FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power • Hacker News Board

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#901

Post by burkaman » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #445

burkaman wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, why are they forced to make this specific choice? Why would they need to deduct time from their lunch break in order to use the bathroom? Using the bathroom and eating lunch are not normally mutually exclusive activities, unless there is a third party enforcing such an exclusion.

Sorry, we might be talking past one another. When I hear about peeing in bottles, I think of the delivery drivers. This is the obvious place bottles would get used, and in my recollection this was most of the reporting on the pee bottles. I believe there was also reporting on workers in the brick and mortar fulfillment center using bottles to meet their quotas, which is perhaps what you are talking about. For deliver…

Yes I thought we were talking about the warehouses (https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse... for example).

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#902

Post by hellojesus » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

SenAnder wrote: post #878

hellojesus wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and penalizing sellers offering lower prices off-Amazon Why shouldn't they be allowed to do this? If you want to sell on their market, you promise not to undercut them. Amazon exists as a discovery tool for consumers. They don't want third party sellers to get free advertising. That isn't anticompetitive.

You've explained what gives Amazon the leverage to set such terms, and why they'd want to set such terms, but you haven't explained why preventing other platforms/sellers from competing on price isn't anti- competitive - you merely asserted that it is so.

It's not anticompetitive because they aren't restricting competition off their platform. They are simply stating that to participate in their marketplace you must adhere to a set of rules.

It is no different than Nike, who requires no discounts on specific products, etc. Amazon isn't prohibiting selling on non-Amazon platforms. Amazon is prohibiting undercutting them if you choose to sell with them.

How is that anti-competitive?

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#903

Post by hellojesus » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

desert_rue wrote: post #893

hellojesus wrote: post #873

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly I included one too many words: How does it victimize?

The business takes a risk in developing and acquiring a product and Amazon uses the sales data and its platform to pick out winning products and undercut the price. The business is the victim.

The business should protect their product with a patent or other trademark then. Nobody is forcing people to provide Amazon data by selling products on Amazon.

There is no victimhood if the business voluntarily transacts.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#904

Post by hellojesus » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #894

hellojesus wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is definitionly winning the competitive market. Amazon has a competitive advantage because they have the largest inventory and almost always the cheapest prices, or at least speedy delivery for a marginally increased cost. That is the definition of winning a competitive market. The consumers win.

The FTC is arguing that Amazon is actually raising prices, so no, consumers don't win. You don't need to have lower prices long term if you control the market.

But if you raise the products now you have the opportunity for others to re-enter the market since there is arbitrage room.

I get the argument, but it's a grim reaper strategy taught in econ 101. It's a well known strategy and completely valid.

Consumers win in the short term but lose in the long term. Except they can just consume different products or wait for someone to re-enter the market.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#905

Post by hellojesus » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

jollofricepeas wrote: post #871

hellojesus wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing you mentioned harms consumers. To me it sounds like the situation is as follows: - Amazon offers a marketplace to sellers, which happens to be the largest marketplace with the most potential buyers. - Amazon charges a fee to list on their site. - Amazon doesn't let buyers sell their products for lower on a site that isn't Amazon. (Makes sense; they want to be paid for attracting consumers.) - Buyers are cost…

Consumers without jobs can’t consume.

They will get other jobs. The competing helps to efficiently allocate capital.

There's a reason for struggling artists: nobody demands their product, so they end up in different occupations that actually provide value.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#906

Post by hellojesus » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 6:32 PM UTC

thewix wrote: post #880

hellojesus wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing you mentioned harms consumers. To me it sounds like the situation is as follows: - Amazon offers a marketplace to sellers, which happens to be the largest marketplace with the most potential buyers. - Amazon charges a fee to list on their site. - Amazon doesn't let buyers sell their products for lower on a site that isn't Amazon. (Makes sense; they want to be paid for attracting consumers.) - Buyers are cost…

Cept the part about Amazon not letting you sell your goods cheaper elsewhere. That keeps the price inflated and is anti-competitive since it squashes competition from other marketplaces, not because their platform is better, mind you, but because they have all the power.

Amazon only controls their market. You play by their rules if you sell with them, and that is totally valid. You can sell your product for any price you want so long as you don't use Amazon or don't undercut them if you choose to use them.

That is totally valid. Amazon provides the eyes; they don't want to provide a service for free. Think of all the people that go to best buy to feel a product and then buy it online. Amazon doesn't want that to happen to them.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#907

Post by losteric » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 7:28 PM UTC

kiklion wrote: post #323

losteric wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The trouble with this argument (which gets made a lot) is that this is basically every large retailer. Alternatively: there's no trouble at all, Walmart/Safeway/etc are all clearly engaging in this anti-competitive practice and must be reigned in. Marketplaces need to be regulated as neutral grounds for sellers, the marketplace cannot double-dip and compete against sellers or engage in practices that reduce competi…

How is it clearly anti-competitive if they are providing a better value for the consumer? When a name brand has market power and charges a premium for a basic product, then another company entering the market and undercutting them is great for the consumer. We can make regulations to ensure that a distributor, advertiser, retailer and the product owner engage in arms length transactions but there’s nothing inherently…

When considering "better value for the customer", remember that sellers are a customer of the marketplace too (arguably the primary customer!).

imo the problem is specifically generics branded and marketed by the marketplace. That's where a conflict of interest between the marketplace and sellers arises, which ultimately harms end-customers.

Amazon Private Brands (APB) typically buys from the same companies that make the random generics like "XOFUNBO" no-name brands. The issue is Amazon can use it's insider data to buy, brand, and market generics in-house, without paying the fees charged to sellers - achieving costs that 3p sellers fundamentally cannot compete with. Amazon's own corporate training highlights that sharing sales data with 3p sellers is illegal and anti-competitive, I don't know why APB should be seen as any different.

This is not even considering how sellers need to earn end-customer trust while Amazon can muscle coasting on their trust as the marketplace.

Marketplaces must be neutral ground for sellers, full stop. No seller can be given privileged access. Otherwise the market distorts to favor a seller and that ultimately harms the end-customers in the long-term by suppressing competition.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#908

Post by SenAnder » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 7:28 PM UTC

hellojesus wrote: post #902

SenAnder wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've explained what gives Amazon the leverage to set such terms, and why they'd want to set such terms, but you haven't explained why preventing other platforms/sellers from competing on price isn't anti- competitive - you merely asserted that it is so.

It's not anticompetitive because they aren't restricting competition off their platform. They are simply stating that to participate in their marketplace you must adhere to a set of rules. It is no different than Nike, who requires no discounts on specific products, etc. Amazon isn't prohibiting selling on non-Amazon platforms. Amazon is prohibiting undercutting them if you choose to sell with them. How is that anti-…

> It's not anticompetitive because they aren't restricting competition off their platform.

Yes, they are. They are using their influence and market power to prevent others from competing on price, using the threat of economic retribution on their platform. If this isn't anti-competitive, then nothing short of sending assassins on your competitors is.

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#909

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 8:56 PM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #883

stale2002 wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lower prices for consumers is not the whole point of a competitive market. You are 40 years behind on the modern day interpretations of the anti-trust laws by the courts then. An analysis of how much consumers benefit or are harmed by certain behavior is what the courts use for most anti-trust laws. And lower prices are almost the court decided definition of a consumer benefit. So yes, the point stands. Someone els…

>You are 40 years behind on the modern day interpretations of the anti-trust laws by the courts then . . . lower prices are almost the court decided definition of a consumer benefit. That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC. She was literally put into the position she holds because she was critical of that framework for antitrust. Yes, since the 70's Bork and the Chicago school has held sway in courts,…

[deleted]

Re: FTC sues Amazon for illegally maintaining monopoly power

#910

Post by hellojesus » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:20 PM UTC

SenAnder wrote: post #908

hellojesus wrote: post #902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not anticompetitive because they aren't restricting competition off their platform. They are simply stating that to participate in their marketplace you must adhere to a set of rules. It is no different than Nike, who requires no discounts on specific products, etc. Amazon isn't prohibiting selling on non-Amazon platforms. Amazon is prohibiting undercutting them if you choose to sell with them. How is that anti-…

> It's not anticompetitive because they aren't restricting competition off their platform. Yes, they are . They are using their influence and market power to prevent others from competing on price, using the threat of economic retribution on their platform. If this isn't anti-competitive, then nothing short of sending assassins on your competitors is.

Nonsense. They are only able to influence your behavior if you use them. It is completely self selected.

It is the exact same thing as is argued by social media companies: they have the right to moderate the content posted on their platforms because it's their platforms. You can do whatever you want on your own site.