IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-720824.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Amazon Exercise Its Market Power? Evidence from Toys“R”Us

Author

Listed:
  • Leshui He
  • Imke Reimers
  • Benjamin Shiller

Abstract

Since its founding, Amazon has established a reputation for being consumer friendly by consistently offering lower prices than its market position would seem to allow. However, recent antitrust concerns about dominant online platforms have revived questions about whether Amazon’s growing market share threatens consumer welfare. Given its reputation, regulators have proposed a new focus on conduct unrelated to prices. We ask whether such a move is premature. Using the sudden and unanticipated US exit of Toys“R”Us as a natural experiment, we find that Amazon’s toy prices on its US site increased by almost 5 percent in the wake of the exit relative to similar products and to toys on its Canadian site. Thus, despite Amazon’s long-standing reputation, it may exploit increases in market power in traditional ways as competing retailers cease operating.

Suggested Citation

  • Leshui He & Imke Reimers & Benjamin Shiller, 2022. "Does Amazon Exercise Its Market Power? Evidence from Toys“R”Us," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(4), pages 665-685.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/720824
    DOI: 10.1086/720824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/720824
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/720824
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/720824?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/720824. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.