>Why don't grocery stores get in trouble then? Because a grocery store selling white-label products isn't an unfair use of market position to force competitors

>Why don't grocery stores get in trouble then? Because a grocery store selling white-label products isn't an unfair use of market position to force competitors out of the market. How many times has a grocery white-label cereal bankrupted a Cherrios or forced them out of the market? Alternatively, how many stores do you hear about vendors that launched a successful product (even a #1 selling product) only to have to close after Amazon launched a copycat product. >Don't all businesses want to force their competitors out of the market? No, complimentary and substitute products are healthy for the market place. Again go back to the grocery store, they don't want General Mills/Post going out of business, they want to fill their shelves with those products. >As an aside it does not surprise me at all when I learn that a law is not worded in a way that's congruent with the popular conception of the law. This is true especially with 1st amendment and 2nd amendment law...I am not sure what the popular conception of Anti-trust law may be, but when it comes to Amazon I always see the white-label grocery store product analogy. What is great about the law is legal opinions often include factual analogies and distinctions like this, what would shock most people is how logically sound and exhaustive the courts are.