Amazon can be the landlord, the checkout counter, the advertising system, the delivery network, and another seller on the shelf.
That combination does not prove the shelf is rigged.
It does create a conflict worth measuring.
Amazon opened its store to third-party sellers in 1999. The company says those independent sellers now account for more than 60% of sales in the store, and it argues that placing Amazon’s own offers beside third-party offers gives customers more selection and price competition. See Amazon’s response to the FTC’s 2023 antitrust lawsuit.
The same structure means Amazon is competing inside a marketplace whose rules, search systems, advertising products, fulfillment programs, and recommendation surfaces Amazon controls.
The conflict is about advantages, not mere coexistence
In 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general sued Amazon and alleged that the company used its control of the marketplace to disadvantage competitors and sellers. Among the allegations, the FTC said Amazon had used recommendation widgets to promote its own private-label products and suppress competing information. The complaint also challenged seller fees and other marketplace practices. See the FTC’s case announcement.
Those are allegations in active litigation, not settled facts.
Amazon disputes them. The company says third-party businesses set their own prices, sellers can choose whether to use Fulfillment by Amazon or Amazon advertising, and Amazon’s own offers compete under systems designed to provide customers with low prices and fast delivery. Amazon argues the FTC misunderstands how retail competition works.
Both sides agree on the basic architecture: Amazon operates the marketplace and also sells products in it.
The disagreement is over what Amazon does with that position.
A platform has information ordinary sellers do not
The structural advantage is broader than a logo on a private-label package.
The marketplace operator sees search behavior, conversion rates, pricing, demand, advertising performance, fulfillment data, and the rules governing visibility. Individual merchants see only their own slice of that machine.
That does not mean Amazon necessarily uses every category of internal information to copy or suppress a seller. Claims like that require evidence for the specific practice.
But it does mean a seller is competing with an organization that also designs the playing field.
A normal retailer can choose which products receive shelf space. A normal marketplace can set rules for participants. Amazon does both at once.
That is why “self-preferencing” disputes matter even when customers like Amazon products and third-party sellers continue to grow. The issue is not whether the platform is allowed to sell things.
The issue is whether the operator’s control over discovery, fees, logistics, and marketplace rules gives its own offerings advantages that independent participants cannot realistically reproduce.
When the referee also has a team on the field, every important rule change deserves unusually close inspection.