Amazon's response was by far the longest, as the company posted a 1,400 word blog post in response to the report on Tuesday.
"Large companies are not dominant by definition, and the presumption that success can only be the result of anti-competitive behavior is simply wrong. And yet, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, those fallacies are at the core of regulatory spit-balling on antitrust," Amazon writes.
Amazon delved into various areas of the report in its blog, but in particular it took issue with the subcommittee's conclusion that it is an anti-competitive conflict of interest for Amazon to both operate its marketplace and sell items on there which compete with third-party sellers.
It claims that in 1999 it tried operating two sites — one for itself and one for third-party sellers — but it was confusing for consumers.
"[The subcommittee's] ill-conceived ideas would revive, via regulation, the failed two-store model that Amazon tried two decades ago; the model that both small sellers and customers rejected," the company wrote in its blogpost.
"They would segregate sellers into separate, less visible stores, make it harder for customers to compare prices of products and, ultimately, reduce competition—all leading to higher prices and less selection," Amazon concluded.