It’s raining Amazon probes: the Bundeskartellamt joins the Commission in investigating the tech giant’s marketplace practices

The investigation

On 29 November 2018, the German competition authority (Bundeskartellamt) announced an investigation into Amazon’s business terms and practices on its German marketplace. The Bundeskartellamt’s president commented:

Amazon is the largest online retailer and operates by far the largest online marketplace in Germany. Many retailers and manufacturers depend on the reach of Amazon’s marketplace for their online sales. Amazon functions as a kind of “gatekeeper” for customers. Its double role as the largest retailer and largest marketplace has the potential to hinder other sellers on its platform.

More specifically, the Bundeskartellamt is examining a number of business terms including liability provisions, choice of law and jurisdiction clauses, rules regarding product reviews, and clauses obliging sellers to provide Amazon with information regarding products. The authority is also looking at business practices such as the non-transparent termination and blocking of sellers’ accounts, and the withholding or delaying of payments to sellers.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is: two months earlier, the Commission announced its preliminary investigation into Amazon. There is a clear parallel between the two probes. At the heart of each investigation is Amazon’s dual role: one the one hand, Amazon offers a marketplace for third-party sellers to offer their products to consumers; on the other hand, Amazon offers its own products through its marketplace. This dual role may incentivize Amazon to make life difficult for marketplace sellers that it also competes with as a retailer.

Yet there are also clear differences. The Commission’s concerns center around Amazon’s use of the data it gathers on third-party transactions to boost the sales of its own products (see our previous blog post on the Commission’s probe). The Bundeskartellamt, on the other hand, is examining a range of specific clauses and practices between Amazon and its marketplace sellers. The authority therefore argues that ‘[t]he Bundeskartellamt’s and the Commission’s proceedings supplement one another.’

There is also a difference in substantive law. Under Article 102 TFEU, the Commission has to demonstrate that Amazon is in a dominant position. The Bundeskartellamt can additionally rely on §20 of the German Competition Act, which sets a lower bar. According to this provision, the abuse of dominance prohibition also applies to undertakings ‘to the extent that small or medium-sized enterprises as suppliers or purchasers of a certain type of goods or commercial services depend on them in such a way that sufficient and reasonable possibilities of switching to other undertakings do not exist’. In other words, it suffices for the authority to prove relative market power.

Amazon—again?

To close observers, the Bundeskartellamt’s investigation cannot come as a real surprise.

First of all, online platforms such as Amazon are under intense antitrust scrutiny these days, as illustrated by the recent Google decisions (Search and Android). It looks like Amazon might become the competition authorities’ next big target after Google (which earlier took the place of Microsoft as the Commission’s enfant terrible).

Secondly, the Bundeskartellamt is one of the most aggressive authorities when it comes to enforcing competition law in the digital economy. Last year, for example, it initiated proceedings against Facebook for its data collection practices—an issue traditionally seen as outside of the purview of competition law.

Finally, this is not the first national abuse of dominance case against Amazon. In December 2017, it was reported that the French government filed a complaint against Amazon seeking €10 million in damages. Similar to the German case, the French complaint focuses on Amazon’s ability to unilaterally change or suspend contracts with sellers. Since then, however, there have been no updates on the complaint.

Tags

Über

Friso Bostoen

Blog Editor

Postdoctoral Researcher, KU Leuven

>> Friso’s CoRe Blog posts >>

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Zusammenhängende Posts

26. Apr 2022
von Enrico Di Tomaso

Eventim/Ticketone v. AGCM – May acquisitions be prosecuted pursuant to Article 102 TFEU?

With judgment no. 3334 of 24 March 2022, the Rome Administrative Court of 1st instance (TAR Lazio-Roma) has annulled the decision issued by the Italian Competition Authority (“AGCM”) on 22 December 2020, no. 28495. The above TAR Lazio judgment (“the “Judgment”) is noteworthy because it deals with the possibility of AGCM (and of national competition authorities at large) to apply […]
01. Apr 2022
Features von Friso Bostoen

The French judgment on Google’s Play Store: a shift towards platform exploitation?

On 28 March 2022, the Commercial Court of Paris fined Google €2 million for the imbalanced terms and conditions of its Play Store. While the fine is minimal, Google is also obliged to adapt those T&Cs, including the 30% fee—a much more far-reaching implication. Except for some news articles, the French judgment did not receive a lot of attention (which […]
08. Mrz 2022
Features von Daniel Mandrescu

The DMA and EU competition law: complementing or cannibalizing enforcement?

The proposal of the DMA signals a significant change with respect to the application and enforcement of EU competition policy to online platforms. Despite the clear synergy between the two frameworks, the European Commission insists that the DMA is introduced with the idea of complementing, rather than replacing, the enforcement of EU competition law in the case of online platforms. […]
18. Jan 2022
Features von Daniel Mandrescu

The Apple App Store case in the Netherlands – a potential game changer

Just before 2021 ended, Apple suffered a loss in the Netherlands where a national court in preliminary relief proceedings struck down its attempt to block the remedies imposed by the Dutch competition authority following a finding of abuse of dominance. As a result, as of last weekend, Apple is forced to accept third-party payment solutions implemented in (paid) dating apps […]
21. Sep 2021
Features von Alice Rinaldi

Spielberg’s antitrust: Netflix, Amazon and the Draft Digital Markets Act

The recent legislative reform proposals presented by the European Commission (“EC”) have revived the debate on how Competition Law should deal with potentially abusive conduct in digital markets. Drawing upon the case law concerning violations of Art. 102 TFEU, the draft Digital Markets Act (“Draft DMA”) tries to re-design the structure of digital markets by codifying a series of dos […]
19. Apr 2021
Features von Friso Bostoen
Article 22, Merger Regulation, European Commission, Guidance, killer acquisitions, GAFAM

The Commission’s Article 22 EUMR Guidance: catching killer acquisitions through the merger referral procedure?

Over the past five years, the EU’s merger control regime has been hotly debated. The main concern driving the debate has been the intensive acquisition activity in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. However, many of those acquisitions escape the jurisdictional thresholds of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) and therefore cannot be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). On 26 March […]
12. Apr 2021
Features von Daniel Mandrescu
competition law, art. 102 tfeu, online platforms, data sharing, refusal to supply

Online platforms and the essential facility doctrine – a status update following Slovak Telekom and the DMA

The recent judgment of the CJEU in Slovak Telekom provides important guidance on the application of the Bronner case law in cases concerning abusive market access obstacles. Such guidance is of particular value in the context of online platforms, where issues of access have been considered being unsolvable because of the stringent criteria of the refusal to supply case law. […]
03. Dez 2020
Features von Daniel Mandrescu

Why you (often) don’t need the essential facility doctrine in the digital economy? – Interpreting Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telekom

The insights from Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telekom may have serious implications for the application of the Oscar Bronner case law in the future. These insights may prove, however, to have the most value in the digital economy where it would appear that the essential facility doctrine might often not even be needed – not even in the case of […]
26. Nov 2020
Features von Daniel Mandrescu

Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telecom – Implications for the Essential Facility Doctrine

The recent cases of Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telekom address the matter of refusal to deal. Both cases, which do not engage in the assessment of this abuse, in fact, provide important guidance on the scope of application of the essential facility doctrine for current practice that will be covered in this post. Refusals to deal and the essential facility […]
22. Sep 2020
Features von Daniel Mandrescu
Epic, Fortnite, Apple, battle royale, competition law, antitrust, district court, monopolization, monopoly, essential facilities, refusal to supply, tying, abuse of dominance

Epic v Apple (2): market power and foreclosure in the app distribution market(s)

Epic’s battle against Apple has been extensively covered in media in the past month. This attention is undoubtedly due to Epic’s explicit move against Apple’s terms and conditions as well as Apple’s fierce reaction to cut all ties with Epic. Epic’s legal dispute is, however, not only against Apple but also against Google who has removed Epic from its Play […]

If you are interested, please use our Newletter to stay informed about our upcoming conferences, workshops, trainings and current published journals in our core areas of EU competition, data protection, substances and environmental law, as well as exciting new projects in emerging technologies and digitalisation.

Don’t miss any news and sign up for our free news alert.  Sign up now