>participating sellers had limited, if any, ability to lower the price of their products without withdrawing the product’s enrollment in the Sold by Amazon program.
This sounds similar to how traditional retail works though: If company $A sells products through big box store $B, there may be an agreed upon price (Apple does this), but $B usually has discretion over pricing, and might stop carrying a $A's product if $A wants to sell elsewhere at a lower price. In this case the seller could still sell on Amazon, just not as an official Amazon-sponsored product. So I'm not sure how this reaches an anti-trust level when it appears substantially similar to normal retail sales. In fact in supermarkets it's not uncommon for the store to sell its own competing products-- the store brand-- which seems to fit the Amazon situation as well.
This sounds similar to how traditional retail works though: If company $A sells products through big box store $B, there may be an agreed upon price (Apple does this), but $B usually has discretion over pricing, and might stop carrying a $A's product if $A wants to sell elsewhere at a lower price. In this case the seller could still sell on Amazon, just not as an official Amazon-sponsored product. So I'm not sure how this reaches an anti-trust level when it appears substantially similar to normal retail sales. In fact in supermarkets it's not uncommon for the store to sell its own competing products-- the store brand-- which seems to fit the Amazon situation as well.