The FTC has been investigating the company on a number of fronts, and the upcoming case will be one of the highest-profile moves in the Biden administration’s difficult effort to rein in the tech giants.

The trial is expected to take place in August. According to sources, a number of Amazon’s business practices will be challenged during the trial. If won, it could lead to a $1.3 trillion judicial restructuring of the empire and determine the legacy of Federal Trade Commission Chairman Lina Khan.

Khan is notoriously skeptical of big tech, publishing an academic paper back in 2017 defining Amazon as a modern monopolist that needs to be reined in.

Some say the focus will turn to challenging Amazon Prime, Amazon rules that the FTC says block lower prices on competing websites, and policies that the FTC says force merchants to use Amazon’s logistics and advertising services.

Over the past three years, the FTC has collected millions of documents from Amazon and third parties to build its case, and has even questioned CEO Andy Jassy and former CEO Jeff Bezos, according to some people.

Among the potential lawsuits are allegations similar to existing lawsuits already filed by the attorneys general of Washington and California, according to sources. Those lawsuits center on Amazon’s rules that require third-party retailers to offer their lowest prices on Amazon’s platform, thereby cutting off the ability to lower prices elsewhere.

Apple did not immediately issue a statement on the developments, but previously “respectfully disagreed” with the FAS ruling that Apple’s distribution of apps through the iOS operating system gave a competitive advantage to its own products.

In August 2020, the FAS found that the company had abused its dominant position, after which it issued a directive requiring Apple to remove provisions giving it the right to reject third-party apps from its App Store.

The move followed a complaint from cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab, which said a new version of its Safe Kids app had been rejected by Apple’s operating system.

Apple appealed the decision at various stages but failed and eventually paid the fine, the FAS said.

Another case points to another fine for the tech giant, but in January, when the FAS announced it had fined Apple about $17.4 million for allegedly forcing Russian developers to use Apple’s payment services in the iOS app store.

A year ago, Apple halted sales of all products in Russia after Moscow sent its armed forces into Ukraine, and restricted its Apple Pay service in Russia.

In a revised complaint filed last August, the FTC argues that the company pursued a “buy or bury” strategy against rivals to suppress competition.

This is the FTC’s second antitrust legal challenge against the company. In June last year, a federal judge dismissed antitrust lawsuits brought against Facebook by the agency and a broad coalition of state attorneys general that were among multiplying efforts by federal and state regulators to rein in Big Tech’s market power.

This time the facts in the new suit are ‘far more robust’. US District Judge James Boasberg said that, though the “core theory” of the lawsuit — that Facebook is a monopoly engaging in anticompetitive behavior — remains unchanged, the facts alleged this time around are “far more robust and detailed than before”.

Meta said in an emailed statement it is “confident the evidence will reveal the fundamental weakness of the claims”. The company said.

“Our investments in Instagram and WhatsApp transformed them into what they are today. They have been good for competition, and good for the people and businesses that choose to use our products”.

The FTC is seeking remedies that could include a forced spinoff of Facebook’s popular Instagram and WhatsApp messaging services, or a restructuring of the company.

The problem started in 2019, when Amazon and Future became business partners. The U.S. company invested $200 million in a gift voucher unit of the Indian group.

According to Amazon, that deal came with certain non-compete clauses that prohibited Future from selling retail assets to certain rivals. They also include Reliance, run by Mukesh Ambani. The deal also included clauses for settlement of any disputes under rules laid down by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

In 2020, Future was hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and decided to sell assets to Reliance. Amazon then approached Singapore arbitrators and successfully stopped the sale.

Both parties have challenged each other with lawsuits in Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, since the “seat of arbitration” remains in New Delhi and Indian law governs the proceedings.

The conflict was carried to India’s antitrust agency (Competition Commission of India (CCI).  Future complained that Amazon was making incorrect and contradictory submissions about the intent of the 2019 deal.

Amazon said it never concealed any information. Last December the company accused  CCI of suspending its approval of the 2019 deal with Future, saying there was “a deliberate design on the part of Amazon to suppress the actual scope” of the deal and its interest in Future’s retail businesses.

While Amazon contends the CCI acted beyond its powers, Future maintains the U.S company no longer has any right to assert its claims as the 2019 deal itself now lacks regulatory approval.

This month the Delhi High Court halted the Singapore arbitration proceedings between the two sides in light of the Indian antitrust decision. However,  Amazon has appealed the decisions in Indian courts which are yet to hear the matter.

The Delhi HC bench granted more time to WhatsApp and Meta to file their response over notices issued to them by the antitrust regulator.

Last year in March, CCI had ordered a probe into the new privacy policy of WhatsApp after making a prima facie observation that it breached the Competition Act 2000.

The senior advocate Harish Salve appeared on monday on behalf of WhatsApp to assure the court the company would conform with the law.

Contractual provisions of a 2018 agreement between the companies meant only selected resellers were allowed to sell Apple and Beats products on Amazon.it.

Both Apple and Amazon said they plan to appeal against the fines.

The authority imposed a fine of 68.7 million euros on Amazon and 134.5 million euros on Apple, ordering the companies to end the restrictions to give retailers of genuine Apple and Beats products access to Amazon.it in a non-discriminatory manner. Representatives of Apple commented:

“To ensure our customers purchase genuine products, we work closely with our reseller partners and have dedicated teams of experts around the world who work with law enforcement, customs and merchants to ensure only genuine Apple products are being sold.”

Amazon’s representatives added:

“We reject the suggestion that Amazon benefits by excluding sellers from our store, since our business model relies on their success. As a result of the agreement, Italian customers can find the latest Apple and Beats products on our store, benefiting from a catalogue that more than doubled, with better deals and faster shipping.”