2:21-cv-00693
W.D. Wash.Jul 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs brought a class action against Amazon.com, Inc., alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act due to Amazon's “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) policies, which they claim suppress price competition and result in supra-competitive prices.
- Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Parag Pathak, utilized an economic model (the Boik-Corts model) and Amazon’s transactional data to show that Amazon’s anti-discounting policies inflated prices and fees, allegedly harming class members.
- Amazon challenged the admissibility of Dr. Pathak’s expert testimony, arguing his methodology was not generally accepted, suffered from a high error rate, relied on flawed assumptions, ignored pricing heterogeneity among sellers, and used unreliable regression analyses.
- Plaintiffs defended Dr. Pathak’s methodology, asserting the Boik-Corts model is respected, based on sound economics, peer-reviewed, and its application to Amazon’s data was appropriate for class-wide injury analysis.
- The court was asked to determine whether Dr. Pathak’s testimony meets the admissibility standards under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, particularly regarding reliability and relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General acceptance of the economic model | Boik-Corts model is peer-reviewed, widely accepted, and uncontested in the literature | Model is not widely accepted nor standard in economics | The model is peer-reviewed and sufficiently accepted for use |
| Error rate of the model | Model is a mathematical construct; no known flaws or necessary error rate | High error/false positive rate, especially with real-world data | Error rate challenges go to weight, not admissibility |
| Underlying assumptions, including MFN status | Dr. Pathak’s evidence supports that Amazon’s policies act as a PMFN | He unjustifiably assumes Amazon’s policies are MFNs | Assumptions and disputes go to weight, not admissibility |
| Heterogeneity and regression sample size | Model and regression account for pricing differences; sample represents all available data | Fails to account for focal point pricing; sample too small | Accounted for in analysis; these are matters for cross-examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes the gatekeeping role of courts for expert evidence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (applies Daubert standards to all expert testimony)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (admissibility is about methodology, not expert’s conclusion)
- City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036 (differences in data execution usually go to weight, not admissibility)
- Messick v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 747 F.3d 1193 (low bar for relevance/admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702)