Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Perhaps in some instances that defense holds. But if I am selling Widget X on AMZN platform, without use of which I cannot really enter the online marketplace, and AMZN intentionally:
1. Sells the same thing at a loss on its platform, to undercut my ability to sell; and/or,
2. Seeks to divert customers from me to another seller with which AMZN has a better deal (or of which AMZN is a part owner),
Is that really competition, or is that anti-competitive use of monopoly power over the online marketplace (which it owns)?
|
You assume your conclusion when you say "without use of which I cannot really enter the online marketplace". That's just completely wrong. Amazon is one of many channels. It's a good channel, but there are many others online.
If (*if*) Amazon had monopoly power in platform services necessary to sell in e-commerce, and if e-commerce were not constrained by offline commerce (as is clearly the case in some product markets, and is clearly not the case in others), then there would be a good argument that Amazon would be abusing its platform-services monopoly to advantage itself in other markets in which that's a key input. You can imagine that a rival of Amazon (let's call it "Etsybay") might vigorously argue this, to persuade you to use them instead of Amazon. You can imagine that other countries (say, in Europe) with less permissive monopoly-abuse law might be more sympathetic to these arguments than US courts, and that Etsybay might pitch your argument to those regulators too. If you were to be talking to someone at Etsybay who has been involved with this, what do you think they'd say if they could talk truthfully and anonymously?
