Elena Sokolovskaya,

Chief Expert of Competition and Law journal

Marketplaces are gaining a significant foothold on the e-commerce market. As platforms grow in popularity, so the number of offences in the sector also increases. Would it be appropriate, however, to say that marketplaces are creating a new environment for misconduct? Let us take a look at new practices.

As the experience of the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service shows, complaints that are made could be against the actions of sellers and against those of the marketplaces themselves.

Let us start with sellers. Competition among sellers on marketplaces is a key aspect of e-commerce and this directly affects how successful a business is as well as whether buyers are satisfied. The key factors of success include, among many others, the price and quality of a product, the speed of delivery and the level of customer service. Much of the time, the battle for customers is not a fair fight. The continual flow of complaints that are filed with the antitrust regulator are testament to this.

The following are among the most popular reasons for applications to be submitted to the Federal Antimonopoly Service: (i) a seller has stated inaccurate information about the product; (ii) reviews have been rigged; (iii) there has been trouble with delivery and returns; and (iv) counterfeit products have been sold. We should also remember about the traditional bodies of the offences under antitrust legislation that can easily be committed on marketplaces. These are not just hollow words.

For instance, in January 2025, the antitrust regulator exposed bidding collusion that involved 27 sellers of headphones on marketplaces (the Federal Antimonopoly Service’s Decision dated 31 January 2025 in case No. 22/01/11-60/2024). It was established that the sellers had been coordinating their actions via a chat in the social network Telegram by simultaneously changing prices on the Ozon, Wildberries, Yandex.Market and Megamarket marketplaces, while imposing sanctions on those breaching the arrangement (by posting negative reviews and ordering their goods to remote areas and countries without actually buying them upon delivery). This offence is familiar to all of us, yet it has been reinterpreted and put into a new context.

Marketplaces indeed create a new environment for potential offences under antitrust legislation

Unfair competition is yet another traditional body of an antitrust offence which is encountered on marketplaces. Most often, such actions by sellers are associated with how results of intellectual activity are used. It should come as no surprise that when you visit a platform you might come across advertising from a competitor seller that is selling counterfeit equipment under your brand.

Speaking of which, a similar situation occurred in a case considered by Karachay-Cherkess Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service. In the end, the bad-faith seller was found guilty of breaching article 14.5 of Federal Law No. 135-FZ “On protecting competition” (the ‘Competition Law’). An administrative case was initiated against the seller, with penalty sanctions being awarded¹.

It is becoming obvious that the battle among sellers to gain consumers' attention and promote their own sales is fraught with antitrust risks.

What is the actual situation with marketplaces?

Indeed, all does not run smoothly with the activities of such marketplaces. It is worth recalling that Wildberries and Ozon together hold a dominant position on the market, with a joint market share of 80%. Therefore, they must abide by the prohibitions on the abuse of a dominant position when they carry out their activities. However, even now certain practices of these players could be treated as potential violations.

This primarily concerns marketplaces’ practice of automatically including goods in sales campaigns without seeking consent from the sellers. Such actions entail risks for the sellers, which are in effect deprived of the right to manage prices for their own goods. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has issued warnings to the marketplaces under article 10(1)(3) of the Competition Law, demanding that they establish conditions under which express consent and confirmation are required from the seller for goods to be included in sales campaigns (including automated ones).

Unfair competition is one of the most popular offence that is committed by sellers

The actions of marketplaces when they set uncompetitive low prices for electronics and household appliances have triggered a backlash from the Association of Trading Companies and Manufacturers of Consumer Electronic and Computer Equipment, which has filed a complaint with the Federal Antimonopoly Service². The Association believes that the marketplaces are selling third-party vendors' goods at reduced prices, including at their own expense. As a result, the price becomes lower than the market price. This leads to a situation when the flow of buyers from traditional format stores is shifted towards e-commerce platforms.

Consequently, the operations of marketplaces also raise more than just a few questions. It is evident that a key focus of the regulator's efforts is on preventing and precluding antitrust legislation from being violated in the field of e-commerce.

With this aim in mind, a 'white book’ was approved in October 2024, setting out best practices for combating counterfeit goods being distributed on marketplaces. The ‘white book’ was a logical addition to the previously adopted document titled "Good-faith practices for marketplaces to interact with rightholders and sellers within the scope of the battle against counterfeit products being sold."

The issue of what is called 'greenwashing', i.e. misleading consumers as to the environmental properties of goods, also deserves to be highlighted. The Federal Antimonopoly Service considers such practices to constitute unfair competition and has issued specific Guidelines to prevent greenwashing within marketing communications.

Thus, marketplaces are indeed creating a new environment for potential offences under antitrust legislation. Current practice shows that the most common body of an offence for violations committed by sellers is unfair competition, while the actions of marketplaces may be classified as an abuse of dominant position.

The Federal Antimonopoly Service is actively engaged in preventing such violations by drafting and implementing documents that are advisory in nature. We hope these measures will suffice to foster a robust competitive landscape within e-commerce. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor how practice in the field is evolving.

1. Karachay-Cherkess Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service successfully defended the company’s rights in the unfair competition case // see the official website of Karachay-Cherkess Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service. 27 August 2024. URL: https://kchr.fas.gov.ru.

2. Retailers have filed a complaint with the Federal Antimonopoly Service over low prices on marketplaces. // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 11 February 2025. URL: https://rg.ru.