Anitrust actions do not require the presence of a monopoly.

Rather, they addresses situations where companies unreasonably exert power to lessen competition.

The idea is to prevent monopolies from forming in the first place.

Can they save me from Comcast first? I’d be curious how that backlog refinement meeting goes.

> See that filter that orders priority by realized value? Remove it and order by campaign contributions

> Can they save me from Comcast first?

Talk to the FCC, probably.

The Friends of Comcast Club?

Translated from non incriminating corporate speak to plain English:

"We have to been seen doing something, the election cycle is fast approaching. What if we go after Comcast?"

"They gave a important senators son a no show job so they are off limits for the time being"

"Amazon?"

"Let me check, actually they haven't done much for us lately, let's shake them down, if they give my cousin a few million for consulting we give them a small fine, if not we give them the law"

> unreasonably exert power to lessen competition.

The unreasonable part is where the monopoly power comes in.

Companies lessening competition happens all the time, it’s the monopoly aspect that triggers antitrust.

Monopoly power does not require a literal monopoly. Straight from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power

I'd say Amazon has "significant and durable market power"

What does that mean? Does Microsoft have that with Windows? Intel with x86? Apple with phones? What is the scale of those words?

It means it's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis.

That sounds...arbitrary and subject to politicisation.

What method wouldn't be? Putting it to a committee would have similar problems. Writing it into a law would be too static.

Especially because the first part of determining marketshare and market power is determining the market. New markets happen all the time, with old markets dying out. Twenty years ago, smartphones wouldn't have been a market. Fifteen years ago: streaming services.

Like going back to your "Intel with x86", what is the market? x86_64 CPUs? Sure they have monopoly power. All CPUs? Now they don't have as much because they're competing with ARM too. Mobile phone CPUs? I don't think there's been a new Intel phone since the Asus Zenfone 2 (2015).

The method of letting the markets decide would work, I think.

I suspect this action might have been related to this announcement: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/policy-statement-re... [pdf]

article - https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/11/...

They are more rigorously enforcing laws against unfair practices, monopoly or not.

"Unfair methods of competition, the policy statement explains, are tactics that seek to gain an advantage while avoiding competing on the merits, and that tend to reduce competition in the market."

There are three primary antitrust laws, only one of them focuses on monopoly power in the way you describe. The Clayton and FTC acts are broader.

Amazon has a near-monopoly at this point on online retail in the USA, mostly owing to their logistics network and ability to deliver so easily combined with the one stop shop advantage.

“Amazon had 38% of online retail market share”

As a commentors above pointed out, online market share includes Airline sites, etc, and Delta alone is a top 5 online purchasing site. Show me what “Amazon had 38% of online retail market share” actually means. That they have 100% of 90 areas measured and 0% of airline ticket sales?

Being good at something does not make you a monopoly. They are not actively blocking other online retail platforms. This is not a statement to defend Amazon but the fact that I prefer Amazon for its features (like same day delivery) is just plain capitalism. The customers have a choice to buy from a retailer they prefer and the important thing is that I still have an option to choose where I make my purchases.

This exactly. I tried buying from other online retailers recently to support other businesses directly, and their websites are replete with what I would consider dark patterns. Things like listing 2-day shipping and then burying the fact that you'll get the item 2 days from when it ships but it will take them a month to process it. Seriously, this is a thing.

At least with Amazon I know I'm actually getting it in 2 days or they'll give me a refund (and often times still give me the product too).

Amazon also has dark patterns. I have accidentally signed up for Amazon Prime twice in the last year due to the way they practically force it under your cursor while you are checking out.

I do not want Amazon Prime because in my area (in southeastern Australia), it fails to meet its delivery promises about 95+% of the time, and when that happens, Amazon cancels the order on you half the time and sends it off to some distant pick-up point the other half. Regular Amazon just sends things by post, which is so much more reliable and convenient.

I strongly prefer using smaller online retailers. I have not found it very difficult to find ones that offer better and more honest service (not to mention lower prices) than Amazon. As far as I'm concerned, Amazon is for Kindle books, and occasionally the odd item I can't find anywhere else.

If you sell a thing on amazon, they require it to be no cheaper on any other site. or so I've heard.

You don't need a monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior. Ffs. Antitrust isn't necessarily about monopolies. How is that so hard to understand?

The OP of the thread you are replying in claimed “so obviously monopolistic”…

I really don't give a shit, tbh.

You can't argue that the FTC is unjustified by saying that the OP is wrong in saying it's monopolistic, when FTC isn't saying they're a monopoly.

Like, what even is this discussion?

Agree, (these are not the droids you are looking for). Look to Google, Meta, and the telecoms as they are the most eggregious and abuse their market position blatantly.

This antitrust action isn't about their retail sector though... I can only assume the many people acting without that understanding here didn't read the article.

> Amazon had 38% of online retail market share

Sure, but “online retail” is pretty clearly an overly broad market including separate segments between which there is no substitution effect, and there are a whole lot of segments within that where Amazon has majority (>50%) market share (safety & security, communications, home audio, portable audio, etc.)

Not that this is about retail, per se, anyway, except maybe in leveraging market position in retail as an aspect of the anticompetitive behavior regarding sellers planning on using their fulfillment services.

Where are you getting that data?

Online retail includes airlines websites, for example (Delta recently shared they were a Top 5 US online retailer in their investor presentations).

I am sure that for CPG, Amazon’s share is significantly higher.