From the article:
> 5 percent profit margin on Amazon’s own retail sales
Last I checked, 5 percent margin is still making a profit, and definitely doesn't fit the definition of dumping nor predatory pricing.
Part of the theory hinges on this:
> However, Sussman asserts in his paper, “Amazon utilizes existing loopholes in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) disclosure regulations to exclude a significant portion of its expenses.”
> Amazon accomplishes this in part through using capital leases to purchase equipment and some of its 288 million square feet of office space. Instead of paying cash, Amazon borrows and finances these purchases over time. The leases don’t show up as expenses in Amazon’s free cash flow calculations, even though the equipment is listed as an asset. A 2017 Motley Fool report showed that, when you add in capital leases, Amazon’s 2017 cash flow was indeed over $1 billion in the red, although more recent numbers have bounced back.
Again though, there's nothing illegal about a firm using debt to finance expansion, nor is there anything illegal about a firm's net profit being negative, especially if there's positive cashflow from selling to consumers.
The whole article is nothing more than theories without any proof that Amazon is actually dumping products. And like I said, running thin margins isn't illegal. Undercutting your competition isn't illegal. Scaling out so your costs are less than your competition isn't illegal. You need to prove that a firm is actually dumping, it's not enough to think that they might be because they're out-competing you.
More from the article:
> As Sussman explains, if Amazon is recouping losses from a predatory pricing scheme by reducing its costs, the windfall profits aren’t being transferred to customers.
Reducing their costs to realize a profit literally is passing on the benefits to customers by continuing to sell at a low price.