FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

Post by pests » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 9:51 PM UTC

hotnfresh wrote: post #399

Buttons840 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Amazon avoid liability for selling scam products? Do they claim to be "just the middleman" and pass responsibility onto ghost-in-the-night companies selling the scam products? Or do they just abuse the legal system and make justice too expensive to be worth it? I don't know the law very well, but I would hope there's a legal doctrine that responsibility has to effectively land somewhere. If a company is pass…

I have no idea, but companies routinely do shit that I assume would at least get me a fine in a hurry if I tried it. I don’t know how it works either. Like I’d have assumed deliberately dumping e-waste all over city sidewalks would get you a steep fine and an order to come pick them up or face an even steeper one within a matter of days—plus an absolute liability nightmare if, god forbid, anyone tripped over them and…

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 9:51 PM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #447

heleninboodler wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UPPERCASENONSENSENAMES are so obvious it makes me wonder if this is a target-selection technique in the same vein as the 419 scammers use -- make it so only the most clueless people would ever buy your garbage product, so you get a lower percentage of people who are going to report you.

The thing is, it's 2023, we all "know" that every company's product get made in the same factory and there's just a fork at the end of the conveyor where they get different branding slapped on. So the gamble is that UCNN is sourced out of the exact same factory as the product/brand you actually want. It's the the evolution of the Warby Parker model.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 9:52 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #371

wolverine876 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just gets passed down to the customers. That's a common but not an accurate belief: As a business owner pricing a product or service, if your costs increase you can either take the marginal cost out of your net income or increase the price. Taking it out of your net income is simple: You keep prices the same, revenue remains the same, and profit drops a bit. Increasing the price is more complex; you are changing…

It's not just elasticity. The main weight on your prices is your competitors' prices.

Post by ben0x539 » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #388

nwiswell wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but think that Amazon should be replaced with a non-profit or regulated public utility that provides a single unified online marketplace, part of internet infrastructure like ICANN. Sellers would select among competing fulfillment services (warehouse+shipping). Platform referral fees would go toward customer remediation, anti-counterfeiting, and review integrity. I don't merely say this as a "fuck Amazon…

> I can't help but think that Amazon should be replaced with a non-profit or regulated public utility that provides a single unified online marketplace, part of internet infrastructure like ICANN. if the market was working correctly Amazon's profits would be driven down to zero and you'd effectively have this > As a matter of fact I would suggest that Amazon as it exists is anti-capitalist. It is feudal. absolutely

Post by throw9away6 » Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 9:57 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #389

hotnfresh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What especially rankles is how Amazon doesn’t give a fuck about counterfeits. So they’re allowing counterfeits (amplifying the mentioned effect) to discourage direct-sellers from attempting to compete on price. Meanwhile, I have to order from direct sellers to be sure I will get a genuine, new product. So I don’t even get Amazon’s lower-but-still-higher-than-optimal price, but a yet higher one. As far as I’m concerne…

How does Amazon avoid liability for selling scam products? Do they claim to be "just the middleman" and pass responsibility onto ghost-in-the-night companies selling the scam products? Or do they just abuse the legal system and make justice too expensive to be worth it? I don't know the law very well, but I would hope there's a legal doctrine that responsibility has to effectively land somewhere. If a company is pass…