The German government currently evaluates Sec. 19a ARC (UPSCAM provision) nearly five years after it came into force. Amazon respectfully offers the following observations with the provision and proposes recommendations for a harmonized competition policy in the European Union.

Germany has long been a technology leader with a thriving start-up scene and a highly trained workforce. As a committed investor in Germany for over 25 years, Amazon has contributed substantially to this growth by investing more than €90 billion since 2010 and €14 billion in 2024 alone. We employ more than 40,000 people and empower around 47,000 German selling partners to reach customers nationally and internationally.

However, Germany's economy has been stagnating since 2021. Demographic change and slow productivity growth have contributed to this challenge and excessive, overlapping regulation hampers small- and medium-sized businesses. Reducing the complexity of Germany’s regulatory framework and clearing overlaps with the EU’s regulatory framework would go a long way towards enabling Germany to fulfil its strong economic potential.

Part of this regulation is Sec. 19a of the Act against Restraints of Competition (ARC), which was introduced by the German government as specific regulatory regime for large technology companies. In the context of the provision’s evaluation nearly five years after its introduction, we believe it's time to reconsider whether this additional layer of national regulation serves its intended purpose. Europe needs a fully streamlined and harmonized approach to competition policy that reduces unnecessary complexity while maintaining effective competitive safeguards. Sec. 19a ARC runs counter to these imperatives.

Four fundamental challenges
Our experience with UPSCAM illustrates several challenges that call into question the provision's effectiveness:

1. Departure from effects-based competition law: As drafted, Sec. 19a ARC allows intervention without demonstrating actual or potential anti-competitive effects. This broad preventive scope has the effect of inhibiting or impairing legitimate forms of competition and creates legal uncertainty that can hinder innovation.

2. Cross-border nature of cases: The conduct under scrutiny almost invariably affects multiple EU Member States. Nationally tailored remedies risk creating conflicting obligations across the EU. This includes the current case brought by the FCO against Amazon and its pricing mechanisms on the Amazon Store in Germany, since non-German sellers and customers are also active on this store.

3. Allocation of resources: In light of the foregoing defects, cases brought under Sec. 19a ARC are complex and data-intensive, involving global business models due to the provision’s scope. This imposes a substantial burden on the FCO, leading to elongated timelines and fragmented theories of harm. They also divert company resources away from innovation for customers and selling partners towards compliance matters.

4. Limited judicial review: The Federal Court of Justice, while highly experienced in legal analysis, traditionally focuses on questions of law rather than intensive fact-finding in complex economic matters—yet it serves as the sole instance for review.

Regulatory overlap creates unnecessary complexity
The introduction of the DMA, one year after Sec. 19a ARC, fundamentally changed the European Union’s regulatory landscape. Companies now face parallel regulatory regimes with similar objectives but distinct requirements. This creates legal uncertainty, operational complexity and innovation barriers, as resources devoted to managing regulatory overlaps could better serve innovation.

Amazon is currently experiencing this challenge firsthand as Amazon’s pricing mechanisms are the focus of a current case by the Federal Cartel Office—having also been subject to a previous investigation by the European Commission and are subject to inquiry under the DMA.

Alignment with Germany's priorities
The German government emphasizes restoring competitiveness through deregulation, digital modernization, and investment. The coalition agreement commits to reducing the cost of bureaucracy for businesses by 25 percent and creating a streamlined, user-friendly public administration.

If Germany is committed to economic growth and innovation-friendly regulation, Section 19a ARC must be evaluated against this standard.

Path Forward: Harmonization and Efficiency
As Germany evaluates Sec. 19a ARC, Amazon sees an opportunity to enhance regulatory efficiency while maintaining effective competitive safeguards. Against the background of the overlap of Sec. 19a ARC with the DMA and fundamental defects of the provision itself, the need for the provision must be reconsidered. Europe needs a fully streamlined and harmonized approach to competition policy that reduces unnecessary complexity while preserving robust enforcement. Sec. 19a ARC runs counter to these imperatives.

We look forward to contributing our experience and insights to the dialogue, to support a regulatory framework that serves both competition and innovation in Germany's digital future as part of the European Single Market.

Download Amazon’s full paper for detailed analysis.