Stéphanie FournierAt a lecture at the NYU Game Centre in May 2026, former Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aimé shared one of the most candid business ethics stories in gaming history: an Amazon executive asked Nintendo for an "obscene amount of financial support" so the retail giant could undercut Walmart's price on Wii and DS consoles. Fils-Aimé's response was direct — "That's illegal. I can't do that." After a moment of silence, Amazon confirmed that was their condition, and Nintendo pulled both systems from sale on the platform.
The story quickly circulated among gaming communities and business observers alike. But for lawyers who work with small and mid-size businesses across Canada, Reggie's anecdote describes something they see regularly — just with less famous protagonists.
What Amazon Was Asking Nintendo to Do
What the unnamed Amazon executive described is a form of predatory pricing facilitation: pressuring a supplier to fund below-cost retail pricing that creates an unfair competitive advantage against other retailers. In most developed economies — including both the United States and Canada — this type of arrangement can violate competition and antitrust law.
In Canada, the Competition Act explicitly prohibits price maintenance and abuse of dominant market position. Section 76 of the Act addresses resale price maintenance — when a supplier is pressured to support specific pricing arrangements in a way that limits a retailer's ability to compete fairly. Section 79 addresses abuse of dominance, which applies when a dominant firm (like a major e-commerce platform) uses its market position to extract unfair commercial terms from suppliers.
Amazon's request, as Fils-Aimé described it, fits the broad pattern of what competition regulators examine when they investigate large retail platforms.
Why This Is Not Just a Gaming Story
Canadian businesses deal with Amazon Canada every day. It is Canada's largest e-commerce platform, and for many sellers, being de-listed or losing Buy Box placement can mean a significant loss of revenue overnight. In that context, an aggressive request from a retail platform — even if legally questionable — creates real pressure.
The power imbalance Reggie describes is familiar: a massive retailer controls your access to millions of consumers. Refusing may be the right answer legally and ethically, but it comes with commercial consequences. Nintendo was big enough to absorb them. Most Canadian small businesses are not.
What makes Fils-Aimé's story instructive is what he did next: he identified the request as illegal in real time, said so clearly to the Amazon executive, and then acted on it. Most suppliers in that situation would seek legal counsel — but the key step that Reggie's story illustrates is recognizing that a request is potentially illegal in the first place.
Signs That a Commercial Request May Violate Competition Law
Canadian competition lawyers see businesses miss these red flags regularly:
Pressure to match a competitor's price or fund a retailer's discounting: If a large retailer is asking you to subsidize a below-cost sale they're making to undercut your other retail customers, that subsidy arrangement may constitute price maintenance.
Most-favoured-nation clauses with aggressive scope: An MFN clause that requires you to give a single platform your best pricing, and prevents you from offering better terms to anyone else (including your own website), can be anti-competitive depending on how it's structured.
Exclusivity tied to preferential treatment: "You'll get better shelf placement if you agree not to sell through [competitor]" is a conditional arrangement that Canadian courts have examined under abuse of dominance provisions.
Verbal pressure with no paper trail: Amazon's request to Nintendo, as Fils-Aimé described it, appears to have been made verbally. When a dominant commercial partner makes a request your legal team would reject if they saw it in writing — and makes it casually over a call or meeting — that context is significant.
What Nintendo's Response Teaches About Setting Limits
Reggie Fils-Aimé's immediate, clear refusal and follow-through is a model that Canadian competition lawyers recommend: name the problem, document the conversation, and act on the legal conclusion.
Nintendo's response was:
- Immediately identify the request as illegal
- Tell the counterpart directly that it could not comply
- Walk away from the relationship when Amazon confirmed that was their condition
According to Canada's Competition Bureau, businesses that face potentially illegal commercial pressure from dominant trading partners can file complaints that trigger formal investigation. This does not require the business to prove the law was broken — only that there are grounds for the Bureau to examine the conduct.
In practice, most Canadian businesses don't pursue this route for fear of losing the relationship. But documenting the request, seeking legal advice, and — if appropriate — refusing and walking away, is exactly what Reggie's story shows works.
When to Consult a Competition Lawyer
If your business has been asked by a major platform, retailer, or distributor to enter into an arrangement that involves pricing, exclusivity, or preferential treatment that limits your commercial freedom, the time to consult a lawyer is before you sign — not after.
On ExpertZoom, Canadian lawyers with competition law experience are available for direct consultations with business owners navigating complex commercial relationships. Reggie Fils-Aimé had the advantage of a legal team behind him. You don't have to face these conversations alone either.
