Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Legal decision · 2019–2022

Amazon used sellers' own sales data against them — Brussels made it stop for seven years

The EU found Amazon used seller data for its own retail decisions and skewed the 'Buy Box' toward its own logistics users. Amazon accepted binding fixes.

Amazon · 2022-12-20

What happened

The European Commission opened a formal investigation in July 2019 into whether Amazon used data generated by independent sellers on its marketplace — sales volumes, pricing, margins — to inform its own retail and private-label decisions, giving Amazon's own products an advantage no independent seller could match. A second investigation, opened in November 2020, examined whether Amazon's 'Buy Box' (the default purchase button most shoppers click) and Prime eligibility criteria systematically favored sellers who used Amazon's own logistics service over those who didn't.

Rather than contest the findings through to a formal decision, Amazon negotiated commitments with the Commission that became legally binding in December 2022. Amazon agreed not to use non-public seller data for its own retail business or private-label products, to display a second, equally prominent Buy Box for competing offers that differ meaningfully on price or delivery, and to apply Prime eligibility criteria that don't structurally favor its own logistics service.

The commitments run seven years for the Buy Box and Prime provisions and five years for the data-use restriction. Accepting them let Amazon avoid a formal infringement decision and a fine that could have reached 10% of its global annual turnover — a case the Commission had spent more than three years building.

Why it happened

  • Amazon operated as both the marketplace host and a retail competitor to the sellers on that marketplace, creating a structural conflict of interest over seller data.
  • Non-public sales data from independent sellers gave Amazon's own retail arm information no other competitor on the platform could access.
  • The default purchase button and Prime eligibility rules were structured in ways that channeled buyers toward Amazon's preferred logistics arrangement rather than the best offer on its own terms.
  • Settling by commitment rather than contesting to a final decision let Amazon avoid a formal finding of infringement and a turnover-based fine, at the cost of years of binding structural changes.
What it costbinding 7-year structural commitmentscostly

The lesson

Running a marketplace and competing on it at the same time creates a data advantage regulators will eventually treat as anticompetitive, whatever the platform's stated policies say.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →