Germany's Federal Cartel Office has ordered Amazon to stop using pricing algorithms that penalize marketplace sellers for setting prices the platform deems too high. The February 5 ruling imposes a €59 million fine and follows a June 2025 preliminary assessment finding the practices anticompetitive.
The regulator's concern: Amazon's algorithms deprioritize sellers with prices higher than Amazon's own offerings or historical benchmarks, limiting their Buy Box eligibility and search ranking. Since Amazon competes directly with these sellers while controlling their marketplace access, the FCO argues this creates unfair leverage. The marketplace represents 60% of Germany's online retail sales.
Amazon disputes the findings, claiming its pricing rules ensure customer value and that restricting them will harm both shoppers and sellers. The company can appeal. Legal observers note the FCO's parameters lack transparency, though regulators counter that opacity is precisely the problem with Amazon's algorithmic enforcement.
This follows Amazon's 2022 designation under Germany's Section 19a competition law as having "paramount importance" for market access, subjecting it to extended scrutiny for potential abuse. The company settled similar EU concerns around seller data use and self-preferencing in 2022, and faces a U.S. FTC lawsuit over comparable practices set for trial late this year.
The FCO continues separate investigations into Amazon's brand gating requirements, initiated in 2022. Some competition law experts, including U.S.-based critics, argue the German approach risks fragmenting enforcement across jurisdictions and lacks clear evidence that Amazon's filters meaningfully restrict competition.
What matters here: Germany is testing how far national regulators can constrain platform algorithms that blend marketplace operation with direct retail competition. The €59M fine is modest relative to Amazon's scale, but the operational restrictions could prove more significant if upheld on appeal. CTOs at marketplace platforms should note this precedent may inform how algorithmic pricing controls are regulated across APAC markets with similar competition frameworks.