They occasionally do anticompetitive things IMO bc that’s what I’m aware of. There may be (likely are) other anticompetitive things that they do which I am not aware of bc they have not been discovered yet.

“The vast majority” of their products seems like a stretch. But setting that aside, many economists (including me) are skeptical of a “predatory pricing” argument.

The idea that a firm would actually lose money for years to get rid of competitors in order to then raise prices later makes us skeptical. (At the very very least it would be extremely expensive - and then as soon as you raise prices and act like a monopolist you attract the attention of regulators!)

Separate from the question of whether a firm would actually do it, if a firm were doing it, would it be bad for consumers during that time?

Suppose Amazon is currently engaged in predatory pricing and is selling everything at a loss, below cost, but will in the future drive all of its competitors out of business and then raise prices... (note: I don’t think this is a plausible theory of Amazon’s behavior at all.)

Why shouldn’t the regulator just take its time regulating? If everyone in the market is getting goods below cost, that seems like a win for consumers. If and when Amazon decides to act like a monopolist and raise prices later... regulate them! But if they want to lose money selling cheap stuff now, this seems like a win for consumers now so... let them!

Predatory pricing arguments are not that well received in most of the economics profession, in part for these reasons.