The “Economics Day” hearing in the FTC’s antitrust case against Amazon was scheduled for March 7, 2025, in federal court in Seattle. It was intended to help U.S. District Judge John H. Chun understand the parties’ competing economic theories—not to hold a trial or issue a ruling that day. The available sources do not establish what was said during the hearing or whether it led to any direct action.
What was Economics Day?
Economics Day was a planned educational hearing in FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01495-JHC, before Judge John H. Chun in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. GeekWire reported on March 7, 2025, that the hearing was taking place that day and that no decision was expected directly from it (GeekWire).
The purpose was to give the judge a clearer understanding of the economic theories in the case. A joint filing by the parties described Judge Chun’s goal as becoming “as educated as possible regarding the economic theories in this case.” The filing attributes that phrase to a June 6, 2024 status conference and cites its transcript; the quotation here is from the joint filing itself (joint filing).
How the parties framed the economic dispute
The central disagreement was how to understand the competitive effects of Amazon’s marketplace rules. Amazon said the challenged practices could support the customer experience, competitive prices, and dependable delivery. The plaintiffs’ account, as summarized in pre-hearing legal commentary, was that alleged exclusionary tactics could prevent rivals from reaching scale and competing effectively. These are the parties’ arguments, not findings by the court.
#1 Best Overall
| Issue | Amazon’s pre-hearing framing | Plaintiffs’ account in pre-hearing commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Marketplace practices | Amazon described challenged rules and programs as vertical restraints that could support customer experience, price competitiveness, and dependable delivery. Its examples included Select Competitor Featured Offer Disqualification (SC-FOD), Standards for Brands Selling in Amazon’s Store (ASB), the Customer Experience Ambassador program, and Prime badge eligibility. | Plaintiffs alleged exclusionary tactics that could make it harder for rivals to reach scale and compete effectively. |
| Economic question | Amazon argued that analysis should address market definition, monopoly power, and competitive effects. | The plaintiffs’ account focused on whether Amazon’s conduct restricted competition and hindered rivals’ growth. |
| Claimed consequences | Amazon said its practices could protect platform quality and benefit shoppers. | Plaintiffs argued the alleged conduct could impair rivals’ ability to compete. |
Amazon’s February 28, 2025 statement characterized the claims as alleging unlawful monopoly maintenance through exclusionary conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Its descriptions of the rules and their benefits were Amazon’s position, not a court conclusion (Amazon’s statement). The pre-hearing commentary describes the plaintiffs’ competing theory (Davis Wright Tremaine commentary).
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Was the hearing a trial or did it decide the case?
No. The contemporaneous report described an educational session, and the parties’ June 2024 joint filing proposed equal presentation time for each side’s economist or economists, with the judge able to ask questions throughout. The proposal excluded lawyer argument and cross-examination. Because that filing sets out a proposal, it does not by itself verify that every procedural detail was followed on March 7.
Rank #2
The hearing was not expected to produce a direct decision, and the available sources do not establish a hearing-specific ruling. They also do not verify the economists’ oral presentations, the judge’s questions, or whether the session proceeded exactly as planned. A later docket mirror lists February 9, 2027, as the scheduled bench-trial date in an amended scheduling order; that is a separate scheduling matter, subject to further court orders (amended scheduling order on CourtListener).
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
- A New York Times and Wall Street Journal Bestseller.
- Finalist for the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year
- One of the best books of the year, picked by Washington Post, The Economist, Bloomberg
Rank #3
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →
