I. Introduction and background

On 2 September 2025, the Regional Administrative Court for Latium (“Court”) confirmed the validity of the charges brought by the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) against Amazon Italia Services S.r.l., Amazon Italia Logistica S.r.l., Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon Services Europe S.à.r.l. and Amazon EU S.à.r.l. (“Amazon” or the “Company”), who were fined in 2021 for abusing their dominant position  (see, ICA’s decision). 

The ICA’s fine of over €1 billion was reduced to approximately €750 million following the Court’s statement that the 50% increase applied to the base fine was unjustified.

According to the ICA, Amazon pursued a self-preferencing strategy in the national market for intermediation services on e-commerce platforms. In particular, retailers were encouraged to use the Company’s logistics service, Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA), to increase the visibility of their products and boost sales, thereby harming competitors.

II. Self-preferencing

The Court confirmed the ICA’s interpretation, recognising that Amazon’s conduct constituted an abuse of a dominant position that could be classified as self-preferencing. 

According to the Court, Amazon had pursued an anti-competitive strategy, leveraging its dominance in one market to strengthen its position in a related one, thereby restricting competition. This placed competing logistics services at a disadvantage, as Amazon strategically used its marketplace platform to increase demand for its FBA service among third-party sellers.

III. Parallelism between ICA and European Commission’s proceedings

Amazon challenged the ICA’s jurisdiction, arguing that the European Commission had already initiated proceedings under Article 102 TFEU on the same matter.

However, the Court confirmed the full autonomy and jurisdiction of the national authority, pointing out that:

• the European proceedings had concluded with Amazon’s acceptance of voluntary commitments;
• according to the case law of the CJEU, national and EU proceedings are autonomous;
• the Commission’s investigation did not include the Italian market, rendering the duplication of proceedings irrelevant.

IV. Fines: partial reduction

The Court confirmed the accuracy of the ICA’s methodology for calculating the fine based on turnover from both the marketplace and the FBA service and deemed the behaviour to be “very severe” due to its anti-competitive impact on e-commerce logistics.

Nevertheless, the Court sided with Amazon on the issue of inadequate justification for the 50% penalty increase. The ICA’s guidelines permit such increases when an undertaking’s global turnover significantly exceeds the value of the affected goods or services, or when the company is part of a large economic group. While the guidelines authorize increases of up to 50%, competition authorities must provide a compelling rationale for implementing the increase and determining its magnitude. In this case, the ICA merely referenced Amazon’s substantial global turnover, failing to demonstrate why the maximum 50% increase was justified or proportionate to the unique circumstances of the case. Deeming this reasoning insufficient, the Court overturned the penalty increase and recalculated the fine to the original amount of around €750 million.

V. Takeaways 

The Court’s decision - which can be appealed before the Italian State Council - sets an important precedent for the application of antitrust law to digital platforms in Italy. It confirms the following:

• the recognition of self-preferencing as an abuse of a dominant position; 
• the autonomous jurisdiction of national authorities even in the presence of parallel European proceedings, when the relevant markets are distinct;
• the focus on proportionality and reasoning in determining penalties.

The Court decision (in Italian only) is available at the following link.

For more information, please contact Federico Marini Balestra and Bianca Maria Gorlero.

VISIT OUR COMPETITION LAW HOMEPAGE