On Friday, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia threw out a grievance that Attorney General Karl Racine had filed in opposition to Amazon accusing the retailer of anticompetitive conduct, in keeping with . , Racine’s workplace alleged that Amazon had used a wide range of contract provisions to forestall third-party sellers from providing their wares for much less elsewhere.

“We believe that the Superior Court got this wrong, and its oral ruling did not seem to consider the detailed allegations in the complaint, the full scope of the anticompetitive agreements, the extensive briefing and a recent decision of a federal court to allow a nearly identical lawsuit to move forward,” a spokesperson for the legal professional basic advised the outlet.

At the middle of Racine’s go well with was Amazon’s . In 2019, amid antitrust scrutiny, the corporate telling third-party sellers they couldn’t supply their wares at decrease costs on competing marketplaces. The grievance alleged that Amazon added a near-identical clause beneath its Fair Pricing Policy. The go well with stated that these pointers enable the corporate to impose sanctions on retailers that promote their merchandise for much less cash elsewhere.

When Racine’s workplace first filed its grievance, Amazon argued that many retailers make use of pricing restrictions of their contracts. “The DC Attorney General has it exactly backwards — sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in our store,” a spokesperson for the company told Engadget at the time. “Amazon takes pride in the fact that we offer low prices across the broadest selection, and like any store we reserve the right not to highlight offers to customers that are not priced competitively. The relief the AG seeks would force Amazon to feature higher prices to customers, oddly going against core objectives of antitrust law.”

Racine’s workplace stated it was weighing whether or not to attraction the ruling. “We are considering our legal options and we’ll continue fighting to develop reasoned antitrust jurisprudence in our local courts and to hold Amazon accountable for using its concentrated power to unfairly tilt the playing field in its favor,” it advised The Journal.