Amazon’s $3.9 billion reach into health care is hard to stop

Andy Jassy’s got 99 antitrust problems, but One Medical probably won’t be one.

An illuminated Amazon sign on the exterior of a building at night

If the agency does dig into the One Medical deal at all, there’s a good chance it would start with consumer data concerns.

Photo: Soeren Stache/picture alliance via Getty Images

Amazon is once again in the headlines with a high-value acquisition: This time, it’s reaching a tentacle into the health care space by acquiring boutique primary care provider One Medical for roughly $3.9 billion in cash.

The planned acquisition creates many questions. Some, like “Why health care?” are fairly self-explanatory. Annual U.S. health care spending is measured in trillions of dollars, so it’s no surprise when a business wants a bigger slice of that pie. Amazon has been making direct inroads into health care since acquiring mail-order pharmacy PillPack in 2018, which have only grown as it launched products such as Amazon Pharmacy.

Other questions are slightly more complicated, such as “Is Amazon going to be allowed to do that?” The short answer is almost certainly going to be “yes.” And while that definitely feels weird to some, the long answer has far more to do with how U.S. law handles competition than it does with Amazon.

Isn’t Amazon already under antitrust investigation?

It sure is! The FTC has been probing Amazon since June 2019 at least, and the investigations are reportedly still going strong.

Amazon is also in trouble with Congress. A House committee probing Big Tech issued a blockbuster report in late 2020 accusing Amazon of abusing its “monopoly power,” and saying the company should be split. (Apple, Alphabet and the company now known as Meta also got dinged in that report.) The House Judiciary Committee also recently asked the Justice Department to probe if Amazon had been truthful during the course of the investigation leading to that report.

One of the House staffers who authored that report was Lina Khan, who is now pushing an aggressive antitrust enforcement agenda as the FTC’s chair. Although Amazon is not the only company on the agency’s radar by a long shot, Khan came to national prominence with a 2017 Yale Law Journal article arguing for stronger antitrust enforcement against Amazon. Although the FTC hasn’t filed a suit against Amazon yet, most observers expect the commission to tackle Amazon’s retail practices. The European Commission is likewise investigating if Amazon’s behavior with third-party vendors breaks competition law in the EU.

Amazon’s AWS business, which controls at least a third of the cloud services market, is also reportedly under antitrust scrutiny, and there are lawsuits underway in both Washington state and D.C. alleging Amazon’s behavior around its third-party marketplace vendors violates antitrust law.

So are antitrust regulators going to investigate this deal?

Amazon definitely has to file paperwork about the deal with the FTC, there’s no way around that. Companies planning a merger or acquisition above a certain threshold — $101 million for 2022 — must file their plans with the FTC before completing the transaction. That filing kicks off a 30-day waiting period that regulators can resolve one of three ways: They can grant early termination, meaning they have no issues with the transaction; they can file a second request for information, kicking off an actual probe; or they can do nothing at all, and simply let the waiting period expire.

That “second request” is basically where a formality turns into an investigation. There’s no guarantee the FTC would open one, but for a transaction that both involves Amazon and is valued at more than $1 billion, there’s definitely a non-zero chance it would.

We saw something similar last year when Amazon acquired MGM Studios. The transaction kicked off a flurry of investigation and calls for stronger antitrust enforcement — but when you get right down to it, “film studio” is not Amazon’s core business, nor is it anything like the largest player in the space, and so regulators worldwide more or less said, “ugh, OK, fine,” and Amazon moved forward as if the FTC had, too.

It’s worth noting, though, that even if the waiting period closes uneventfully, that doesn’t mean the FTC is done with Amazon. Even though the MGM transaction closed uneventfully in the spring, media reports from late May and early June suggest the commission is still deeply probing the transaction.

What would regulators be looking for?

Historically, U.S. antitrust regulators are concerned with intense concentration in a specific, tightly defined market. As an example, let’s say four companies manufacture widgets, and each of those companies has 25% market share. If Widgets Inc. purchases two of its competitors and achieves 75% market share, it gains outsized power and can distort the market around it. The remaining company, holding 25% market share, will have a harder time competing and new competitors will be extremely hard to spin up.

But Amazon, despite its prior efforts in health care, is not a major competitor in the present landscape. Even an extremely determined Amazon foe with an axe to grind would have a hard time making a case that Amazon is dominant in or controls the U.S. health care market, because it doesn’t.

What Amazon does do is put tentacles out into a hundred market segments at once: It’s the biggest U.S. cloud services provider. It’s the biggest U.S. ecommerce site. It’s an Emmy- and Oscar-nominated streaming video service. It’s a surprisingly competitive music streaming service. It’s a high-end supermarket chain. It’s a shipping and logistics company. It’s even a pharmacy.

In short, if antitrust enforcement is usually concerned with the whales that move through the world hoovering up all the food (i.e. smaller companies) in their sight, Amazon is in comparison a giant squid, extending its reach farther away and grasping tightly. And while that might still be deadly if you’re metaphorically swimming nearby, there just isn’t as much of a playbook around for dealing with it.

Where regulators are starting to get concerned, though, is the way Amazon ties its various offerings together. Sometimes bundles can be hugely beneficial to consumers, but depending on how they’re shaped and enforced, they can also be harmful to would-be competitors. In the retail space, for example, the Fulfillment by Amazon program allows shoppers to buy from several disparate third-party merchants easily and at once, but merchants complain Amazon’s terms harm their business financially.

One Medical’s model is membership-based: For a fee of about $200 per year, participants get access to the entire One Medical system and all its features. Basically, it’s streamlined medical care as a service. That business model may sound awfully familiar to Amazon’s more than 160 million U.S. Prime subscribers, who pay $139 per year for access to the full array of Amazon goods and free shipping on those goods.

But when the Prime parent acquires a company that already has a fan base, things change. Amazon has “Amazonified” Whole Foods since acquiring the grocer, for example, and now ties some of its products and benefits to a Prime subscription. Whole Foods customers have not always been happy with the way those services have been integrated, and neither have employees. Some vendors have also had a harder time getting their products onto store shelves and out to consumers than before the acquisition, thanks to Amazon changing Whole Foods’ purchasing structure and leveraging its size to make vendors charge less for their products and cover more costs.

Perhaps more critically, Amazon also ties all the data from its various services and offerings together. And while grocery data is personal, a preference for organic avocados or fresh chocolate chip cookies is not anywhere near as sensitive as the kind of data a primary care practice has available about its patients. While some of that information is explicitly covered by HIPAA, other health care data that technology companies can glean from individuals is not. Several One Medical members immediately aired their concerns about data on Twitter as soon as the transaction was announced.

Although consumer data has not traditionally been something the FTC considers when reviewing a merger, user data is one of the concerns the agency has expressed about Microsoft’s pending acquisition of video game publisher Activision Blizzard. If the agency does dig into the One Medical deal at all, there’s a good chance it would start there.

Google TV will gain fitness tracker support, wireless audio features

A closer integration with fitness trackers is part of the company’s goal to make TVs a key pillar of the Android ecosystem.

Making TVs more capable comes with increasing hardware and software requirements, leading Google to advise its partners to build more-capable devices.

Photo: Google

Google wants TV viewers to get off the couch: The company is working on plans to closely integrate its Android TV platform with fitness trackers, which will allow developers to build interactive workout services for the living room.

Google representatives shared those plans at a closed-door partner event last month, where they painted them as part of the company’s “Better Together” efforts to build an ecosystem of closely integrated Android devices. As part of those efforts, Google is also looking to improve the way Android TV and Google TV devices work with third-party audio hardware. (Google launched Android TV as an Android-based smart TV platform in 2014; in 2020, it introduced Google TV as a more content-centric smart TV experience based on Android TV.)

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Sponsored Content

How Global ecommerce benefits American workers and the U.S. economy

New research shows Alibaba’s ecommerce platforms positively impact U.S. employment.

The U.S. business community and Chinese consumers are a powerful combination when it comes to American job creation. In addition to more jobs, the economic connection also delivers enhanced wages and a growing GDP contribution on U.S. soil, according to a recent study produced by NDP Analytics.

Alibaba — a leading global ecommerce company — is a particularly powerful engine in helping American businesses of every size sell goods to more than 1 billion consumers on its digital marketplaces in China. In 2020, U.S. companies completed more than $54 billion of sales to consumers in China through Alibaba’s online platforms.

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

What the fate of 9 small tokens means for the crypto industry

The SEC says nine tokens in the Coinbase insider trading case are securities, but they are similar to many other tokens that are already trading on exchanges.

While a number of pieces of crypto legislation have been introduced in Congress, the SEC’s moves in court could become precedent until any legislation is passed or broader executive actions are made.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

When the SEC accused a former Coinbase employee of insider trading last month, it specifically named nine cryptocurrencies as securities, potentially opening the door to regulation for the rest of the industry.

If a judge agrees with the SEC’s argument, many other similar tokens could be deemed securities — and the companies that trade them could be forced to be regulated as securities exchanges. When Ripple was sued by the SEC in late 2020, for example, Coinbase chose to suspend trading the token rather than risk drawing scrutiny from federal regulators. In this case, however, Coinbase says the nine tokens – seven of which trade on Coinbase — aren’t securities.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.


Werner Vogels: Enterprises are more daring than you might think

The longtime chief technology officer talked with Protocol about the AWS customers that first flocked to serverless, how AI and ML are making life easier for developers and his “primitives, not frameworks” stance.

"We knew that if cloud would really be effective, development would change radically."

Photo: Amazon

When AWS unveiled Lambda in 2014, Werner Vogels thought the serverless compute service would be the domain of young, more tech-savvy businesses.

But it was enterprises that flocked to serverless first, Amazon’s longtime chief technology officer told Protocol in an interview last week.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.


Dark money is trying to kill the Inflation Reduction Act from the left

A new campaign is using social media to target voters in progressive districts to ask their representatives to vote against the Inflation Reduction Act. But it appears to be linked to GOP operatives.

United for Clean Power's campaign is a symptom of how quickly and easily social media allows interest groups to reach a targeted audience.

Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The social media feeds of progressive voters have been bombarded by a series of ads this past week telling them to urge their Democratic representatives to vote against the Inflation Reduction Act.

The ads aren’t from the Sunrise Movement or other progressive climate stalwarts, though. Instead, they’re being pushed by United for Clean Power, a murky dark money operation that appears to have connections with Republican operatives.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Latest Stories