By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amazon has been fined €59 million by the German Federal Cartel Office for violating competition rules. The authority found that Amazon’s pricing policies for third-party sellers, specifically its pricing cap and algorithmic influence on vendor prices, unfairly disadvantage competitors. These practices were determined to breach both German digital dominance rules and EU competition law, as Amazon directly competes with these sellers on its own platform and is seen to be manipulating their pricing.
Read the original article here
It’s interesting to see the German regulator, the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt), taking action against Amazon for abusing its market power. A €59 million fine has been levied, and while some might view this as a significant sum, there’s a strong sentiment that it’s more of a slap on the wrist than a genuine deterrent for a company of Amazon’s scale. The core of the issue, as highlighted by Andreas Mundt, president of the Bundeskartellamt, is Amazon’s direct competition with marketplace sellers on its own platform. This creates a significant conflict of interest, where Amazon can leverage its position to influence the pricing of its competitors, including through practices like price caps. It’s a situation where the platform provider is also a direct rival, raising serious questions about fair competition.
The discussion around the actual amount of the fine is quite prevalent. Many feel that €59 million is a minuscule amount when compared to Amazon’s vast yearly income. The suggestion that fines should be a percentage of annual income, rather than a fixed sum, is a recurring theme. This approach, it’s argued, would force large corporations to genuinely consider the financial consequences and perhaps rethink their practices. The analogy of paying a trivial amount for significant transgressions, like bulldozing neighbors’ houses for a personal theme park, really drives home the feeling that the penalty doesn’t align with the offense.
From a customer’s perspective, there’s even a playful, yet pointed, question about where their cut is. While it’s a humorous take, it underscores the feeling that the benefits of Amazon’s market dominance aren’t trickling down, and perhaps customers should see some form of restitution. The call for “actual consequences” and “growing some balls” from regulators is a clear indication of the public’s desire for more robust enforcement, rather than what’s perceived as token penalties.
The effectiveness of such fines is also debated, with some suggesting that taxing API calls could have a more impactful, immediate effect on large tech companies. However, the German regulator’s action is being viewed by some as more significant because it’s happening and not being ignored, especially in contrast to perceptions of how such matters are handled in the USA. The act of addressing the issue, even with a penalty that’s considered insufficient by many, is seen as a positive step, demonstrating that the Bundeskartellamt is functional and capable of asserting itself.
There’s a cynical perspective that European countries are adept at collecting revenue from the alleged illicit practices of companies, presenting it as an effort to curb those practices. The argument here is that if the intention were truly to stop these actions, more drastic measures, like arrests, would be pursued. This raises a fundamental question about the motivations behind these fines: are they primarily for deterrence and consumer protection, or do they also serve as a revenue stream for the government?
The issue of data is also a significant concern, with questions arising about the vast amounts of data that Amazon has collected and potentially profited from over the years. While the current fine addresses market power abuse, the broader implications of data ownership and monetization remain a complex and largely unresolved issue in the digital economy. The hope is that this action against Amazon might prompt a closer look at these broader data-related concerns in the future.
Despite the criticisms of the fine’s amount, the action taken by the Bundeskartellamt is viewed by many as having major knock-on effects for sellers operating within Germany and other EU member states. This fine serves as a clear warning, putting companies on notice. The implication is that subsequent violations will be treated much more severely, especially once they are officially documented in legal proceedings. The prospect of facing escalating penalties and losing the ability to “play stupid” in future legal battles is a significant consequence in itself.
The debate also touches upon how regulations and fines are structured. While some regulations in the EU do allow for penalties up to a certain percentage of revenue (e.g., 4%), it’s noted that authorities rarely reach these upper limits. The rationale behind using revenue rather than profit for fines is acknowledged, especially considering the varying profit margins across different industries. However, the imperfection of this system is also recognized, leading to discussions about alternative formulas, such as incorporating the total value of the company, or even multipliers based on income disparities within a company, though these also present their own set of complexities and potential for manipulation.
Ultimately, while the €59 million fine might seem paltry to some, the fact that the German regulator has actively investigated and penalized Amazon for abusing its market power is a noteworthy event. It highlights the ongoing efforts to regulate the vast influence of tech giants and signals that these companies are not entirely beyond scrutiny. The conversation continues about whether such penalties are sufficient to truly curb monopolistic tendencies and ensure a fair playing field for all market participants.