounting elsewhere c. Amazon’s anti-discounting strategy prevents rivals and sellers from offering lower prices and deprives rivals of scale necessary to compete 3. Amazon maintains its monopolies by suppressing price competition with its first-party anti-discounting algorithm a. Amazon’s first-party anti-discounting algorithm is designed to discipline rivals from lowering their prices b. Amazon’s first-party anti-discounting algorithm has stopped other online stores from competing through offering lower prices 4. Amazon combines its various anti-discounting programs to maximize their collective anticompetitive effect B. Amazon Maintains Its Monopolies In Both Relevant Markets By Coercing Sellers To Use Amazon’s Fulfillment Service 1. Sellers who forgo Prime eligibility effectively disappear from Amazon’s storefront 2. Amazon requires sellers to use FBA to obtain Prime eligibility 3. By forcing sellers to use FBA for their products to be Prime eligible, Amazon raises sellers’ costs of selling on multiple marketplaces, stifling competition in both relevant markets a. Amazon raises sellers’ costs by forcing them to split their inventory to sell across multiple sales channels b. Forcing sellers to use FBA to obtain Prime eligibility impedes competition and the growth of independent fulfillment providers c. Amazon unlawfully maintains its monopolies by conditioning Prime eligibility on sellers’ use of FBA 4. Amazon’s use of Seller Fulfilled Prime underscores the harms to competition caused by Amazon’s conditioning Prime eligibility on use of FBA C. Amazon’s Anticompetitive Tactics Work Together To Amplify Their Overall Exclusionary Effect VII. AMAZON (redacted) A. Project Nessie (redacted) B. Amazon Has (redacted Project Nessie (redacted) VIII. AMAZON’S CONDUCT HARMS COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS IX. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED COUNT I: MONOPOLY MAINTENANCE OF THE ONLINE SUPERSTORE MARKET (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) COUNT II: MONOPOLY MAINTENANCE OF THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE SERVICES MARKET (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) COUNT III: UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) COUNT IV: UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) COUNT V: MONOPOLY MAINTENANCE OF THE ONLINE SUPERSTORE MARKET (15 U.S.C. § 2) COUNT VI: MONOPOLY MAINTENANCE OF THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE SERVICES MARKET (15 U.S.C. § 2) COUNT VII: VIOLATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE LAW COUNT VIII: VIOLATIONS OF MAINE STATE LAW COUNT IX: VIOLATIONS OF MARYLAND STATE LAW COUNT X: VIOLATIONS OF MICHIGAN STATE LAW COUNT XI: VIOLATIONS OF THE NEVADA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT COUNT XII: VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY ANTITRUST ACT (MONOPOLY MAINTENANCE) COUNT XIII: VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (“CFA”) (COMMERCIAL PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW) COUNT XIV:VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY CFA BY DEFENDANT (UNCONSCIONABLE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANT) COUNT XV: VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK STATE LAW COUNT XVI: VIOLATIONS OF OKLAHOMA STATE LAW COUNT XVII: VIOLATIONS OF OREGON STATE LAW COUNT XVIII: VIOLATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE LAW A. Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices And Consumer Protection Law 1. Unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices under PUTPCPL 2. Deceptive acts or practices under PUTPCPL B. Common Law Doctrine Against Monopolization COUNT XIX: VIOLATIONS OF RHODE ISLAND LAW COUNT XX: VIOLATIONS OF WISCONSIN STATE LAW X. REQUEST FOR RELIEF About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 2:23-cv-01495 retrieved on October 2, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. ftc.gov

Lina Khan-Led FTC and 17 U.S. States Sue Amazon Over Alleged Monopoly Tactics 

Amazon Accused of Failing To Provide Simple Cancellation Mechanism, Violating ROSCA

Read My Stories

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

Amazon in Lina Khan's Crosshairs: The FTC's Next Big Move

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Multi-State Coalition Seeks Comprehensive Relief Against Amazon for Antitrust Violations

The Noonification: How Amazon Treats Warehouse Workers Who Contracted COVID (11/30/2022)

10 Free Ways to Promote Your Amazon Products

10 Failed Startup Product Examples by Google, Microsoft and Amazon

10 Best Infographics Of 2018

Multi-State Coalition Seeks Comprehensive Relief Against Amazon for Antitrust Violations

The Noonification: How Amazon Treats Warehouse Workers Who Contracted COVID (11/30/2022)

10 Free Ways to Promote Your Amazon Products

10 Failed Startup Product Examples by Google, Microsoft and Amazon

10 Best Infographics Of 2018

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps