When it comes to Amazon, breaking up is hard to do | John Naughton

Given the problems involved in regulating the tech giants, the EU commission’s targeted investigation seems the smartest way to achieve results

The European commission has opened an antitrust investigation of Amazon, on the grounds that the company has breached EU antitrust rules against distorting competition in online retail markets. Amazon, says the commission, has been using its privileged access to non-public data of independent sellers who sell on its marketplace to benefit the parts of its own retail business that directly compete with those third-party sellers. The commission has also opened a second investigation into the possible preferential treatment of Amazon’s own retail offers compared with those of marketplace sellers that use Amazon’s logistics and delivery services.

The good news about this is not so much that the EU is taking action as that it is doing so in an intelligently targeted manner. Too much of the discourse about tech companies in the last two years has been about “breaking them up”. But “break ’em up” is a slogan, not a policy, and it has a kind of Trumpian ring to it. The commission is avoiding that.

It is also avoiding another trap – that of generally labelling Amazon as a “monopoly”. As the analyst Benedict Evans never tires of pointing out, a monopoly in what market, exactly? In the US, Amazon has about 40% of e-commerce. That looks like near dominance, in competitive terms. But e-commerce is only 16-20% of all retail. “So,” asks Evans, “does Amazon have 40% of e-commerce or 10% of retail? Amazon’s lawyers would argue, entirely reasonably, that Amazon competes with Walmart, Costco, Macy’s and Safeway – that it competes with other large retailers, not just ‘online’ retailers. On that basis, Amazon’s market is ‘retail’ and its market share in the US is between 5% and 10%.”

On the other hand, if you’re a book publisher, then Amazon definitely looks like a monopoly with more than half of all book sales and probably three-quarters of all ebook sales. The moral for regulators, therefore, is that if you want to go after a monopolist then choose the market carefully. And this is what the commission has done, because in Amazon’s own online “marketplace”, where third parties sell stuff on its platform, it very definitely is a monopoly. And, according to the US House of Representatives recent inquiry, it is abusing its power in that particular marketplace. The EU inquiry will be into whether that is also happening in Europe.

The traditional response to such charges is that if people want to trade in Amazon’s hyper-efficient online marketplace then they have to play by Amazon’s rules. After all, nobody’s forcing them to be there. (The same argument is made about Apple’s app store.) That might work if there were dozens of alternative marketplaces, but network effects have led to a situation where a winner has taken all. In the online world, Amazon is a giant while all others are minnows. And the pandemic has further reinforced its dominance. So it really matters if the company is indeed abusing its monopoly in its own marketplace. What makes it worse is that Amazon is both a player in that marketplace and the adjudicator of complaints about its behaviour. Judge and jury and all that.

Breaking Amazon up is unlikely to be an effective remedy to this kind of problem. What is probably needed are laws that regulate behaviour in online marketplaces, which, for example, make it illegal both to run a market and trade in it on your own account. That’s not to say that break-up might not be appropriate in some cases. Maybe Facebook should be forced to disgorge Instagram and WhatsApp and Google to liberate YouTube. Even then, though, history provides some cautionary tales.

Take AT&T, for example, which for many decades was a lightly regulated monopoly with total control over the US telephone network. This had benefits, in the sense that the country had a pretty good analogue phone system. But it also had grievous downsides, because it meant that AT&T controlled the pace of innovation on communications technology, which effectively gave it the power to apply the brakes to the future. The company rejected the idea of packet-switching (the underpinning technology of the internet), for example, when it was first proposed in the early 1960s. Worse still, in the mid-1930s, after a researcher at Bell Labs invented a method of recording audio signals on to magnetised wire reels, he was forced to stop the research and lock away his notebooks because AT&T feared that it would damage the telephone business. So a technology that proved essential for the digital computing industry was hidden away for 20-plus years.

Eventually, though, the “break ’em up” mania took hold, and in the early 1980s AT&T was dismantled into seven companies – the “baby bells”. You can guess what happened: some of the babies grew and grew and swallowed up others, with the result that there are now two giant corporations – AT&T and Verizon. So even if WhatsApp, YouTube and Instagram were liberated from their existing parents, network effects and capitalist concentration will make them into a new generation of tech giants and we will be back here in 20 years wondering how to regulate them. The truth is that regulation is hard and focused and intelligent regulation is even harder. So maybe the way the EU is going about it is the path to follow.

What I’ve been reading

In the black
Ink-stained wretches: the battle for the soul of digital freedom taking place inside your printer is a wonderful, angry, essay by Cory Doctorow about the printer-ink racket. And it is a racket.

And you thought Trump was bad…
There’s a sobering warning in the Atlantic (America’s next authoritarian will be much more competent) by Zeynep Tufekci.

Straight to the point
Terrific, informative piece on the BBC website about the history of the ballpoint pen.

Contributor

John Naughton

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Tech giants face no contest when it comes to competition law | John Naughton
Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods Market ought to be blocked by monopoly regulators, but as long as they keep delivering the goods no one seems to mind

John Naughton

25, Jun, 2017 @6:00 AM

Article image
Who needs crisis government when you’ve got Amazon to keep things running? | John Naughton
While Trump blusters, the online giant has taken on the role of regulator and benevolent dictator

John Naughton

28, Mar, 2020 @4:00 PM

Article image
Healthcare is a huge industry – no wonder Amazon is muscling in | John Naughton
Boss Jeff Bezos is ahead of the game again, spying an opportunity for big data to transform the system

John Naughton

04, Feb, 2018 @7:00 AM

Article image
How Amazon puts misinformation on your reading list | John Naughton
Algorithms routinely come up with ‘recommendations’ for anti-vax ‘bestsellers’ or juices that can cure cancer

John Naughton

08, Aug, 2020 @4:00 PM

Article image
If we want better conditions for Amazon staff we need to be patient…
The tech giant has often been accused of mistreating workers, but our desire for instant gratification is part of the problem

John Naughton

09, May, 2020 @3:00 PM

Article image
Been duped on Facebook and Amazon’s platforms? Well, you’re not alone | John Naughton
Allowing third parties access to the online giants is as risky as it is profitable

John Naughton

31, Aug, 2019 @3:00 PM

Article image
All I want for 2021 is to see Mark Zuckerberg up in court | John Naughton
The tech giants’ law-free bonanza is coming to an end on both sides of the Atlantic, but let’s speed up the process

John Naughton

02, Jan, 2021 @4:00 PM

Article image
Wanted in the digital monopoly age – powers to curb the hold of online giants | John Naughton
Analysis by Lina Khan reveals how Amazon exploits outdated thinking about competition

John Naughton

16, Sep, 2018 @6:00 AM

Article image
The tech giants, the US and the Chinese spy chips that never were… or were they? | John Naughton
A sensational Bloomberg story about a major hardware hack was swiftly denied. But the journalists aren’t backing down

John Naughton

13, Oct, 2018 @4:00 PM

Article image
Jeff Bezos has his shops, so now Mark Zuckerberg wants a whole town | John Naughton
Strange how history repeats itself. Amazon is following the model of Sears Roebuck, and Facebook seems to have taken a page out of a railroad tycoon’s book

John Naughton

01, Oct, 2017 @6:00 AM