"Sussman constructed his theory as something a company harmed by Amazon could use to file a lawsuit, even if no antitrust laws are changed. If it survives an in

"Sussman constructed his theory as something a company harmed by Amazon could use to file a lawsuit, even if no antitrust laws are changed. If it survives an initial motion to dismiss in the courts, Amazon would have to reveal unit costs in a discovery proceeding, which would settle the controversy." What Sussman actually wrote was "In addition, [this paper] calls for the establishment of a viable framework under which a case may be brought against such firms [as Amazon] by injured competitors." The journalist says no antitrust laws need be changed. What he fails to mention is the small matter of this framework Sussman says is needed before any case can be brought. It does not exist. Sussman did not describe the framework in any detail or how it would work. All one can find in the paper is this single sentence: "It is, therefore, necessary to develop some means of oversight that will allow the public to determine whether firms such as Amazon are engaging in such activities." "Linda Khan published a very informative and influential review on Amazon and antitrust in 2017." I can remember when a story on the Khan paper was posted to HN. I thought at the time the journalist seemed just a tad overly optimistic. It felt odd to see a law review article being so "hyped" by a journalist. It almost seemed like he/she did not want the reader to actually read the paper. There was so much paraphrasing that the risk of the journalist getting something wrong would be very high. In 2018, there was another paper in Yale LJ by Baker and Morton that discussed Amazon's anticompetitive activities. This paper was actually influential.1 Unlike Sussman's single sentence calling for "some means of oversight" and a framework under which cases can be filed, the authors included an entire section on "US Enforcement Challenges", about five pages devoted to how enforcement might proceed. The paper was cited by US Sen. Blumenthal in a letter to DOJ and FTC urging them to open investigations of Amazon's predatory pricing.2 (He did not cite Khan's paper.) Not sure if the Baker and Morton paper received any hype from journalists, but it is indisputable the paper and the letters to DOJ and FTC had an impact. Amazon finally removed the MFN clauses from its agreements with US sellers, as it had done for sellers in Europe in 2013.3 1 https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/antitrust-enforcement-against-platform-mfns https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/antitrust-enforcement... 2 https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/12.19.18%20-%20DOJ%20-%20Price%20Parity.pdf https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/12.19.18%20-... https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/12.19.18%20-%20FTC%20-%20Price%20Parity.pdf https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/12.19.18%20-... 3 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-23881202 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-23881202 https://www.axios.com/amazon-price-practice-antitrust-elizabeth-warren-d802ba71-d376-4316-b9dc-cca4540959ac.html https://www.axios.com/amazon-price-practice-antitrust-elizab...