Italy’s competition watchdog has sharply reduced a blockbuster penalty against Amazon, yet the company is still heading back to court. The decision keeps a long‑running clash over how the platform treats third‑party sellers alive, and turns a national case into a test of how far regulators can go in reshaping e‑commerce logistics.
At stake is not only hundreds of millions of euros, but also the rules that will govern how Amazon structures its marketplace in one of Europe’s largest economies. The company insists it has done nothing wrong, while Italian authorities argue that its dominance in online retail and delivery justifies tough intervention.
The original billion‑euro ruling and what changed
The dispute traces back to a landmark decision in which Italy’s competition authority imposed a fine of €1.13 billion on Amazon for abusing its dominant position in the market. Regulators in Italy argued that the company used its power in online retail to favor its own logistics service, effectively steering independent merchants toward Amazon’s fulfillment network if they wanted better visibility and access to key programs. That original decision, taken in BRUSSELS policy circles as a sign of how aggressive national authorities were prepared to be, set a high‑water mark for penalties against a single tech platform in Europe.
After years of legal wrangling, the Italian authority revisited the scale of the sanction and opted to cut it significantly. According to a detailed summary of the revised decision, the Amazon Italian antitrust fine now stands at €752.4 million, down from the earlier figure but still one of the largest competition penalties ever imposed on a single company in Italy. The reduction reflects adjustments to the authority’s assessment of the gravity and duration of the alleged abuse, yet it leaves intact the core finding that Amazon’s conduct distorted competition in services related to e‑commerce logistics.
How Italian regulators say Amazon abused its power
Italian officials have framed the case as a straightforward abuse of dominance: a powerful platform using its gatekeeper role to tilt the playing field in favor of its own services. According to their reasoning, Italy’s regulators clearly believe it is not acceptable for Amazon to tie crucial marketplace benefits, such as prominent search placement or eligibility for fast‑shipping badges, to whether a seller uses the company’s in‑house logistics. In their view, that linkage undermines rival delivery providers and squeezes merchants who might prefer alternative carriers, but feel compelled to stay inside Amazon’s ecosystem to remain competitive.
The authority’s focus is on the intersection of marketplace rules and logistics, an area that has become central to modern retail. By targeting practices related to e‑commerce logistics, the Italian competition body is effectively saying that control over the digital storefront and the delivery chain cannot be bundled in ways that shut out competitors. The revised decision, which still leaves Amazon facing a 752.4 million euro liability, underscores that regulators see logistics as part of the same competitive space as the marketplace itself, especially during peak events like Black Friday or Cyber Monday when visibility and delivery speed can make or break a seller’s season.
Amazon’s appeal strategy and its message to other markets
Amazon has made clear it is not prepared to accept the Italian verdict, even in its reduced form. The company has reiterated that, as previously stated, it strongly disagrees with the competition authority’s conclusions and intends to challenge the fine in court. In its public stance, Amazon argues that the rules it applies to merchants are designed to protect consumers and ensure reliable delivery, and that penalties of this magnitude, whether €1.13 billion or €752 million, should not apply to what it sees as legitimate business choices about how to run its platform.
From my perspective, the decision to keep appealing even after a substantial reduction is as much about precedent as it is about money. If Amazon were to accept the ruling, it could be read by other national authorities as a green light to copy Italy’s approach, particularly in Europe where debates over digital gatekeepers are intense. By signaling that it will fight the case to the end, Amazon is sending a message to regulators in Jan and beyond that it will resist attempts to dictate how it integrates logistics with marketplace services, whether in Italy or in other jurisdictions watching the case closely.
The role of AGCM and the mechanics of the reduction
The Italian competition authority AGCM sits at the center of this saga, balancing political pressure to rein in large platforms with the legal requirement to build a robust case. Earlier this year, The Italian regulator confirmed that AGCM had decided to reduce the fine against the US online retailer Amazon from 1.1 billion to around 752.4 million euros. That adjustment suggests the authority revisited its calculations on how long the alleged abuse lasted and how severely it harmed competitors, while still maintaining that the underlying conduct breached Italian and European competition rules.
AGCM’s reasoning also reflects a broader shift in how regulators think about digital platforms. Rather than focusing only on headline prices or explicit exclusivity clauses, they are scrutinizing how design choices and ranking algorithms can nudge merchants toward certain services. In this case, AGCM concluded that Amazon’s treatment of sellers who did not use its logistics arm created a de facto disadvantage, especially during high‑traffic events like Black Friday or Cyber Monday, even if merchants were not formally barred from using other carriers. By trimming the fine but upholding the infringement, the authority is signaling that it is open to refining its methods, but not to backing away from the core claim that Amazon’s structure of incentives crossed a legal line.
Why the Italian case matters for global antitrust debates
The Italian proceedings are unfolding against a backdrop of intensifying scrutiny of large technology companies in multiple jurisdictions. In Jan, coverage of the case has highlighted how Amazon’s clash with Italian Antitrust authorities fits into a wider pattern of enforcement that includes new efforts to define the rules of the digital economy. One report noted that Amazon’s decision to appeal came after the fine was significantly reduced, yet the company still saw enough risk in the legal reasoning to keep fighting, a sign that the stakes go beyond a single national market and into how global platforms will be regulated in the years ahead.
At the same time, lawmakers in the United States are moving to clarify the boundaries of competition law in emerging sectors. US lawmakers have introduced a new bill to define crypto market rules, with the text explaining that these laws are meant to sit alongside existing federal antitrust and competition laws rather than replace them. That effort, described in detail in a discussion of the Amazon case, shows how policymakers are trying to future‑proof enforcement tools so they can handle both traditional dominance issues and new digital markets. In that context, Italy’s confrontation with Amazon for alleged abuses related to e‑commerce logistics is not an isolated skirmish, but part of a broader rethinking of how to police power in networked markets.
