By Lina Khan (Yale University)
Abstract: Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a retailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and expand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e-commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns — yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny.
This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust — specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects — is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are heightened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational — even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible. Second, because online platforms serve as critical intermediaries, integrating across business lines positions these platforms to control the essential infrastructure on which their rivals depend. This dual role also enables a platform to exploit information collected on companies using its services to undermine them as competitors.
This Note maps out facets of Amazon’s dominance. Doing so enables us to make sense of its business strategy, illuminates anticompetitive aspects of Amazon’s structure and conduct, and underscores deficiencies in current doctrine. The Note closes by considering two potential regimes for addressing Amazon’s power: restoring traditional antitrust and competition policy principles or applying common carrier obligations and duties.
Full Article: Social Science Research Network
Featured News
Congress Pushes to Combat AI Deepfakes in Year-End Funding Deal
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Games Board Resignations Linked to DOJ Antitrust Investigation
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Renault Supports Potential Honda-Nissan Merger Talks
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea’s Antitrust Body Raises Concerns Over AI Market Competition
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Perplexity Caught in Crossfire as DOJ and Google Battle Over Search Dominance
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Remedies After Illumina/GRAIL– The Thorny Question of Proportionality
Dec 17, 2024 by
Aleksander Tombinski & Ciara Denihan
Why Was Illumina/GRAIL Blocked in the EU? Reviewing The European Commission’s Assessment of Vertical Mergers in Light of the 2022 Prohibition Decision
Dec 17, 2024 by
Will Sparks
The Role of Uncertainty in the Future European Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Lessons Learned From Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Svend Albaek & Daniel Donath
Illumina’s Light on Article 22 EUMR: The Suspended Step and Uncertain Future of EU Merger Control Over Below-Threshold “Killer” Mergers
Dec 17, 2024 by
Anna Tzanaki
EU-Level Jurisdiction Over “Killer Acquisitions” in the Aftermath of Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Peter Whelan