France’s highest administrative court has rejected US retailer Amazon’s bid to overturn a minimum delivery charge on books introduced to protect independent booksellers.
According to a Reuters report, the Conseil d’Etat ruled in favour of a government regulation from October 2023 that requires online retailers to levy a minimum fee of €3 ($3.51) on book orders under €35.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
The rule was a direct response to Amazon’s practice of charging just one euro cent per book delivery – a pricing strategy critics said made meaningful competition impossible for smaller retailers.
Amazon had contested the measure because it constituted protectionism and conflicted with European Union law, but the court rejected those arguments.
According to the publication, an Amazon spokesperson was quoted as saying: “This is a disappointing decision – most of all for readers who are already navigating a cost-of-living squeeze and bear the cost of this tax on reading, and the tens of millions of French people with no bookstore nearby.”
The retailer has previously argued that its online book sales provide equitable access to consumers across France, particularly in areas where physical bookshops are scarce – a significant concern given that the country’s booksellers are predominantly concentrated in cities.
The ruling is part of a long-running pattern of regulatory friction between France and major technology companies over cultural policy.
Retail Insight Network has reached out to Amazon for comment.
The decision comes shortly after Amazon announced plans to invest more than €15bn in France between 2026 and 2028 – its largest ever financial commitment to the country – spanning logistics infrastructure, cloud computing and AI development, as well as day-to-day operating costs.
Separately, Amazon faced legal action in California in March, where a court filing alleged that the company had pressured suppliers and competing retailers to raise prices on rival platforms or withdraw products from those sites, rather than competing on price.
