No, but it still is part of Amazon. In fact, as others have commented, AWS helps subsidise parts of the Amazon store that would otherwise result in losses.

But how is it at all relevant to this story? And if it is a vital point, why not get mentioned by the FTC?

I don't think there is nothing at all there. However, most of the criticisms you will see in the wild about how AWS pays for retail are almost certainly from ignorance of how retail had to literally seed AWS.

And don't take my criticism of that point as some sort of promotion of Amazon. I can be critical of the complaints without having to worship them.

Is that explicitly the case? Because the same antics apply to the marketplace and the copying of ecosystem participant services there too..

Is what explicitly the case? The PDF for the allegations of this case are in the link. No mention of AWS.

But Amazon is mentioned and Amazon owns AWS and many of the abuses described with respect to the e-commerce marketplace are also relevant to the AWS marketplace. I hear you on how they are not directly and literally mentioned in the text explicitly however one can understand why there's a thematic overlap and certainly I can imagine if I were AWS I would be sweating right now