Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`The Honorable John H. Chun
`
`
`
`No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SCOTT GRAEBER,
`LAURA LOES, LETICIA SHAW, and DAVID
`ATWOOD, on behalf of themselves and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`FACTS .................................................................................................................................2 
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................................3 
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3 
`Plaintiffs have standing to recover overcharge damages and for
`A. 
`equitable relief. ........................................................................................................3 
`Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred in the same market where
`1. 
`Amazon has restrained trade. .......................................................................4 
`Plaintiffs are efficient enforcers of antitrust laws. .......................................6 
`2. 
`Amazon’s MMAs are subject to antitrust scrutiny because they are
`agreements to raise or stabilize consumer prices by imposing a floor
`price that unreasonably restrains online retail competition. ....................................9 
`Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Amazon’s MMAs increase consumer
`prices and reduce competition in the relevant online markets. ..............................13 
`Quick Look is the appropriate standard because the MMA
`1. 
`is anticompetitive and has no procompetitive benefits. .............................13 
`Plaintiffs plausibly allege anticompetitive effects. ....................................15 
`a. 
`Plaintiffs allege supracompetitive prices. ......................................15 
`b. 
`Plaintiffs allege reduced consumer choices. ..................................17 
`The relevant market is properly alleged as the Two-Sided
`Online Retail Marketplace Market, or alternatively the
`Online Retail Sales Market and Product Submarkets ................................19 
`Plaintiffs need not allege a relevant market for
`a. 
`“quick look” claims........................................................................19
`Plaintiffs properly allege a primary relevant market
`comprising two-sided online retail marketplaces. .........................19 
`The alleged relevant online markets and submarkets
`are neither under- nor over-inclusive. ............................................21 
`Plaintiffs’ state statutes provide broader relief than their federal
`counterparts and permit claims even if plaintiffs’ federal claims
`were found deficient. .............................................................................................22 
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................24 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - i
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`AAA Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.,
`705 F.2d 1203 (10th Cir. 1982) .........................................................................................11, 15
`
`AFMS LLC v. UPS Co.,
`105 F. Supp. 3d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................14
`
`Am. Ad Mgmt., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal.,
`190 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................7
`
`In re Am. Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig.,
`19 F.4th 127 (2d Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................................8
`
`In re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litig.,
`2022 WL 4581903 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) ..................................................................................15, 16
`
`Andrx Pharms. v. Biovail Corp. Int’l,
`256 F.3d 799 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................8
`
`Apple Inc. v. Pepper,
`139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019) .......................................................................................................4, 5, 8
`
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`2017 WL 6102804 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2017) ..........................................................................15
`
`Ass’n of Wash. Pub. Hosp. Dists. v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`241 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Ca., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters,
`459 U.S. 519 (1983) ...........................................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.,
`495 U.S. 328 (1990) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Austin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala.,
`903 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir. 1990) ...............................................................................................13
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Big Bear Lodging Ass’n v. Snow Summit, Inc.,
`182 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................20
`
`Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. v. May Dep’t Stores Co.,
`881 F. Supp. 860 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) .........................................................................................22
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - ii
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig.,
`123 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................17
`
`Brillhart v. Mut. Med. Ins., Inc.,
`768 F.2d 196 (7th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Bus. Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
`485 U.S. 717 (1988) .......................................................................................................9, 10, 11
`
`Butera v. Sun Oil Co.,
`496 F.2d 434 (1st Cir. 1974) ....................................................................................................12
`
`Cable Line, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, of Pa., Inc.,
`2017 WL 4685359 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2017) ..........................................................................21
`
`In re Cal. Gasoline Spot Mkt. Antitrust Litig.,
`2022 WL 3215002 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2022) ..........................................................................23
`
`California v. ARC Am. Corp.,
`490 U.S. 93 (1989) ...................................................................................................................23
`
`Campfield v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`532 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2008) .........................................................................................20, 21
`
`Carter v. Variflex, Inc.,
`101 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ...................................................................................19
`
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 5871243 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) ............................................................................13
`
`City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders,
`20 F.4th 441 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................................6
`
`Dickson v. Microsoft Corp.,
`309 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................16
`
`Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC,
`936 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2019).........................................................................................................6
`
`In re EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litig.,
`2022 WL 1017770 (D. Minn. Apr. 5, 2022) ......................................................................15, 16
`
`Feitelson v. Google Inc.,
`80 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................5, 18
`
`Fortner Enters. v. U.S. Steel Corp.,
`394 U.S. 495 (1969) .................................................................................................................16
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - iii
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Frame-Wilson v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2022 WL 741878 (W.D. Wa. March 11, 2022) ............................................................... passim
`
`FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................................5
`
`FTC v. Staples, Inc.,
`970 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997) ............................................................................................22
`
`Golden Gate Pharm. Servs., Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`433 F. App’x 598 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................22
`
`Cal. ex rel Harris v. Safeway, Inc.,
`651 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................14
`
`Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois,
`431 U.S. 720 (1977) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Kartell v. Blue Shield of Mass., Inc.,
`749 F.2d 922 (1st Cir. 1984) ....................................................................................................13
`
`Kong v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`2022 WL 1125667 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2022) ..............................................................................3
`
`Kunert v. Mission Fin. Servs. Corp.,
`110 Cal. App. 4th 242 (2003) ..................................................................................................23
`
`Leeder v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors,
`2022 WL 1307100 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2022) ...............................................................................7
`
`Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.,
`551 U.S. 877 (2007) ...........................................................................................................4, 6, 9
`
`Lewis Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc.,
`714 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................11
`
`LifeWatch Servs. Inc. v. Highmark Inc.,
`902 F.3d 323 (3rd Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Lorenzo v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`603 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Cal. 2009) ......................................................................................5
`
`Lucas v. Bechtel Corp.,
`800 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1986) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Monahan’s Marine, Inc. v. Boston Whaler, Inc.,
`866 F.2d 525 (1st Cir. 1989) ....................................................................................................12
`
`Moreno v. UtiliQuest, LLC,
`29 F.4th 567 (9th Cir. 2022) ......................................................................................................3
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - iv
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig.,
`798 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................23
`
`In re Nat’l Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.,
`933 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................5
`
`Nat’l Soc’y of Pro. Eng’rs v. United States,
`435 U.S. 679 (1978) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Nettles v. Grounds,
`830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................10
`
`N.M. Oncology v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs.,
`418 F. Supp. 3d 826 (D.N.M. 2019) ........................................................................................13
`
`Ohio v. Am. Express Co.,
`138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018) .............................................................................................................20
`
`Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA,
`967 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ...................................................................................17
`
`Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Commc’ns, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 438 (2009) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Pilch v. French Hosp.,
`2000 WL 33223382 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2000) .......................................................................19
`
`Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp.,
`838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................7
`
`PLS.com, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors,
`32 F.4th 824 (9th Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................15
`
`Pool Water Prods. v. Olin Corp.,
`258 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Pro Music Rights LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7406062 (D. Conn. Dec. 16, 2020) ..........................................................................21
`
`PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc.,
`615 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Randy’s Ring & Pinion Serv., Inc. v. Eaton Corp.,
`2009 WL 10727790 (W.D. Wash. 2009) .................................................................................18
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................24
`
`Schwab Short-Term Bond Mkt. Fund v. Lloyds Banking Grp. PLC,
`22 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................................8
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - v
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`Seafarers Welfare Plan v. Philip Morris,
`27 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D. Md. 1998) ...........................................................................................24
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. U.S.,
`337 U.S. 293 (1949) .................................................................................................................17
`
`State v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`1997 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS 6 (Md. Cir. Ct. May 20, 1997) .......................................................24
`
`Summit Health v. Pinhas,
`500 U.S. 322 (1991) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Tanaka v. Univ. of S. Cal.,
`252 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................20
`
`Todd. v. Exxon Corp.,
`275 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................20
`
`Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co.,
`676 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................16
`
`United States v. Charley,
`1 F.4th 637 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................................10
`
`United States v. Microsoft Corp.,
`253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Universal Grading Serv. v. eBay, Inc.,
`2012 WL 70644 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) ................................................................................22
`
`Verizon Commc’ns., Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`540 U.S. 398 (2004) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`William O. Gilley Enters., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
`2006 WL 8437393 (S.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) ..........................................................................17
`
`William O. Gilley Enters., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
`561 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................17
`STATUTES
`15 U.S.C. § 1 ..................................................................................................................................11
`
`Cal Bus & Prof Code § 16750(a) ...................................................................................................23
`
`Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 11-202(a)(2) ...................................................................................24
`
`Md. Code Ann. § 11-209(b)(2)(i) ..................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - vi
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Amazon’s minimum margin guarantee agreements (“MMAs”) coerce its suppliers to
`adopt minimum resale price policies. These policies do not promote interbrand competition.
`They are solely intended to prevent retail competition and maintain Amazon’s online retail
`dominance. Under MMAs, suppliers guarantee that Amazon will receive a minimum return from
`each sale of the supplier’s products; if Amazon lowers its price to match a competitor’s price, the
`supplier must pay Amazon the difference between the guaranteed sum and the lowest market
`price. This financial risk forces the supplier to adopt minimum resale prices with other retailers
`at the price it guarantees to Amazon or to raise their acquisition costs to achieve the same result.
`Plaintiffs are online consumers from California and Maryland, who purchased thousands
`of dollars of merchandise from Amazon each year. Because of Amazon’s restraints of trade and
`price manipulation, they paid more for their purchases than they otherwise would have. Plaintiffs
`seek to represent a national class of online consumers to recover overcharges caused by
`Amazon’s restraints of trade and monopolizing conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws, and
`to represent California and Maryland consumer classes to recover overcharges in violation of
`California and Maryland antitrust laws.
`Amazon’s suggestion that its MMAs are beyond the scrutiny of antitrust laws must be
`rejected. Indeed, in Leegin, the Supreme Court characterized the practice of pressuring suppliers
`to adopt minimum resale price floors to restrain competition as an anticompetitive misuse of
`vertical price restraints. See infra Section IV.B. Amazon’s related argument that its MMAs are
`benign or procompetitive ignores the loss of price competition and higher consumer prices that
`the Supreme Court predicted, and that Plaintiffs here allege, based on independent reports of
`market participants and findings of the antitrust subcommittee of the House Judiciary. See infra
`Section IV.C.2.
`Amazon’s remaining arguments also fail. First, Plaintiffs have standing because they are
`direct purchasers who overpaid at prices inflated by Amazon’s MMAs. See infra Section IV.A.
`Second, Plaintiffs plausibly allege the relevant markets affected by the MMAs, and indeed need
`not allege a relevant market under the quick-look approach because Amazon’s MMAs are naked
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 1
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`price restraints with no procompetitive justifications. See infra Sections IV.C.1 and IV.C.3.
`Third, even if the Court were persuaded that Plaintiffs inadequately pled their federal antitrust
`claims under the rule of reason, Amazon’s arguments in support of dismissal do not apply to
`Plaintiffs’ per se state law claims. And Amazon has not raised any state-specific basis to support
`dismissal of their California and Maryland antitrust claims. See infra Section IV.D.
`II.
`FACTS
`Amazon is the world’s largest online retailer. ¶ 34.1 Amazon operates the Amazon
`Marketplace platform, where Amazon conducts first-party sales that constitute the principal
`source of its revenue. ¶ 15. The platform also hosts the transactions of 2.4 million third-party
`sellers, which make up most sales on the platform. ¶¶ 15, 17. Collectively, Amazon and its
`sellers offer over 350 million products to its hundreds of millions of customers. ¶¶ 16, 94.
`Amazon Marketplace has tremendous market presence: approximately 74% of all online
`shoppers begin specific product searches there, and about 90% of all online marketplace sales
`occur there. ¶ 14. The House subcommittee on antitrust investigated Amazon and found it has
`positioned itself as the gatekeeper to internet commerce and engaged in anticompetitive conduct
`to maintain its dominance, including the use of MMAs. ¶¶ 17, 19–20. Because of Amazon’s
`control over internet sales, few manufacturers—even of very large brands—can avoid doing
`business with Amazon, and many are compelled to sign MMAs against their independent
`economic self-interest.
`The MMAs work like this: Amazon’s supplier guarantees that Amazon will make a
`specific minimum return (i.e., that it will recoup its acquisition cost and receive a minimum
`profit) on every sale of the supplier’s products, e.g., $15. ¶¶ 3–4. If Amazon reduces its retail
`price to match a competing online distributor of the supplier’s product, e.g., to $12, Amazon
`recoups from the supplier the $3 difference between the guaranteed minimum and its retail price.
`Id. To avoid this penalty, suppliers are forced to adopt the MMA’s guaranteed return as the
`
`
`1 All paragraph references (“¶ _”) in this brief refer to Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint (Corrected), ECF 4.
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 2
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`supplier’s minimum resale price and enforce this policy against Amazon’s retail competition.
`¶¶ 5, 7–10, 35. Minimum resale prices are designed to raise or stabilize retail prices.
`Amazon’s MMAs have achieved their desired result. ¶¶ 7–12. The California Attorney
`General conducted a two-year investigation of Amazon, which it made public shortly after
`Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit. The State of California’s complaint, which relies on witness
`statements and documents obtained from Amazon, confirms Plaintiffs’ allegations that
`Amazon’s MMAs force its suppliers to adopt minimum resale policies, not for potential pro-
`competitive purposes, like requiring retailers to invest in additional services for customers, but
`for the anticompetitive purpose of fixing prices by eliminating price competition with Amazon.
`ECF 8, Ex. A at 5-7, 65–80 (paragraphs 6-12; 175-204). And this is nothing new for Amazon;
`the European Commission on Competition also found that Amazon violated competition laws by
`employing similar provisions that likewise required Amazon’s suppliers to guarantee that no
`other retailer would sell their eBooks at a lower price than on Amazon Marketplace. ¶ 40.
`III.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`On a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all facts in the complaint as true, view
`them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and draw all reasonable inferences in their
`favor. Moreno v. UtiliQuest, LLC, 29 F.4th 567, 573 (9th Cir. 2022). A plaintiff need only allege
`“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A “well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy
`judge that actual proof of th[e] facts alleged is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote
`and unlikely.” Id. at 556. “If there are two alternative explanations, one advanced by defendant
`and the other advanced by plaintiff, both of which are plausible, plaintiff’s complaint survives a
`motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Kong v. Trader Joe’s Co., 2022 WL 1125667, at *1 (9th
`Cir. Apr. 15, 2022) (quotation omitted).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs have standing to recover overcharge damages and for equitable relief.
`Amazon argues that Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing because their injuries did not occur
`in the same market in which Amazon and its suppliers agreed to restrain trade, and because
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 3
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiffs are not “efficient enforcers” of antitrust laws. Neither argument has merit. First,
`Plaintiffs have standing as direct purchasers of goods purchased at prices fixed by the MMAs.
`Second, there are no parties more directly injured than Plaintiffs, whose injuries are directly
`caused by Amazon pressuring its suppliers to adopt minimum resale prices. This is precisely the
`conduct and harm that the Supreme Court warned of in Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v.
`PSKS, Inc. 551 U.S. 877, 893-94 (2007). Amazon’s standing arguments must be rejected.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred in the same market where Amazon has
`restrained trade.
`Amazon urges that Plaintiffs lack standing because their injuries occurred in the retail
`market, whereas Amazon and its suppliers agreed to anticompetitive MMAs and enforced them
`against competing retailers in a “market involving wholesale suppliers selling to retailers,” in
`which Plaintiffs do not participate. ECF 18 at 7–8. Amazon’s argument conflates the locus of the
`conspiratorial conduct with the market in which the restraint operates. If Amazon were correct,
`standing would be limited to defendants’ competitors and direct purchasers could not recover
`overcharges. But that is not the law. For example, in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720
`(1977), where manufacturers allegedly colluded to fix the wholesale prices of masonry blocks,
`the Supreme Court did not limit standing to participants in the manufacturing market, where the
`conspirators carried out their conspiracy. Instead, the Supreme Court held that the masonry
`contractors had standing because they overpaid for the blocks they purchased from the colluding
`manufacturers at the price-fixed rate, whereas any overcharges the end consumers paid at retail
`were allegedly passed on by others in the chain of distribution. Id. at 735–36.
`This straight-forward rule of direct purchaser standing applies equally in cases involving
`vertical restraints, so that consumer plaintiffs have standing when the purpose or effect of the
`challenged conduct is to restrain the retail market.2 For example, the consumer plaintiffs in Apple
`Inc. v. Pepper, who purchased iPhone apps developed by third parties and sold by Apple on the
`iPhone App Store, alleged that Apple used its monopoly power to pressure the app developers
`
`
`2 In “a civil action under the Sherman Act, liability may be established by proof of either an unlawful purpose
`or an anti-competitive effect.” Summit Health v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322, 330 (1991) (emphasis in original).
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 4
`Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
`010888-16/2069570 V1
`
`
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 OFFICE (206) 623-0594 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00965-JHC Document 25 Filed 11/14/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`into giving Apple 30% commission on app sales and setting their app prices in one-dollar
`increments, resulting in supracompetitive retail prices. 139 S. Ct. 1514, 1519–20 (2019). The
`Supreme Court held that consumer plaintiffs had standing because they paid supracompetitive
`prices directly to Apple, whose conduct with the app developers directly caused the alleged retail
`overcharges via an allegedly supracompetitive commission. Id. at 1521, 1525. Likewise, in In re
`Nat’l Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig., the Ninth Circuit confirmed consumers’
`standing, where they paid an allegedly inflated retail price for DirecTV as a direct result of
`alleged anticompetitive agreements between DirecTV, the NFL, and its teams. 933 F.3d 1136,
`1158–59 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Associated Gen. Contractors of Ca., Inc. v. Cal. State Council
`of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 539 (1983) (“AGC”) (denying antitrust standing to party that was
`“neither a consumer nor a competitor in the market in which trade was restrained”) (emphasis
`added).
`Here, Plaintiffs purchase