Hybrid marketplaces use fees and algorithmic self-preferencing together to raise rivals’ costs and extract rent; constraining one instrument (a fee cap or a non-discrimination mandate) reduces the other, but the combined conduct imposes monopoly-like consumer harm that standard antitrust tests can miss.

Main Finding

The paper shows that a hybrid platform’s two exclusion instruments — an ad-valorem fee on third‑party (3P) sellers (τ) and algorithmic self‑preferencing (σ) that boosts the platform’s own first‑party (1P) product visibility — are strategic complements. Contrary to a common regulatory concern that constraining one instrument simply shifts harm to the other, the authors find that regulating either instrument (a fee cap or a non‑discrimination/self‑preferencing ban) lowers the platform’s use of the other. Welfare harm comes entirely via the fee: the platform privately chooses a fee above the welfare optimum, producing a deadweight loss, while self‑preferencing raises the fee but has no direct effect on consumer surplus. The paper further shows that this conduct recreates monopolization‑like outcomes (higher prices, lower consumer welfare) without standard antitrust markers (no sacrifice, exits at break‑even, uninformative concentration measures). Dynamic extensions identify a “transitional ratchet” of fee growth with footprint expansion and possible cyclical/chaotic footprints at the product level.

Key Points

• Model primitives
  • Consumers (unit mass) choose among a 1P product A, a continuum of 3P sellers, and an outside option; utilities enter via a logit model.
  • Platform chooses an ad‑valorem fee τ on 3P revenue, a continuous self‑preferencing intensity σ (visibility boost for 1P product), and the 1P price pA. 1P is fee‑exempt.
  • 3P sellers pay fixed entry cost F, have marginal cost c; self‑preferencing has convex cost ψ(σ).
• Main analytical results (static)
  • 3P optimal price: pS = c/(1 − τ) + 1. Fee raises effective marginal cost and 3P prices.
  • Free entry pins per‑seller profit at zero: (1 − τ)sj = F, so a higher τ reduces the number of active 3P sellers (displacement at break‑even).
  • Consumer surplus W = ln D and Wτ(τ) < 0: higher τ reduces consumer surplus.
  • Platform profit decomposes into marketplace profit ΠM(τ) plus the increment from operating 1P, minus ψ(σ). Platform sets pA so that pA − pS = τ (price gap equals fee).
  • Strategic complementarity: cross‑derivative Πτσ = sA τ/(1 − τ) > 0. Fees and self‑preferencing are supermodular: raising one increases marginal returns to the other.
  • Proposition 1: best responses are increasing; a binding fee cap reduces σ; a non‑discrimination mandate (σ = 0) reduces τ.
  • Proposition 2: σ has no direct effect on consumer surplus (Wσ = 0) but reduces W indirectly by inducing a higher τ.
  • Proposition 3: total surplus decreases in τ (platform fee causes a positive deadweight loss); platform fee exceeds welfare‑maximizing fee.
  • Proposition 4: both σ and τ increase with category value v — self‑preferencing and fee intensify in high‑value categories.
• Antitrust/doctrinal implications
  • Exclusion is self‑financing: platform does not incur a sacrifice visible to standard screens.
  • Free entry implies displaced rivals exit at zero profit, so antitrust evidence of eliminations or producer losses can be absent.
  • Common market structure metrics (seller count, HHI, per‑seller profit) can be uninformative about consumer welfare: two configurations with identical statistics may differ in harm.
• Dynamic extensions
  • Category‑level rollout: categories have sizes θ; entering a category costs K and yields per‑period gains scaled by θ. Entry threshold θe = K(1 − δ)/(sA − ψ) falls with τ and (locally) is invariant to σ at the static best response.
  • Transitional ratchet: as the platform expands its 1P footprint across categories, fees rise with footprint and stabilize once expansion ends — regulatory costs accumulate with footprint expansion.
  • Product‑level turnover: with product churn the active footprint can expand/contract; the model can generate period‑three cycles and chaotic fee/footprint/welfare paths.
• Empirical and institutional motivation
  • Documents stylized facts: high and rising take‑rates at hybrid platforms (Amazon, Coupang, JD, Otto), empirical evidence of 1P ranking advantages, platform use of seller data to launch copycat 1P products, and regulatory actions (FTC complaint, EU DMA, national fines).

Data & Methods

• Methods
  • Analytical game‑theoretic model with closed‑form logit demand. Key variables:
    • D = exp(v − pA + σ) + ∫0^N exp(v − pj) dj + 1.
    • Consumer surplus W = ln D; free entry pins D via (1 − τ)sj = F.
    • Platform profit Π(σ, τ) = sA(σ, τ) + ΠM(τ) − ψ(σ), with ΠM(τ) = τ pS (1 − s0(τ)).
  • First‑order conditions yield interior solutions and comparative statics. Supermodularity established via sign of Πτσ = sA τ/(1 − τ) > 0.
  • Dynamic environments built by treating static per‑period payoffs as scaled by category size and embedding entry/adjustment costs or by introducing product turnover rules; examine optimal entry, evolution of footprint, and long‑run paths.
  • Proofs and technical derivations collected in appendix.
• Empirical framing and motivating data
  • Uses publicly reported and academic estimates for platform take‑rates (e.g., Amazon ~45% effective take in 2023), empirical studies documenting 1P ranking advantages (Farronato et al., Waldfogel), investigative reports on data use for copycat products, and references to regulatory actions (FTC complaint, EU DMA, fines).
• Modeling assumptions and limitations
  • Logit discrete choice demand, symmetric marginal cost c across 1P and 3P sellers in baseline (paper notes sensitivity and addresses asymmetric costs in Section V).
  • Continuum of infinitesimal 3P sellers and free entry (sellers displaced at break‑even).
  • Self‑preferencing enters as an additive visibility boost σ (continuous), with convex cost ψ(σ).
  • Dynamic rollout abstracts categories as iid sizes with deterministic ordering and adjustment costs.

Implications for AI Economics

• Algorithmic ranking and pricing interact with platform fee policy
  • Platform AI that ranks/recommends products (self‑preferencing σ) is not an isolated algorithmic bias issue: it changes the platform’s incentives to set fees (τ) and vice versa. Algorithmic regulation (non‑discrimination bans) can reduce fee‑driven harms; fee regulation can reduce algorithmic biases.
• Enforcement and detection: standard antitrust screens are insufficient
  • Harm mediated by algorithmic visibility decisions can be self‑financing and leave entry/exit and per‑seller profits appearing normal. Econometric and regulatory evaluations that rely on observed sacrifices, outright firm exits, or concentration measures (HHI) may miss consumer harm. AI economics must develop tests that detect self‑financing exclusion (e.g., linking algorithmic visibility to fee asymmetries and consumer surplus changes).
• Policy design
  • Single‑instrument interventions can be effective: DMA‑style self‑preferencing prohibitions can reduce fees indirectly; fee caps or limits on take‑rates can reduce self‑preferencing. Combined regimes weakly dominate single instruments.
  • Regulators should monitor platform footprint (where the platform sells 1P) and data‑driven entry patterns, not just instantaneous fees, because algorithmic/data‑driven copying expands the set of categories where harm accrues (transitional ratchet).
  • Remedies should address data access and internal use of seller data (the copycat channel), since algorithmic imitation plus visibility manipulation is central to selective entry and category rollout.
• Research directions for AI + industrial organization
  • Empirical work: measure causal links between algorithmic visibility (search/ranking signals), fees/take‑rates, and consumer welfare; test complementarity between algorithmic bias and pricing policies across categories and time.
  • Model extensions: asymmetric costs between 1P and 3P, multi‑product 1P portfolios, richer consumer demand (non‑logit), endogenous algorithmic investment and explainability constraints, platform multi‑sided pricing with advertising auctions.
  • Detection metrics: develop platform‑level statistics that reveal self‑financing exclusion (e.g., within‑platform price gaps linked to differential fee application, changes in welfare net of transfers, or abnormal patterning of new 1P launches after 3P success).
• Broader implication: AI systems that control visibility and copy product features can be instruments of anticompetitive conduct. Designing regulation and empirical diagnostics for algorithmic gatekeeping must account for strategic complementarities with platform pricing and data‑driven entry choices.

Limitations to bear in mind: results rely on logit demand and symmetric marginal costs in the baseline; discrete‑choice additive visibility modeling of algorithmic bias is a simplification of search/ranking systems; empirical calibration and tests are needed to quantify magnitudes in specific platform markets.