Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos remotely testifies during a House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust practices on Capitol Hill on July 29, 2020.

by Marceline Meador ‘24

The goal of any company is growth, which is a principle that is the basis of capitalism. What happens, though, when just a few companies take up all the room and do not leave space for any others? Massive corporations that play a part in our everyday lives are ever-expanding, pushing out their competitors, stomping out smaller businesses, and further integrating themselves into every aspect of our lives. While some would argue that their greater reach allows for greater conveniences for the average consumer, the detrimental effects of monopoly activity on our socio-political and economic landscape are dire in comparison.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has come to the conclusion that one such corporation, Amazon, has violated the laws put in place to prevent such unfair practices, known commonly as Antitrust Laws, and has followed through with a lawsuit against Amazon on such grounds. The FTC, as well as 17 state attorneys, maintains that Amazon has unfairly stifled its competition in order to generate and wield monopoly power. Monopoly power potentially allows a company to unfairly gouge prices, cut worker pay, underpay sellers, and massively scale back quality. Being that Amazon is in certain places a consumer’s only affordable option when it comes to purchasing goods, this has proven to cause detrimental effects on fair competition, innovation, and affordability.

The development of this lawsuit creates the likelihood of two possible rulings, each with its own unique repercussions and precedent. The first possibility is a ruling in favor of Amazon, which would be absolutely detrimental to the average consumer, competition within the U.S. economy, and the affordability of everyday products. Not to mention that such a ruling would set the precedent that Amazon’s current activities do not violate antitrust laws and that corporate activity such as price gouging, stifling competition, exclusionary conduct, and degradation of service is legal and permissible in the United States. This would create an open season for Amazon to not only continue but ramp up its monopoly activity. Furthermore, this would affect the overall U.S. economy detrimentally, as less affordability and worker pay on the part of the largest online retailer in the entire country means more money flow into Amazon, but a significantly smaller flow of capital back into the economy.

The other, more positive outcome of this lawsuit would be a ruling in favor of the 17 State AGs and the FTC. Such a ruling would set a positive and opposite precedent, one that states activities such as dominating competition in a great many industries as opposed to one is classified as monopoly activity under federal law. This would also result in a potential dissolution of the Amazon corporation, mirroring that of the historic Standard Oil dissolution under the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1911.

Amazon’s detrimental activities cannot be allowed to continue, and a ruling in favor of the FTC would prevent future corporate entities from engaging in activities such as price gouging, major online retailer pay cuts, intentional degradation of quality, and the stifling of competition. This could affect other large corporations such as Google, Meta, and Aliexpress from attempting to engage in their own brand of monopoly activity in other industries such as data collection, social networking, and advertising, in an overall positive turn of events for the average consumer.