Germany’s antitrust watchdog orders Amazon to halt price-control algorithms, hand over €59 million

Germany’s top antitrust watchdog has ordered Amazon to stop using key price-control algorithms on its German marketplace and to hand over about €59 million in profits, escalating European scrutiny of how major platforms govern the thousands of businesses that rely on them.

What Germany’s watchdog alleges

The Bundeskartellamt, based in Bonn, said on Feb. 5 that Amazon abused its market power on Amazon.de by deploying opaque pricing tools that could strip third-party sellers of visibility or remove their offers entirely if its systems deemed their prices too high. The authority said the practice unlawfully interfered with sellers’ freedom to set prices and distorted competition in Germany’s online retail market.

At the center of the case are automated “price control mechanisms” Amazon used to monitor what outside merchants charge on its German site. While those merchants technically choose their own prices, Amazon’s systems continuously compared them against internal benchmarks. If the algorithms flagged a price as a “pricing error” or a “significantly high price,” the offer risked being removed from the marketplace or pushed out of the Buy Box—the default “Add to Cart” option that strongly influences what shoppers buy.

The Bundeskartellamt said sellers were not told what triggered those sanctions. They did not know how Amazon set its internal price caps, where the thresholds lay, or why a particular offer suddenly disappeared from search results or slipped out of the Buy Box. The authority described this as “systematic interference” in sellers’ pricing freedom.

Bundeskartellamt President Andreas Mundt said a platform that runs a marketplace while also competing there as a retailer may only influence competitors’ prices in “absolutely exceptional cases,” such as clear price gouging.

The order: stop using the tools, except in limited cases

The decision bars Amazon from using its current price-control tools on Amazon.de when they can result in offers being delisted or significantly downgraded in visibility based on internal, nontransparent caps.

The authority said Amazon may still intervene in exceptional cases, particularly to address excessive or abusive prices, but only under stricter conditions, including clearer rules and greater transparency for sellers.

Disgorgement of profits instead of a classic fine

Rather than imposing a traditional administrative fine tied to global turnover, the watchdog ordered Amazon to disgorge roughly €59 million (about $70 million) in what it called unlawfully obtained economic benefits.

The agency said that figure is an initial estimate and could rise if the infringement is found to have continued longer than currently assessed.

Amazon’s response: appeal and warning of higher prices

Amazon rejected the findings and said it will appeal to Germany’s Federal Court of Justice, the Bundesgerichtshof. The company said it plans to keep operating its marketplace in Germany as usual while the legal process plays out.

Amazon argued the decision could harm customers. Rocco Bräuniger, Amazon’s country manager for Germany, said in a statement reported by several outlets that the order would force Amazon to promote “uncompetitive or even abusive prices” and would damage the shopping experience while “throttl[ing] innovation” in the European Union.

The company maintains its systems are designed to keep prices low and protect consumers from mispriced or exploitative offers by third-party merchants.

German officials counter that even tools billed as consumer-friendly can be abusive when controlled by a dominant platform that also competes with the businesses it regulates.

Legal basis: dominance rules and Germany’s digital “gatekeeper” powers

The Bundeskartellamt based its decision on multiple legal grounds, including:

• Section 19 of Germany’s Competition Act (GWB), covering abuse of dominance
• Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which bans abuse of a dominant position affecting trade between EU member states
• Section 19a of the GWB, a 2021 reform granting special powers over digital companies deemed of “paramount significance for competition across markets”

Amazon was designated under Section 19a in 2022, placing it in a category similar to “gatekeepers” under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The authority concluded that Amazon’s nontransparent price caps and the threat of losing crucial visibility amounted to unfair conditions for sellers on Amazon.de.

Broader European scrutiny—and implications beyond Amazon

The German decision adds to a growing body of European cases scrutinizing Amazon’s marketplace rules. In 2022, Amazon agreed to commitments with the European Commission to resolve antitrust probes into its use of nonpublic seller data and its treatment of sellers in the Buy Box.

The Bundeskartellamt said it coordinated with the European Commission in the latest investigation and framed its move as consistent with the DMA’s goal of ensuring “contestable and fair markets.” The EU law, which formally designated Amazon as a gatekeeper in 2023, is only beginning to be enforced.

Germany’s stance may also shape regulation of other platforms. The Bundeskartellamt has opened a separate investigation into Temu over its treatment of sellers and potential price-control practices, signaling broader concern that platforms may be using algorithmic tools to steer pricing on their marketplaces.

What it could mean for sellers and shoppers

For the tens of thousands of merchants that sell on Amazon.de, the ruling’s practical impact will depend on how Amazon changes its systems. In the short term, sellers could gain more leeway to set prices that reflect their costs or market strategies without the same fear of disappearing from view.

Consumers may see a more mixed picture. German officials argue that less interference from Amazon will foster healthier competition in the long run, even if it allows more price variation in the short term. Amazon warns customers could instead encounter more “uncompetitive” prices if its ability to weed out problematic listings is curtailed.

The dispute now moves toward Germany’s courts. For European regulators, the case underscores a central question of the digital economy: how far dominant platforms can go in using opaque algorithms to police the behavior—and prices—of the businesses that depend on them.