Amazon Being Sued For Being a Monopoly

easysurfer

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
13,181
Is Amazon a Monopoly? Might end up letting the courts decide.

IMO, Amazon might be one but I'm happy with them.

Federal Trade Commissioner Lina Khan is finally entering the ring with Amazon, her oldest antitrust nemesis. The agency, along with 17 other state attorneys general, is officially suing Jezz Bezos’s e-commerce baby for growing and metastasizing into a trillion-dollar anti-competitive monopoly, allegedly at the expense of consumers and sellers.

On Tuesday, the FTC and the attorneys general filed the historic lawsuit, which accuses the e-commerce giant of using “interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies” to maintain an illegal monopoly. The landmark 172-page suit, filed in Western Washington district court, claims Amazon leveraged its monopoly power to simultaneously raise prices for consumers and crush would-be competitors. Today’s complaint builds off of a years-long investigation into Amazon’s business practices and marks one of the most significant legal challenges to the company since its founding three decades ago.

https://gizmodo.com/ftc-sues-amazon-antitrust-illegal-monopoly-1850874431
 
Well, as the saying goes, you can sue somebody for being ugly. Winning is another matter. I think there's still enough competition out there that they don't have a case but that's just me.
 
What's that saying? Hogs get slaughtered, pigs get fed? Something like that.

I'm kind of in same thought too. Maybe a fine line between monopoly and just doing things better (most of the time) than competitors.
 
I'm surprised they are pursuing this. I think Amazon has plenty of competition. Walmart, Temu, Alibaba, etc.
 
What's that saying? Hogs get slaughtered, pigs get fed? Something like that.

I'm kind of in same thought too. Maybe a fine line between monopoly and just doing things better (most of the time) than competitors.
This...... I've often said that or something similar!
 
Last edited:
I have no insights into the suit or Amazon, but I do know that the Amazon storefront for small businesses has all the appearance of a great conflict of interest. Amazon collects loads of data from consumer searches, then monitors and records every transaction. This allows them to see in great detail what consumers are buying from small vendors and how much they are paying. Amazon can then compete against them.
 
Few years back, I used to be able to search products on Amazon and Amazon would show the products at right price in the top results.

Not anymore. Now their top results are all infested with Ads. So small companies who are dependent on Amazon, have to pay an extortion fee to Amazon so that folks see their products in reasonable position on Amazon.

Is that Monopoly? I don't know. To some extent, Google has been slipping down this path lately, as well. So who knows.

But Amazon does have a huge monopoly in supply-distribution network. Maybe thats what they should look at.
 
^^^^^
And what about Microsoft or even Apple?
 
Last edited:
The antitrust laws are not relative. The fact that Apple and Microsoft also may act in anticompetitive ways is no shield for Amazon. If they can make out a case against Amazon, then they should. If they can make out a case against Apple or Microsoft, then they should.
 
^^^^^
And what about Microsoft or even Apple?

Microsoft and Apple are not huge players in Ad business. But not many people realize, Microsoft, over last decade, has become a big US Government contractor, both in civilian space and defense. AMZN also milks US Gov with their AWS ware.

Apple and Google do have duopoly on OS for mobile phones. Its so easy for them to kill any small business whose mobile-app needs to live in iOS or android. But this also allows US Government to arm-twist these companies in limiting what is allowed on these OSs. So I don't expect much litigation from US Gov in this regard.
 
Microsoft and Apple are not huge players in Ad business. But not many people realize, Microsoft, over last decade, has become a big US Government contractor, both in civilian space and defense. AMZN also milks US Gov with their AWS ware.

Apple and Google do have duopoly on OS for mobile phones. Its so easy for them to kill any small business whose mobile-app needs to live in iOS or android. But this also allows US Government to arm-twist these companies in limiting what is allowed on these OSs. So I don't expect much litigation from US Gov in this regard.
Agree but I think longer than a decade. There was a lot of speculation in the IT security world 10 to 15+ years ago about what they [-]were[/-] might be doing together. Particularly when Bit Locker came out.:angel:
 
Last edited:
You know this - - - I am Amazon's biggest fan. :blush:

I prefer Amazon, partly due to the rewards that I get from Amazon purchases made using my Amazon Prime Visa. But so what, I was already an Amazon "junkie" before I ever got that card. If Amazon was shut down due to non-competitive practices (or whatever), life would not end. I'd simply buy more at walmart.com, bestbuy.com, and similar sites. The fact that I could shop at competitors like that, tells me that (for me at least) Amazon is not non-competitive.

I hope Amazon is never shut down. It is going to be wonderful to have as I move into my more elderly years. Already I cannot drive (due to vision), but I can have whatever I want or need delivered to my door by Amazon. What a huge advantage that is compared with the way older people had to shop (in person) before Amazon.
 
When I worked for Big Oil on Superfund actions, we used to call these kinds of actions "The lawyers full Employment Act".....:D
 
When I worked for Big Oil on Superfund actions, we used to call these kinds of actions "The lawyers full Employment Act".....:D

But the lawyers bringing this action against Amazon are public servants. They get their same regular (relatively puny) paycheck whether they bring the action or don't bring the action. So they are not in it for the money. They brought the action because they believe Amazon broke the antitrust laws. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it would be wrong to denigrate the lawyers who are fulfilling their duty to the people of their state (or the entire US with respect to the FTC attorneys).
 
But the lawyers bringing this action against Amazon are public servants. They get their same regular (relatively puny) paycheck whether they bring the action or don't bring the action. So they are not in it for the money. They brought the action because they believe Amazon broke the antitrust laws. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it would be wrong to denigrate the lawyers who are fulfilling their duty to the people of their state (or the entire US with respect to the FTC attorneys).

Well, the decision makers on proceeding with actions of this size are political appointees or elected officials (FTC Commissioners and various state AGs), so there is that. And the list of State AGs participating has a certain tilt to it.

Their complaint does lay out some apparently real anti-competitive practices. Here's a better summary of the complaint straight from the FTC.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/new...s-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power

Of the five actual complaint bullets I think the worst is "anti-discounting" where vendors cannot offer prices lower than Amazon. IMO, the others are pretty weak sauce. The government seems to be suggesting that Amazon cannot charge fees, offer fulfillment services, advertise, or prefer its own products on Amazon's own storefront.

Anyway, Amazon is not going away even if this is successful umpteen years from now.
 
But the lawyers bringing this action against Amazon are public servants. They get their same regular (relatively puny) paycheck whether they bring the action or don't bring the action. So they are not in it for the money. They brought the action because they believe Amazon broke the antitrust laws. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it would be wrong to denigrate the lawyers who are fulfilling their duty to the people of their state (or the entire US with respect to the FTC attorneys).

Well Lina Khan was a law school professor before she was appointed head of the FTC? May not even have practiced law or had any business experience?

It seems company being too big is a crime to her.

Supposedly morale is low at the agency.
 
But the lawyers bringing this action against Amazon are public servants. They get their same regular (relatively puny) paycheck whether they bring the action or don't bring the action. So they are not in it for the money. They brought the action because they believe Amazon broke the antitrust laws. You may disagree with their conclusion, but it would be wrong to denigrate the lawyers who are fulfilling their duty to the people of their state (or the entire US with respect to the FTC attorneys).

My guess after working with corporate lawyers for 25 years is that Amazon will be represented by a very expensive law firm with a team of Partners heading up the defense. That's more of what I was referring to.
 
My guess after working with corporate lawyers for 25 years is that Amazon will be represented by a very expensive law firm with a team of Partners heading up the defense. That's more of what I was referring to.

Yes, they will. Which is why there is a multistate group of attorneys general working with the FTC. It is the only way they will be able to counter the sheer mass of lawyers Amazon will hire to fight them.

Something people here may not know is that I closed out my legal career by abandoning a very, very lucrative private practice to work as an assistant attorney general, specifically enforcing the antitrust laws. I ended up doing the same thing I did in private practice - duking it out with partners from large NYC and DC law firms - only without a platoon of associates and paralegals to back me up. I can assure you that politics never entered into my decision of who to sue or whether to sue. The only question for me was whether it appeared they broke the antitrust laws and whether I thought I could prevail against them. Sometimes I advised the elected Attorney General that we just didn't have a case, and he usually listened to me. And I would say that the other people in my office were equally apolitical in performing their duties.
 
Well Lina Khan was a law school professor before she was appointed head of the FTC? May not even have practiced law or had any business experience?

It seems company being too big is a crime to her.

Supposedly morale is low at the agency.

She wrote a great article in the Yale Law Journal* about the problems of applying the antitrust laws to a two sided market like Amazon. In my opinion, it was very analytical and balanced; I do not get the feeling that she has been "gunning" for Amazon. The issues with their size and dominance were being considered by regulators long before she ever wrote that article. And, for an academic, it is a very interesting issue to write about.

I would not be concerned about her lack of trial experience, as she will most certainly not be the one litigating the case. The FTC has excellent lawyers on staff to do that, and they will be bolstered by assistant attorneys general from the state co-plaintiffs.

*https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf
 
Thank you for the insights @Gumby.

As a non-lawyer who also strives to be apolitical, I frankly don't always understand these antitrust suits. My own career was in IT, and I know that they always went after the wrong targets there. Usually it was some company who happened to be going through a brief period where their product was the most popular. So what? As we all knew then, and history has proven, another product will come along and replace them eventually. When does having a popular product become anti-competitive?

I see Amazon in this same light. They're dominant because they totally re-invented retail. They have lots of competition. I'm free to choose WalMart, Ali Express, TEMU and others, and I do. When I shop at Amazon, it's not because I have no choice. It's because I feel they offer me better value, service or whatever. How does it help me to remove that option?

I can think of many business practices which would be a better use of my tax dollars to investigate. They can start with our cable company, which is a monopoly by any definition. They just raised my rates (internet only, bottom tier) to $85. The next day I get a coupon in the mail for their same service - plus a mobile number - for $30. When I called, I was told I'm "not eligible for that offer." You can't make this stuff up. They are a poster child for taking advantage of their monopoly position.
 
Just a quick note before I go mow the church lawn - just having a monopoly is not a violation of the antitrust laws. Using illegal means to achieve and maintain a monopoly is illegal.
 
Probably not related to if a company is a monopoly or not but I think what distinguishes Amazon from others is, at least with my experience, Amazon has great customer service. Fair and generous returns and the times I've needed to call and reach a person, they've been helpful.

Now contrast that with company like the Equifax, should break that company up or run them out of town :LOL:.
 
I guess I'd need legal training or law degree to fully understand/appreciate the fine points of antitrust and unfair business practices laws. It seems to me that the free enterprise/entrepreneurial spirit we promote here in the US has limits. They want you to be successful, but only to a degree and stepping carefully as you grow. Amazon is a good example.

Every couple of years we'd spend a few hours listening to company lawyers talking to us about antitrust etc laws. I guess I sort of understood what they were trying to say but I never really fully "bought" it. Seemed to be a lot of "fine lines" not to cross.
 
Last edited:
We order from Amazon quite often because we can't find the item(s) locally (and we live in suburban Chicago). Pricing, generally, doesn't enter into the decision.
 
Well, as an old lady in my mid 70s, with a bad leg, I use Amazon (Prime), Instacart, and, infrequently, Grubhub to remain "independent". (In quotes because they are my helpers.) I personally don't want anyone messing with Amazon's convenience and reliability. I have had a few periods of less than exemplary delivery by Amazon, but all instances have been resolved. I have used their easy return many times. I like using their Store Card especially with third party orders and gifts for people in other locations.
 
Back
Top Bottom