Amazon Japan to Ease Seller Pricing Rules Under Antitrust Plan With Five Years of Oversight

Six Months to Change Product Pages

Amazon Japan will revise its product pages within six months and face five years of regulatory monitoring under an improvement plan approved by the Japan Fair Trade Commission on November 11, 2026. The agreement addresses a pricing rule introduced in 2019 that tied prominent placement on Amazon to prices charged on competing shopping websites.

The commission had been investigating whether Amazon Japan G.K. violated the Antimonopoly Act by pressuring sellers to reduce prices. Sellers whose products cost more on Amazon than on rival sites risked losing access to a prominent recommendation that helps shoppers make quick purchases.

Under the approved plan, Amazon will remove the requirement that sellers match or undercut prices on other websites to qualify for that placement. Its revised pages will clearly display the lowest priced offer available within Amazon, even when the same product costs less elsewhere.

The commission approved the changes through Japan's commitment procedure, which allows a company under investigation to submit a voluntary improvement plan. The case therefore moves into implementation and monitoring without a formal finding that Amazon violated the law or an order to remedy an established violation.

For sellers, the central change concerns control over their prices. For shoppers, it concerns which offer Amazon puts in front of them. The regulator's concern connects those two issues: a rule that encourages cheaper prices on one website can also make it harder for competing websites to attract customers with better deals.

How the Buy Box Put Pressure on Sellers

Amazon Japan sells products itself and hosts independent sellers through its Marketplace service. When several sellers offer the same product, their offers are grouped on a single product page. One seller can receive the prominent recommendation commonly called the buy box, giving customers a quick route to purchase.

The commission said most purchases were made through prominently recommended offers. Losing that position could therefore sharply reduce a seller's chances of reaching buyers, even while its product remained available on Amazon.

Amazon's rule required sellers seeking the recommendation to meet what the company called a "competitive price." The benchmark was the lowest price for the product on other shopping websites, including Rakuten Ichiba. An Amazon offer had to match or fall below that outside price.

Sellers consequently faced a difficult choice: reduce their Amazon price to retain prominent placement, potentially cutting their profit, or keep their price and risk becoming less visible. The commission said some businesses sold at a loss under the pressure of those conditions.

The issue was especially important because of Amazon's scale in Japan. A seller that depends heavily on purchases through Amazon has a strong commercial reason to meet the platform's conditions, even when the resulting price makes little financial sense for that seller.

What the New Pricing Rule Changes

Amazon's commitment shifts the comparison used for prominent display. Instead of requiring an offer to beat or match competing websites, the company will give preference to the cheapest price available on Amazon itself.

A seller offering the lowest price within Amazon will therefore be clearly displayed even if another website has a cheaper offer. The change removes the outside price condition from this part of Amazon's recommendation system while retaining competition among sellers on Amazon.

For shoppers, the practical distinction is between the cheapest offer on Amazon and the cheapest offer across different websites. Amazon's revised display will help customers find the former. Customers seeking the lowest price across retailers will still need to compare websites.

Amazon has six months to update its product display pages. The announced timetable sets a deadline for those changes, but no exact launch date or detailed design for the revised pages was given.

Why a Demand for Lower Prices Concerned the Regulator

The Japan Fair Trade Commission viewed Amazon's condition as a possible restriction on sellers' freedom to set prices and a form of pressure to discount. Its concern extended beyond the price of an individual purchase to competition between shopping platforms.

A cheaper offer on a rival website could trigger pressure on the seller to lower its Amazon price as well. That can reduce the rival website's ability to attract shoppers through a price advantage. The commission considered the arrangement capable of weakening fair competition between online retailers and eventually disadvantaging consumers.

Sellers also carried the financial cost of meeting the condition. Amazon could obtain a lower advertised price without paying for the reduction itself, while the seller absorbed the effect on its margin. A margin is the money left from a sale after the relevant costs are paid.

The approved change addresses that connection between prices across websites. Sellers will still compete for customers on Amazon, but a lower price elsewhere will no longer carry the same consequence for prominent placement under the rule being revised.

Why Japan Used a Commitment Procedure

The commission chose an administrative route intended to secure changes without completing the usual process of establishing a violation and issuing a remedial order. Amazon submitted the plan voluntarily, and the regulator approved it under the Antimonopoly Act's commitment procedure.

Approval brings concrete obligations: Amazon must carry out the agreed changes, and the commission will check implementation for five years. The six month deadline concerns the product page revisions; the longer monitoring period concerns whether the company follows through on its commitments.

The watchdog said the approach was expected to bring improvements sooner than proceedings in other countries addressing similar concerns. Speed matters for sellers because a lengthy investigation can leave the disputed commercial conditions in place while authorities work toward a decision.

Amazon Japan said it would improve transparency, give consumers sufficient information to make choices and continue constructive discussions with the commission. In its statement following approval, the company described its aim for customers:

We will work to improve our customers' shopping experience.

From the 2019 Rule to Five Years of Monitoring

The pricing condition had been in place for about seven years by the time the improvement plan was approved. The commission's inspection in November 2024 was followed by roughly two years of investigation before the November 2026 agreement.

The main dates show both how long the practice operated and the timetable for changing it:

• 2016 and 2018: Amazon Japan faced earlier investigations and discontinued practices under scrutiny. Neither investigation resulted in a finding that it breached the law.
• 2019: Amazon introduced the condition requiring recommended offers to match or undercut the lowest prices on rival shopping websites.
• November 2024: The Japan Fair Trade Commission conducted an inspection at Amazon Japan's premises as part of its investigation.
• November 11, 2026: The commission approved Amazon Japan's improvement plan under the commitment procedure.
• Within six months of approval: Amazon is to revise product pages to clearly display the lowest priced offer within its own website.
• For five years: The commission will monitor implementation of the plan.

The earlier investigations show that Amazon Japan has previously resolved regulatory concerns by stopping disputed practices. The current agreement adds a defined period of oversight to the changes involving seller prices and product visibility.

Related Scrutiny in the United States and Elsewhere

Amazon's competitive pricing practices have also drawn action from authorities in the United States, Germany and Canada. Japan's commission said its approval was expected to bring improvements ahead of other countries dealing with similar issues.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission and more than a dozen state attorneys general have sued Amazon over allegations that its conduct deters other online retailers from offering prices below Amazon's. That concern resembles the Japanese regulator's focus on whether Amazon's rules weaken competition between websites.

The Japanese agreement provides a specific remedy within Amazon Japan: remove the requirement tied to rival website prices, revise the product pages and submit to monitoring. Proceedings elsewhere are being handled by the authorities and legal processes in those countries.

What Sellers and Shoppers Will Notice

Sellers should gain more room to decide what to charge on each website. Under the approved revision, a product priced below competing offers on Amazon can receive clear placement even when a rival retailer lists it for less. That reduces the pressure to copy an outside price simply to remain visible on Amazon.

Shoppers should find it easier to identify the lowest priced offer within Amazon. The value of that change depends on the product pages making the relevant offer easy to see, which is why the page revisions sit at the centre of the agreement.

Neither sellers nor shoppers have to wait five years for the planned display changes. Amazon's deadline is six months, while the commission's five years of monitoring provide a longer period for checking compliance.

The immediate task is now implementation. Amazon must translate the approved pricing changes into the pages customers use, and the commission must track whether the company carries out the plan.

Key Points

• Japan approved Amazon Japan's pricing reform plan on November 11, 2026.
• Sellers will no longer have to match or undercut rival website prices to meet the pricing condition for prominent placement.
• Amazon will revise product pages within six months to clearly show the cheapest offer available on its own site.
• The Japan Fair Trade Commission will monitor implementation for five years.
• The commitment procedure resolves the investigation through agreed changes without a formal finding of an Antimonopoly Act violation.
• The case focuses on sellers' pricing freedom and competition between shopping websites, as well as the offers customers see on Amazon.