自2019年年中以來,歐洲的反托拉斯監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)就一直在對(duì)亞馬遜的“雙重身份”進(jìn)行官方調(diào)查——該公司既是市場所有者,又是市場參與者。事實(shí)證明,亞馬遜不會(huì)喜歡他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)。
11月10日,歐盟市場競爭部門的負(fù)責(zé)人、以對(duì)谷歌處以90億美元的反托拉斯罰款而聞名的瑪格麗特·韋斯特格勒發(fā)表聲明,對(duì)亞馬遜提出指控,認(rèn)為該公司涉嫌利用其平臺(tái)力量,濫用第三方商家的數(shù)據(jù)。
此舉相當(dāng)于對(duì)亞馬遜做出了正式的反托拉斯判決,可能會(huì)使亞馬遜面臨一筆巨額罰款,數(shù)額可高達(dá)其全球收入10%,并附加一條要求其停止違規(guī)行為的規(guī)定。現(xiàn)在,要由亞馬遜說服歐盟委員會(huì),它們不該把事情處理得這么嚴(yán)重。
歐盟委員會(huì)尤其擔(dān)心的是,亞馬遜會(huì)如何使用其違規(guī)獲取的第三方賣家數(shù)據(jù)——例如他們?cè)谄脚_(tái)上的收入、運(yùn)單數(shù)、過往的銷售表現(xiàn)等,并借此來調(diào)整亞馬遜的自營產(chǎn)品營銷活動(dòng),與這些第三方賣家展開競爭。此案與亞馬遜在法國、德國這兩個(gè)最大的歐盟市場中的行為有關(guān)。
公平競爭
“委員會(huì)的初步調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示,亞馬遜零售業(yè)務(wù)的員工可以使用大量非公開的賣家數(shù)據(jù),這些數(shù)據(jù)會(huì)直接流入該業(yè)務(wù)的自動(dòng)化處理系統(tǒng),系統(tǒng)又會(huì)將這些數(shù)據(jù)匯總,并用于調(diào)整亞馬遜的零售報(bào)價(jià)和戰(zhàn)略業(yè)務(wù)決策,損害市場中的其他賣家。”
“例如,這些數(shù)據(jù)能夠讓亞馬遜集中關(guān)注各大品類中最暢銷的產(chǎn)品,并根據(jù)這些競爭賣方的非公開數(shù)據(jù)來調(diào)整其自營商品的報(bào)價(jià)。”
同樣在11月10日,委員會(huì)的市場競爭部門還對(duì)亞馬遜的物流服務(wù)展開了第二次調(diào)查。監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)想了解,在其零售業(yè)務(wù)中,亞馬遜是否不僅非法偏袒自家產(chǎn)品,還偏袒自家的物流服務(wù),并在第三方賣家中突出顯示那些注冊(cè)了亞馬遜物流送貨服務(wù)的。它還想調(diào)查其他第三方賣家能否像亞馬遜平臺(tái)自身一樣,可以輕松、有效地吸引到亞馬遜的會(huì)員用戶。
韋斯特格勒說:“我們必須確保那些既有市場力量,又有平臺(tái)身份的雙重角色,例如亞馬遜,不會(huì)扭曲市場競爭。”
“當(dāng)?shù)谌劫u家成為平臺(tái)零售商的競爭對(duì)手時(shí),亞馬遜也不應(yīng)該利用第三方賣家的數(shù)據(jù)來使自己獲益。亞馬遜平臺(tái)的競爭規(guī)則也必須是公平的,不應(yīng)被人為地制定得有利于亞馬遜自身,即偏袒平臺(tái)自身的零售商品,或偏袒使用亞馬遜物流和送貨服務(wù)的第三方。”
亞馬遜對(duì)此做出回應(yīng)稱,他們不同意歐盟委員會(huì)的初步調(diào)查結(jié)果,認(rèn)為“亞馬遜在全球零售市場中所占的份額不足1%,并且在亞馬遜的服務(wù)覆蓋到的每個(gè)國家、地區(qū),都有更大的零售商在從事相關(guān)業(yè)務(wù)。”
全球壓力
韋斯特格勒的舉動(dòng)給杰夫·貝佐斯的商業(yè)帝國施加了全球性的反托拉斯壓力。在美國,立法者們最近提出了將亞馬遜和其他大型科技公司(例如Alphabet和Facebook)進(jìn)行業(yè)務(wù)拆分的想法——考慮到他們的產(chǎn)業(yè)集中對(duì)數(shù)字經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)生了巨大影響。加拿大當(dāng)局也正在調(diào)查這些巨頭可能存在的各種破壞市場競爭規(guī)則的行為,包括亞馬遜的這種可能使客戶傾向平臺(tái)自營產(chǎn)品、而不是第三方賣家的策略。
在歐洲市場,韋斯特格勒先前已經(jīng)對(duì)亞馬遜提起過質(zhì)疑,但當(dāng)時(shí)針對(duì)的是該公司的稅收問題。 2017年,她所在的部門對(duì)亞馬遜的指控促使該公司補(bǔ)繳了一筆2.94億美元的稅款,理由是亞馬遜與當(dāng)?shù)囟悇?wù)機(jī)關(guān)達(dá)成了一筆膏油豐厚的交易,數(shù)額已經(jīng)相當(dāng)于國家對(duì)該公司提供非法援助了。
亞馬遜在法庭上繼續(xù)對(duì)該裁決持反對(duì)意見。在此前,韋斯特格勒就提請(qǐng)過一起與之類似、但涉案金額更高的案件,即蘋果公司和愛爾蘭稅務(wù)局有關(guān)補(bǔ)繳150億稅款的爭議——但歐洲法院于7月駁回了她的裁決,理由是她沒有證據(jù)表明蘋果公司從中得到了某些特殊優(yōu)待。委員會(huì)還在對(duì)亞馬遜的這一裁定提出上訴。而該法院此前還駁回了荷蘭稅務(wù)部門針對(duì)星巴克提請(qǐng)的類似指控,質(zhì)疑該公司受到某些特殊優(yōu)待。
韋斯特格勒扛著反托拉斯大旗、對(duì)稅收交易發(fā)起的種種指控表明,人們?cè)絹碓皆敢馐褂眠@項(xiàng)法律工具,作為一種應(yīng)付科技巨頭的新方式。
多年以來,韋斯特格勒一直本著同樣的精神,熱衷于調(diào)查那些在市場中占主導(dǎo)地位的公司,它們獲取的大量數(shù)據(jù)可能產(chǎn)生哪些違反市場競爭原則的影響。確實(shí),這就是她調(diào)查亞馬遜的最初緣起。秉持著相同的觀念,她最近還對(duì)谷歌以20億美元收購Fitbit一案提請(qǐng)了調(diào)查。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
編譯:陳聰聰
自2019年年中以來,歐洲的反托拉斯監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)就一直在對(duì)亞馬遜的“雙重身份”進(jìn)行官方調(diào)查——該公司既是市場所有者,又是市場參與者。事實(shí)證明,亞馬遜不會(huì)喜歡他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)。
11月10日,歐盟市場競爭部門的負(fù)責(zé)人、以對(duì)谷歌處以90億美元的反托拉斯罰款而聞名的瑪格麗特·韋斯特格勒發(fā)表聲明,對(duì)亞馬遜提出指控,認(rèn)為該公司涉嫌利用其平臺(tái)力量,濫用第三方商家的數(shù)據(jù)。
此舉相當(dāng)于對(duì)亞馬遜做出了正式的反托拉斯判決,可能會(huì)使亞馬遜面臨一筆巨額罰款,數(shù)額可高達(dá)其全球收入10%,并附加一條要求其停止違規(guī)行為的規(guī)定。現(xiàn)在,要由亞馬遜說服歐盟委員會(huì),它們不該把事情處理得這么嚴(yán)重。
歐盟委員會(huì)尤其擔(dān)心的是,亞馬遜會(huì)如何使用其違規(guī)獲取的第三方賣家數(shù)據(jù)——例如他們?cè)谄脚_(tái)上的收入、運(yùn)單數(shù)、過往的銷售表現(xiàn)等,并借此來調(diào)整亞馬遜的自營產(chǎn)品營銷活動(dòng),與這些第三方賣家展開競爭。此案與亞馬遜在法國、德國這兩個(gè)最大的歐盟市場中的行為有關(guān)。
公平競爭
“委員會(huì)的初步調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示,亞馬遜零售業(yè)務(wù)的員工可以使用大量非公開的賣家數(shù)據(jù),這些數(shù)據(jù)會(huì)直接流入該業(yè)務(wù)的自動(dòng)化處理系統(tǒng),系統(tǒng)又會(huì)將這些數(shù)據(jù)匯總,并用于調(diào)整亞馬遜的零售報(bào)價(jià)和戰(zhàn)略業(yè)務(wù)決策,損害市場中的其他賣家。”
“例如,這些數(shù)據(jù)能夠讓亞馬遜集中關(guān)注各大品類中最暢銷的產(chǎn)品,并根據(jù)這些競爭賣方的非公開數(shù)據(jù)來調(diào)整其自營商品的報(bào)價(jià)。”
同樣在11月10日,委員會(huì)的市場競爭部門還對(duì)亞馬遜的物流服務(wù)展開了第二次調(diào)查。監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)想了解,在其零售業(yè)務(wù)中,亞馬遜是否不僅非法偏袒自家產(chǎn)品,還偏袒自家的物流服務(wù),并在第三方賣家中突出顯示那些注冊(cè)了亞馬遜物流送貨服務(wù)的。它還想調(diào)查其他第三方賣家能否像亞馬遜平臺(tái)自身一樣,可以輕松、有效地吸引到亞馬遜的會(huì)員用戶。
韋斯特格勒說:“我們必須確保那些既有市場力量,又有平臺(tái)身份的雙重角色,例如亞馬遜,不會(huì)扭曲市場競爭。”
“當(dāng)?shù)谌劫u家成為平臺(tái)零售商的競爭對(duì)手時(shí),亞馬遜也不應(yīng)該利用第三方賣家的數(shù)據(jù)來使自己獲益。亞馬遜平臺(tái)的競爭規(guī)則也必須是公平的,不應(yīng)被人為地制定得有利于亞馬遜自身,即偏袒平臺(tái)自身的零售商品,或偏袒使用亞馬遜物流和送貨服務(wù)的第三方。”
亞馬遜對(duì)此做出回應(yīng)稱,他們不同意歐盟委員會(huì)的初步調(diào)查結(jié)果,認(rèn)為“亞馬遜在全球零售市場中所占的份額不足1%,并且在亞馬遜的服務(wù)覆蓋到的每個(gè)國家、地區(qū),都有更大的零售商在從事相關(guān)業(yè)務(wù)。”
全球壓力
韋斯特格勒的舉動(dòng)給杰夫·貝佐斯的商業(yè)帝國施加了全球性的反托拉斯壓力。在美國,立法者們最近提出了將亞馬遜和其他大型科技公司(例如Alphabet和Facebook)進(jìn)行業(yè)務(wù)拆分的想法——考慮到他們的產(chǎn)業(yè)集中對(duì)數(shù)字經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)生了巨大影響。加拿大當(dāng)局也正在調(diào)查這些巨頭可能存在的各種破壞市場競爭規(guī)則的行為,包括亞馬遜的這種可能使客戶傾向平臺(tái)自營產(chǎn)品、而不是第三方賣家的策略。
在歐洲市場,韋斯特格勒先前已經(jīng)對(duì)亞馬遜提起過質(zhì)疑,但當(dāng)時(shí)針對(duì)的是該公司的稅收問題。 2017年,她所在的部門對(duì)亞馬遜的指控促使該公司補(bǔ)繳了一筆2.94億美元的稅款,理由是亞馬遜與當(dāng)?shù)囟悇?wù)機(jī)關(guān)達(dá)成了一筆膏油豐厚的交易,數(shù)額已經(jīng)相當(dāng)于國家對(duì)該公司提供非法援助了。
亞馬遜在法庭上繼續(xù)對(duì)該裁決持反對(duì)意見。在此前,韋斯特格勒就提請(qǐng)過一起與之類似、但涉案金額更高的案件,即蘋果公司和愛爾蘭稅務(wù)局有關(guān)補(bǔ)繳150億稅款的爭議——但歐洲法院于7月駁回了她的裁決,理由是她沒有證據(jù)表明蘋果公司從中得到了某些特殊優(yōu)待。委員會(huì)還在對(duì)亞馬遜的這一裁定提出上訴。而該法院此前還駁回了荷蘭稅務(wù)部門針對(duì)星巴克提請(qǐng)的類似指控,質(zhì)疑該公司受到某些特殊優(yōu)待。
韋斯特格勒扛著反托拉斯大旗、對(duì)稅收交易發(fā)起的種種指控表明,人們?cè)絹碓皆敢馐褂眠@項(xiàng)法律工具,作為一種應(yīng)付科技巨頭的新方式。
多年以來,韋斯特格勒一直本著同樣的精神,熱衷于調(diào)查那些在市場中占主導(dǎo)地位的公司,它們獲取的大量數(shù)據(jù)可能產(chǎn)生哪些違反市場競爭原則的影響。確實(shí),這就是她調(diào)查亞馬遜的最初緣起。秉持著相同的觀念,她最近還對(duì)谷歌以20億美元收購Fitbit一案提請(qǐng)了調(diào)查。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
編譯:陳聰聰
Europe's antitrust regulators have been officially looking into Amazon's dual role as marketplace owner and marketplace participant since mid-2019, and it turns out they don't like what they found.
On November 10, EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager—best known for hammering Google with $9 billion in antitrust fines—sent a statement of objections to Amazon over its alleged misuse of the data it holds on third-party merchants using its platform.
That's a formal step on the road to an antitrust decision that could potentially include a fine of up to 10% of Amazon's global revenues, plus an order to stop breaking the rules. It's now up to Amazon to convince the European Commission that it shouldn't take the matter that far.
The Commission is specifically worried about how Amazon uses its data about third-party sellers' activities—such as their revenues on the platform, how many units they ship, past performance and so on—to adjust its own offerings that compete with those merchants. The case relates to Amazon's behavior in France and Germany, its biggest EU markets.
Playing fair
"The Commission's preliminary findings show that very large quantities of nonpublic seller data are available to employees of Amazon's retail business and flow directly into the automated systems of that business, which aggregate these data and use them to calibrate Amazon's retail offers and strategic business decisions to the detriment of the other marketplace sellers," it said in a statement.
"For example, it allows Amazon to focus its offers in the bestselling products across product categories and to adjust its offers in view of nonpublic data of competing sellers."
Also on November 10, the Commission's competition department opened a second probe into
Amazon's logistics activities. It wants to know if Amazon is illegally favoring its own retail offers, and those of third-party sellers who sign up to use its "fulfilment by Amazon" logistics and delivery services, by featuring those items in its coveted "Buy Box." It also wants to check if other merchants get to "effectively reach Prime users" as easily as Amazon can.
"We must ensure that dual role platforms with market power, such as Amazon, do not distort competition," said Vestager.
"Data on the activity of third-party sellers should not be used to the benefit of Amazon when it acts as a competitor to these sellers. The conditions of competition on the Amazon platform must also be fair. Its rules should not artificially favor Amazon's own retail offers or advantage the offers of retailers using Amazon's logistics and delivery services."
Amazon has responded by saying it disagrees with the Commission's preliminary findings, arguing that "Amazon represents less than 1% of the global retail market, and there are larger retailers in every country in which we operate."
Global pressure
Vestager's move adds to global antitrust pressure on Jeff Bezos's empire. In the U.S., lawmakers recently floated the idea of breaking up Amazon and other Big Tech firms such as Alphabet and Facebook, because of their concentrating effects on the digital economy. In Canada, authorities are looking into a variety of potentially anticompetitive practices, including any Amazon strategies that might steer customers toward its own products, rather than those of third-party merchants.
In Europe, Vestager has already targeted Amazon previously, but over the issue of tax. In 2017, her department hit Amazon with a $294 million back-tax bill for its Luxembourg operations, on the basis that the company got a sweetheart deal from local tax authorities that amounted to illegal state aid.
Amazon continues to fight that decision in court. In a similar but much-higher-stakes case involving Apple, the Irish tax authorities, and a $15 billion back-tax bill, the EU General Court in July struck down Vestager's decision on the basis that she didn't prove Apple got special treatment. The Commission is appealing that ruling. The same court also previously reversed a similar decision regarding Starbucks' treatment by Dutch tax authorities.
Vestager's assault on tax deals under an antitrust banner demonstrated a willingness to use her tools in novel ways when tackling Big Tech.
In the same spirit, she has for years been keen on probing the possible anticompetitive effects of market-dominating companies' troves of data. Indeed, that's how her Amazon probe initially came about, and the same concept underpins her recently launched investigation into Google's proposed $2 billion takeover of Fitbit.