Antitrust IntelligenceAntitrust IntelligenceAntitrust Intelligence
Prices
Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Antitrust Intelligence
  • Antitrust Club
  • Antitrust Investor
Reading: DC’s Antitrust Case Against Amazon Revived: Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of District
Font ResizerAa
Antitrust IntelligenceAntitrust Intelligence
Search
  • Antitrust Intelligence
  • Antitrust Club
  • Antitrust Investor
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
News

DC’s Antitrust Case Against Amazon Revived: Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of District

Editorial
Last updated: March 10, 2025 9:45 am
Editorial
Published August 23, 2024
Share

In a significant legal development, the District of Columbia’s antitrust case against Amazon has been revived by the DC Court of Appeals.

amazon
Source: Unsplash

The case, originally filed by former DC Attorney General Karl Racine in 2021, alleges that Amazon’s business practices unlawfully stifle competition and inflate prices on rival platforms. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2022 but has now been reinstated following a recent ruling from the appellate court.

The core of the District’s complaint revolves around Amazon’s pricing policies, which purportedly prevent third-party sellers from offering their products at lower prices on other online platforms, including their own websites. Although Amazon discontinued a policy in 2019 that explicitly required sellers to offer the lowest prices on its marketplace, the lawsuit contends that Amazon’s current Fair Pricing Policy serves as a “functionally identical substitute.” This policy, according to the District, effectively allows Amazon to maintain control over the pricing of goods across multiple platforms, thereby reducing competition and driving up prices for consumers.

Amazon, however, has strongly contested these allegations. In a statement, Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle defended the company’s practices, asserting that they are designed to ensure competitive pricing and maintain customer trust. “Just like any store owner who wouldn’t want to promote a bad deal to their customers, we don’t highlight or promote offers that are not competitively priced,” Doyle explained. He emphasized that Amazon believes these policies ultimately benefit both consumers and sellers.

The Court of Appeals’ decision marks a critical moment in the ongoing legal battle, as it acknowledges the plausibility of the District’s claims. The court ruled that the lower court had set an excessively high standard for dismissing the case and found that the District’s allegations sufficiently suggest that Amazon may already possess, or be on the verge of acquiring, monopoly power over the online marketplace.

This ruling is part of a broader wave of antitrust scrutiny that Amazon is currently facing. In addition to the revived DC lawsuit, the company is also the target of a significant antitrust action brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and several states. These cases collectively accuse Amazon of engaging in practices that suppress competition and harm consumers.

DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who succeeded Racine, welcomed the appellate court’s decision, vowing to continue the fight against Amazon’s “unfair and unlawful practices.” Schwalb reiterated the District’s commitment to protecting consumers and fostering innovation and choice within the online retail sector.

The revived lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for Amazon and the broader online retail industry, as it challenges the practices of one of the world’s most dominant e-commerce platforms. As the case proceeds, it will likely draw significant attention from legal experts, regulators, and industry stakeholders alike.

You Might Also Like

Nigerian Competition Authority Sues MultiChoice Over Unauthorized Price Hike

Sun Pharma to Acquire Checkpoint Therapeutics in $355 Million Deal

Trump’s Tariffs Escalate Global Trade Tensions

Netherlands Investigates International Software Supplier for Possible Market Abuse

Zalando Challenges EU Tech Regulations, Argues Distinction from Amazon and AliExpress

TAGGED:amazonantitrustDC Court of AppealsTechthe District of Columbia

Weekly Newsletter

Insights you can turn into money or clients
Financial Analysis

Shares Fall 8% After CMA Decision — Getty–Shutterstock May Become a Buying Opportunity

Editorial
Editorial
October 21, 2025
Unicredit’s Results Show the Way for European Banking
Antitrust Intelligence

About Us

We identify and quantify regulatory risks so you can take better decisions
Menu
  • Insights
  • Financial Analysis
  • News
  • My Bookmarks
  • About Us
  • Contact
Legals
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Subscribe Us

Subscribe to our newsletter to get weekly ideas to make money and get new clients!

© 2025 Antitrust Intelligence. All Rights Reserved. - Web design Málaga by Seb creativos
Antitrust Intelligence
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
Antitrust & Financial Markets? Download Your Free Guide NOW
Five tips to find unique regulatory intelligence
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?