Antitrust heats up
- Regulators are widening scrutiny of AI and platform practices, updating studies and pursuing enforcement across jurisdictions. - Japan's FTC published a second version of its generative‑AI market study, and California alleges Amazon forced brands to raise off‑platform prices. - That regulatory mood increases legal risk for pricing clauses, distribution terms, and platform business models globally. ( )
Antitrust regulators are widening their reach at the same time: into generative artificial intelligence in Japan, online retail pricing in California, and supplier collusion in South Korea. (jftc.go.jp) On April 16, the Japan Fair Trade Commission published “Report Regarding Generative AI Version 2.0,” an update to its October 2024 version 1.0 report after about 30 additional hearings with companies and other stakeholders. The agency said the study is meant to protect “fair and free competition” as generative AI becomes part of business operations and content creation. (jftc.go.jp) The updated Japanese report refreshed the market map for foundation models, cloud computing and data, and added a new section on autonomous driving. It also reorganized competition risks under Japan’s Antimonopoly Act, including concerns around access to computing power, data concentration and conduct by large platforms. (jftc.go.jp) In California, Attorney General Rob Bonta said on April 16 that a judge cleared the state’s antitrust case against Amazon for a January 2027 trial. His office said the 2022 lawsuit accuses Amazon of using pricing practices that suppress price competition across online retail. (oag.ca.gov) Newly unsealed filings described Amazon’s alleged pressure on brands including Levi Strauss and Hanesbrands to push Walmart, Target, Chewy and other retailers to raise prices on specific products. CNBC reported the filings include internal communications that California says show Amazon asked companies to “fix” or “correct” lower off-platform prices. (cnbc.com) California’s original complaint, filed on September 14, 2022, says Amazon used retail and wholesale agreements that prevented sellers and suppliers from offering lower prices elsewhere. The state brought the case under the Cartwright Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law. (oag.ca.gov) Amazon has denied the case’s core theory, saying merchants set their own prices and that the state’s approach would produce worse shopping results for consumers. Reuters reported the company argued the allegations mischaracterize efforts to stop listings that make Amazon look uncompetitive. (reuters.com) South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission added another signal on April 22, fining SM Hwajin and Cubic Korea a combined 2.59 billion won, about $1.75 million, for rigging five Hyundai Motor and Kia tenders between September 2020 and April 2023. The regulator said the companies prearranged winners and bid prices for contracts covering surface treatment of vehicle interior materials. (koreajoongangdaily.joins.com) These cases are not the same legal theory, but they point in the same direction: regulators are testing how old competition rules apply to AI infrastructure, marketplace pricing terms and procurement bids. For companies that rely on price-parity clauses, exclusive distribution terms or concentrated access to data and computing, that means more scrutiny in more jurisdictions at once. (jftc.go.jp)
