[zozbot234]

They own a dominant platform for consumer shopping and use it to promote their own products. Meanwhile established competitors like Walmart cannot be featured on the same platform without submitting to rules that Amazon itself doesn't have to abide to. It's called a tie-in arrangement in antitrust law, and it's not legal.

[deadpannini]

I'd agree that they are "dominant", and that legal authorities should watch Amazon closely for specific violations, but they only control 35-40% of the online consumer retail market (by most estimates circa 2022).

[scarface74]

Really? No retailer has ever let a competitor advertise on their platform and store brands have always been a thing across retail.

Poor little Walmart is much larger than Amazon in terms of revenue and profit.

[zozbot234]

Physical retail stores are not a natural monopoly platform like a shopping site is. There's nothing stopping Amazon from building a physical store next door to a Walmart and selling its products there.

[scarface74]

How is a shopping site a “natural monopoly” when there is an existence proof that there are other large shopping sites - like Walmart.com?

If you go on Facebook or Instagram you can find thousands of small merchants who advertise there and ship directly to consumers.

> There's nothing stopping Amazon from building a physical store next door to a Walmart and selling its products there.

And there is nothing stopping you from building a website and doing targeted advertising that is reachable by anyone. Wouldn’t you say it’s a lot easier creating a website than building a physical store?