Federal judge issues sealed order in Amazon antitrust case

SEATTLE (CN) — In a sealed order, a federal judge Monday partially granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss an antitrust case brought by the Federal Trade Commission.

U.S. District Judge John Chun also ordered that, in response to the commission’s motion to bifurcate, an upcoming bench trial will focus only on the online retailer’s liability under the Federal Trade Commission Act, Sherman Act and applicable state laws.

The judge noted in his order that if Amazon is found liable at the bench trial, he’ll schedule a future conference to determine next steps for remedying the issues.

The bench trial is scheduled for October 2026.

Both sides have until Oct. 14 to file a joint statement about what portions of the currently sealed order, if any, should remain redacted in a public order.

The commission has until Oct. 31 to file an amended complaint on any claims that weren’t dismissed with prejudice.

The commission and 17 attorneys general sued Amazon in September 2023, arguing that the online giant created monopolies and raised prices. Commission chair Lina Khan at the time said Amazon used a series of punitive and coercive methods to unlawfully maintain its monopolies. The lawsuit was a means of holding Amazon to account for its actions and restore proper marketplace competition.

“The complaint sets forth detailed allegations noting how Amazon is now exploiting its monopoly power to enrich itself while raising prices and degrading service for the tens of millions of American families who shop on its platform and the hundreds of thousands of businesses that rely on Amazon to reach them,” Khan said in a statement at the time.

Amazon filed a motion to dismiss in December, arguing that its innovations led to consumer benefit and pushed its competition to follow suit. Amazon matches discounts provided by its competitors, features deals instead of overpriced items and uses the best delivery system for Prime subscribers.

Because antitrust law isn’t intended to hurt economic behavior, Amazon argued the suit should be dismissed.

The commission in its lawsuit failed to accuse Amazon of anticompetitive actions and failed to identify plausible anticompetitive effects, the company said. Amazon argued that the reason the commission sought to alternatively tap the Federal Trade Commission Act was because its arguments under the Sherman Act were weak.

Concerning the state law claims, Amazon wrote that they failed, as well, saying the state claims relied on consumer-protection theories, which aren’t bolstered by facts in the suit.

The commission in February filed its motion to bifurcate. It asked the judge to separate the case into two parts, with the first being a trial only on Amazon’s liability. A process focused on the remedies would follow.

“By first addressing liability, plaintiffs will be able to present a streamlined case focused on showing the court how Amazon has violated the law and harmed competition to the detriment of shoppers and sellers,” the commission wrote. “Once the court finds Amazon liable, the parties would then move to a remedy proceeding tailored to the court’s specific findings on liability.”

Bifurcating the case would give both sides the chance to give focused presentations and lessen the burden for both, as well as the burden facing the judge and witnesses.

The commission argued that both itself and Amazon wanted the discovery process to include the issues of both liability and remedy. However, Amazon opposed a trial focused solely on liability.

Splitting the case into two parts would improve convenience and judicial economy, the commission wrote.

“Courts have often found complex antitrust cases well-suited for bifurcation due to the intricacy of the liability issues and the efficiencies in addressing each phase separately,” the commission added.