On Monday, Bloomberg reported that the Federal Trade Commission is weighing a lawsuit against Amazon over its advertising business — specifically the “reserve pricing” floors in the auctions that decide which sponsored listings appear when you search for a toothbrush or a phone charger. The ad business in question brought in $68.6 billion last year, per Amazon’s own filing. Seth Godin, whose blog post on the “Amazon tax” went viral this week, calls the system “legal theft.” The FTC, presumably, calls it an antitrust violation.

Both are wrong in the same way.

It’s a Tax, Not a Monopoly

Godin’s post is careful to say the Amazon tax “isn’t technically a tax” because taxes produce public benefits — parks, medical research, roads. The ad system produces none of that. But the more precise description is the opposite: it is a tax, and that’s exactly the problem.

A tax is compulsory, levied by a sovereign, extracted from subjects. Amazon’s ad system is compulsory for sellers — if you don’t pay, you’re invisible in the search results that drive nearly all marketplace sales. It’s levied by a sovereign — Amazon owns the marketplace, sets the rules, and answers to no electorate. And it’s extracted from subjects — the third-party merchants who built their businesses on Amazon’s promise of customer-centric discovery.

The difference between Amazon’s tax and a real tax isn’t that Amazon’s produces no public benefit. It’s that Amazon’s produces no public. There’s no legislature, no oversight, no recourse. The toll booth is private property, and the toll is whatever the landlord says it is.

The FTC Is Fighting the Last War

The FTC’s investigation centers on “reserve pricing” — price floors that advertisers must meet before they can buy an ad. The theory, as Bloomberg has reported, is that Amazon is using its market power to extract supra-competitive rents. That’s an antitrust theory. It treats Amazon as a monopolist in a market of competitors.

But Amazon doesn’t have competitors in its own marketplace. It has tenants. The sellers who pay the Amazon tax can’t take their business to a rival marketplace, because there isn’t one that matters — not because Amazon is a monopoly in the legal sense, but because Amazon is the marketplace. It’s not a competitor in a market; it’s the market itself.

If the FTC wins on reserve pricing, what actually changes? Amazon restructures the auction. The ad revenue doesn’t disappear — it gets re-labeled as “placement fees” or “promotion services.” The toll booth stays; only the signage changes. The FTC is fighting the last war, with a toolkit designed for a world where a monopolist raises prices and consumers can, in theory, go elsewhere. Amazon’s sellers can’t go elsewhere. They can only pay.

The People Who Should Be Alarmed

The conventional take — Godin’s, the FTC’s, the Hacker News thread’s — frames the Amazon tax as a consumer harm. Consumers pay slightly more; search results get slightly worse. That’s true, but it’s the least interesting part of the story.

The people who should be most alarmed are the sellers. The third-party merchants who built their businesses on Amazon’s promise that the best product wins. That promise was always contingent on Amazon not needing their money. Now Amazon needs their money — $68.6 billion of it last year — and the promise is being quietly retired.

One seller I spoke with this week — a mid-sized electronics brand that’s been on Amazon since 2015 — put it plainly: “We used to compete on price and reviews. Now we compete on ad budget. The product doesn’t matter as much as the bid.” He’d rather I not use his name — criticizing Amazon’s ad system is, in his words, “a good way to get your listings buried.”

That’s the real story. The Amazon tax isn’t a tax on consumers. It’s a toll on sellers — a rent extracted by a private sovereign from the merchants who built its marketplace. And the FTC’s antitrust toolkit can’t touch it, because the problem isn’t that Amazon is too big. The problem is that Amazon is a government, and governments don’t answer to antitrust law.

Sources