business news in context, analysis with attitude

Columnist Steven Pearlstein had a piece the other day in the Washington Post about a 28-year-old law student named Lina Khan, who earlier this year had an article in the Yale Law Journal entitled, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox."

Pearlstein wrote:

"The article laid out with remarkable clarity and sophistication why American antitrust law has evolved to the point that it is no longer equipped to deal with tech giants such as Amazon.com, which has made itself as essential to commerce in the 21st century as the railroads, telephone systems and computer hardware makers were in the 20th."

However, "For Amazon, which prides itself on its relentless consumer focus, the suggestion that its spectacular growth might not be in the public interest poses a particular challenge ... Is Amazon so successful, is it getting so big, that it poses a threat to consumers or competition? By current antitrust standards, certainly not.

"Here is a company, after all, known for disrupting and turbocharging competition in every market it enters, lowering prices and forcing rivals to match the relentless efficiency of its operations and the quality of its service. That is, after all, usually how firms come to dominate an industry, and there is nothing illegal about that. But under the antitrust law, once a firm is dominant, its actions and business practices become subject to more rigorous scrutiny, to make sure it is not abusing its dominant position. And like all dominant firms, Amazon disputes its dominance."

But what appears clear is that if the right answers are to be found, the questions themselves must change.

You can read the entire column here.
KC's View: