Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox - Yale Law Journal

1 LINA M. KHAN. amazon 's Antitrust Paradox abstract . amazon is the titan of twenty- rst century commerce. In addition to being a re- tailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and lms, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager pro ts, choosing to price below-cost and ex- pand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e- commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the rm's structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns yet it has escaped Antitrust scrutiny.

2 This Note argues that the current framework in Antitrust speci cally its pegging competi- tion to consumer welfare, de ned as short-term price effects is unequipped to capture the ar- chitecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by amazon 's dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Speci cally, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are height- ened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over pro ts, a strategy that investors have re- warded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.

3 Second, because online platforms serve as critical intermediaries, integrating across business lines positions these platforms to control the essential infrastructure on which their rivals depend. This dual role also enables a platform to exploit information collected on companies using its services to undermine them as competitors. This Note maps out facets of amazon 's dominance. Doing so enables us to make sense of its business strategy, illuminates anticompetitive aspects of amazon 's structure and conduct, and underscores de ciencies in current doctrine. The Note closes by considering two potential re- gimes for addressing amazon 's power: restoring traditional Antitrust and competition policy principles or applying common carrier obligations and duties. author . I am deeply grateful to David Singh Grewal for encouraging me to pursue this pro- ject and to Barry C.

4 Lynn for introducing me to these issues in the rst place. For thoughtful feedback at various stages of this project, I am also grateful to Christopher R. Leslie, Daniel Markovits, Stacy Mitchell, Frank Pasquale, George Priest, Maurice Stucke, and Sandeep Va- heesan. Lastly, many thanks to Juliana Brint, Urja Mittal, and the Yale Law Journal staff for in- sightful comments and careful editing. All errors are my own. 710. amazon 's Antitrust Paradox note contents introduction 712 i. the chicago school revolution: the shift away from competitive process and market structure 717 A. Predatory Pricing 722 B. Vertical Integration 731 ii. why competitive process and structure matter 737 A. Price and Output Effects Do Not Cover the Full Range of Threats to Consumer Welfare 737 B. Antitrust Laws Promote Competition To Serve a Variety of Interests 739 iii.

5 amazon 's business strategy 746 A. Willingness To Forego Pro ts To Establish Dominance 747 B. Expansion into Multiple Business Lines 754 iv. establishing structural dominance 755 A. Below-Cost Pricing of Bestseller E-Books and the Limits of Modern Recoupment Analysis 756 B. Acquisition of Quidsi and Flawed Assumptions About Entry and Exit Barriers 768 C. amazon Delivery and Leveraging Dominance Across Sectors 774 D. amazon Marketplace and Exploiting Data 780 v. how platform economics and capital markets may facilitate anticompetitive conduct and structures 784 vi. two models for addressing platform power 790 A. Governing Online Platform Markets Through Competition 790 1. Predatory Pricing 791 2. Vertical Integration 792 B. Governing Dominant Platforms as Monopolies Through Regulation 797 conclusion 802 711. the yale law Journal 126:710 2017.

6 Even as amazon became one of the largest retailers in the country, it never seemed interested in charging enough to make a pro t. Customers celebrated and the competition languished.. THE NEW YORK TIMES1. [O]ne of Mr. Rockefeller's most impressive characteristics is patience.. IDA TARBELL, A HISTORY OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY2. introduction In amazon 's early years, a running joke among Wall Street analysts was that CEO Jeff Bezos was building a house of cards. Entering its sixth year in 2000, the company had yet to crack a pro t and was mounting millions of dol- lars in continuous losses, each quarter's larger than the last. Nevertheless, a segment of shareholders believed that by dumping money into advertising and steep discounts, amazon was making a sound investment that would yield re- turns once e-commerce took off.

7 Each quarter the company would report loss- es, and its stock price would rise. One news site captured the split sentiment by asking, amazon : Ponzi Scheme or Wal-Mart of the Web? 3. Sixteen years on, nobody seriously doubts that amazon is anything but the titan of twenty- rst century commerce. In 2015, it earned $107 billion in reve- nue,4 and, as of 2013, it sold more than its next twelve online competitors com- By some estimates, amazon now captures 46% of online shopping, 1. David Streitfeld, As Competition Wanes, amazon Cuts Back Discounts, TIMES (July 4, 2013), [ ]. 2. Ida Tarbell, John D. Rockefeller: A Character Study, 25 MCCLURE'S MAG. 227, 245 (1905). 3. amazon : Ponzi Scheme or Wal-Mart of the Web?, SLATE: MONEYBOX (Feb. 8, 2000, 5:52. PM), [ ]. 4. Allison Enright, amazon Sales Climb 22% in Q4 and 20% in 2015, INTERNET RETAILER (Jan.)

8 28, 2016, 4:06 PM), -q4-and-20-2015 [ ]. 5. Shelly Banjo & Paul Ziobro, After Decades of Toil, Web Services Remain Small for Many Retailers, WALL ST. J. (Aug. 27, 2013, 8:31 PM), /SB1000142412788732490630457903910156839 7122 [ J-JYRN]. 712. amazon 's Antitrust Paradox with its share growing faster than the sector as a In addition to being a retailer, it is a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and lms, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a lead- ing provider of cloud server space and computing power. Although amazon has clocked staggering growth reporting double-digit increases in net sales yearly it reports meager pro ts, choosing to invest aggressively instead. The company listed consistent losses for the rst seven years it was in business, with debts of $2 While it exits the red more regularly now,8 negative returns are still common.

9 The company reported losses in two of the last ve years, for example, and its highest yearly net income was still less than 1% of its net Despite the company's history of thin returns, investors have zealously backed it: amazon 's shares trade at over 900 times diluted earnings, making it the most expensive stock in the Standard & Poor's As one reporter mar- veled, The company barely ekes out a pro t, spends a fortune on expansion and free shipping and is famously opaque about its business operations. Yet in- 6. Olivia LaVecchia & Stacy Mitchell, amazon 's Stranglehold: How the Company's Tightening Grip Is Sti ing Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities, INST. FOR LOC. SELF- RELIANCE 10 (Nov. 2016), Report_ [ ]. 7. amazon Posts a Pro t, CNN MONEY (Jan. 22, 2002, 3:39 PM), /01/22/technology/ amazon [ ]. 8. Partly due to the success of amazon Web Services, amazon has recently begun reporting consistent pro ts.

10 See Nick Wing eld, amazon 's Cloud Business Lifts Its Pro t to a Record, TIMES (Apr. 28, 2016), [ ]. Though this trend departs from the his- tory on which I focus, my analysis stands given that I am interested in (1) the losses amazon formerly undertook to establish dominant positions in certain sectors, (2) the investor back- ing and enthusiasm that amazon consistently maintained despite these losses, and (3). whether these facts challenge the assumption embedded in current doctrine that losing money is only desirable (and hence rational) if followed by recoupment. See id. ( amazon often ip- ops between showing pro ts and losses, depending on how aggressively it de- cides to plow money into big new business bets. Investors have granted the company much wider leeway to do so than other technology companies of its size often receive, because of its history of delivering outsize growth.)