The proposal for a joint protocol comes as BRICS countries seek to aggregate negotiating power and strengthen their leverage over large companies. The protocol would require global companies to share the same set of data with regulators in all BRICS countries, creating a regional regime that would allow for a more equitable distribution of value-added, access to technology and data, and ultimately, the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Experts note that BRICS countries will represent 42% of the world’s population and 36% of global GDP with the addition of six new countries next year. However, the legislative rights of developing countries, which BRICS represents, remain neglected or ignored when it comes to global monopolies. This state of affairs affects not only equitable access to economic control mechanisms but also global food security and the pace of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

The BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre was established in 2018 by the BRICS competition authorities to collect and analyze information from competition authorities, identify best practices, and develop approaches to competition policy that reflect the interests of the development of the BRICS economies. The Centre’s key mission is to advance the development agenda and strengthen the role of competition regulation in overcoming imbalances in the global economy.

The proposal for a joint protocol to control global monopolies and achieve SDGs is a significant step towards creating a new type of consensus where the common good and the Sustainable Development Goals truly matter. By ignoring the rights and interests of developing countries, global monopolies are building a system that does not allow for a qualitative solution to the global challenges facing the human community.

The post BRICS Proposes Joint Protocol to Control Global Monopolies and Achieve SDGs appeared first on NRI News.

UNITED STATES: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 17 state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that the online retail giant is a monopolist that uses anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon’s ongoing pattern of illegal conduct blocks competition, allowing it to wield monopoly power to inflate prices, degrade quality, and stifle innovation for consumers and businesses.

The complaint alleges that Amazon violates the law not because it is big, but because it engages in a course of exclusionary conduct that prevents current competitors from growing and new competitors from emerging. By stifling competition on price, product selection, and quality, and by preventing its current or future rivals from attracting a critical mass of shoppers and sellers, Amazon ensures that no current or future rival can threaten its dominance.

The FTC and its state partners say Amazon’s actions allow it to stop rivals and sellers from lowering prices, degrade quality for shoppers, overcharge sellers, stifle innovation, and prevent rivals from fairly competing against Amazon. Amazon’s far-reaching schemes impact hundreds of billions of dollars in retail sales every year, touch hundreds of thousands of products sold by businesses big and small, and affect over a hundred million shoppers.

“Our complaint lays out how Amazon has used a set of punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “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. Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition.“

The FTC and states allege Amazon’s anticompetitive conduct occurs in two markets—the online superstore market that serves shoppers and the market for online marketplace services purchased by sellers. These tactics include anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, conditioning sellers’ ability to obtain “Prime” eligibility for their products on sellers using Amazon’s costly fulfillment service, and biasing Amazon’s search results to preference Amazon’s own products over ones that Amazon knows are of better quality.

“We’re bringing this case because Amazon’s illegal conduct has stifled competition across a huge swath of the online economy. Amazon is a monopolist that uses its power to hike prices on American shoppers and charge sky-high fees on hundreds of thousands of online sellers,” said John Newman, Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Seldom in the history of U.S. antitrust law has one case had the potential to do so much good for so many people.”

The FTC and states allege Amazon’s anticompetitive conduct occurs in two markets—the online superstore market that serves shoppers and the market for online marketplace services purchased by sellers. These tactics include:

• Anti-discounting measures punish sellers and deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the internet. For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers so far down in Amazon’s search results that they become effectively invisible.
• Conditioning sellers’ ability to obtain “Prime” eligibility for their products—a virtual necessity for doing business on Amazon—on sellers using Amazon’s costly fulfillment service, which has made it substantially more expensive for sellers on Amazon to also offer their products on other platforms. This unlawful coercion has in turn limited competitors’ ability to effectively compete against Amazon.

Amazon’s illegal, exclusionary conduct makes it impossible for competitors to gain a foothold. With its amassed power across both the online superstore market and online marketplace services market, Amazon extracts enormous monopoly rents from everyone within its reach. This includes:

• Degrading the customer experience by replacing relevant, organic search results with paid advertisements—and deliberately increasing junk ads that worsen search quality and frustrate both shoppers seeking products and sellers who are promised a return on their advertising purchase.
• Biasing Amazon’s search results to preference Amazon’s own products over ones that Amazon knows are of better quality. 
• Charging costly fees on the hundreds of thousands of sellers that currently have no choice but to rely on Amazon to stay in business. These fees range from a monthly fee sellers must pay for each item sold, to advertising fees that have become virtually necessary for sellers to do business. Combined, all of these fees force many sellers to pay close to 50% of their total revenues to Amazon. These fees harm not only sellers but also shoppers, who pay increased prices for thousands of products sold on or off Amazon.  

The FTC, along with its state partners, is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that would prohibit Amazon from engaging in its unlawful conduct and pry loose Amazon’s monopolistic control to restore competition. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin joined the Commission’s lawsuit. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington was 3-0

The post FTC and 17 State Attorneys General Sue Amazon for Illegally Maintaining Monopoly Power appeared first on NRI News.