The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
thebignewsletter.com
The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
1–10 of 653 posts
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#2We need a new act that explicit addresses platform economics antitrust.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#3We need a new act that explicit addresses platform economics antitrust.
Actually we don't. We just need the bureaucracy and judiciary to overturn the last 50 years of subversion of the original intent of the antitrust acts. The appointment of Lina Khan was a good first step on that path. This case is a good second step.
But a new act would make the process a lot simpler. Judicial precedence is powerful and doesn't change quickly or easily. A new law would make precedence for the old law moot.
IANAL.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#4We need a new act that explicit addresses platform economics antitrust.
Actually we don't. We just need the bureaucracy and judiciary to overturn the last 50 years of subversion of the original intent of the antitrust acts. The appointment of Lina Khan was a good first step on that path. This case is a good second step. But a new act would make the process a lot simpler. Judicial precedence is powerful and doesn't change quickly or easily. A new law would make precedence for the old law…
We have a good sense that there are problems, but specific problems aren’t enumerated and so proving they’re not ok is tough.
The EU’s Digital Market Act is a good step.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#5Fair play to this reporter for shining a light on all this, especially in relation to the redactions. Hopefully the secret court restrictions are lifted.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#6This has been pretty obvious for a while. Whenever I do product searches on Amazon the prime eligible results are more expensive by exactly the shipping costs of the non prime vendors.
The only reason I keep it is for the video service which I'm guessing is the same for a lot of people.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#7Good!
Though, to be fair, the switching cost for a consumer to start using Target.com (for example) isn't that high. I go to vendors like Target.Com, HomeDepot.Com, BestBuy.com and AliExpress.com for most of the things I used to use Amazon for.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#8This has been pretty obvious for a while. Whenever I do product searches on Amazon the prime eligible results are more expensive by exactly the shipping costs of the non prime vendors. The only reason I keep it is for the video service which I'm guessing is the same for a lot of people.
> The only reason I keep it is for the video service which I'm guessing is the same for a lot of people.
Which will start having ads unless you pay a fee for the ad-free experience starting next year [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/09/22/1201028854/amazon-prime-video...
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#9We need a new act that explicit addresses platform economics antitrust.
Actually we don't. We just need the bureaucracy and judiciary to overturn the last 50 years of subversion of the original intent of the antitrust acts. The appointment of Lina Khan was a good first step on that path. This case is a good second step. But a new act would make the process a lot simpler. Judicial precedence is powerful and doesn't change quickly or easily. A new law would make precedence for the old law…
It does feel like some updating would be helpful. The existing language, for example recognizes that markets are sometimes restricted by geography, that you don't need market domination nationwide to be a monopoly. But it doesn't recognize modern day non-geo boundaries. Like, for example, poor people are mostly stuck in an Android "monopoly" because they can't afford an iPhone. It's a separate market. That's just one example. Captive app stores and their relationship with developers are another. I imagine there's more.
Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”
#10We need a new act that explicit addresses platform economics antitrust.
Actually we don't. We just need the bureaucracy and judiciary to overturn the last 50 years of subversion of the original intent of the antitrust acts. The appointment of Lina Khan was a good first step on that path. This case is a good second step. But a new act would make the process a lot simpler. Judicial precedence is powerful and doesn't change quickly or easily. A new law would make precedence for the old law…
I'm gonna disagree - the original act from 1890, still used, had interpretation issues from the start, which all of the "subversion" you speak of comes from.
It is a difference in how the text is read for sure, but the text is badly written.
It says ""Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. . . ."
The immediate problem with this is easy. he act does not define restraint of trade, either, so courts were left to define it.
This led, nearly instantly, to limiting the act to those contracts that "unduly" restrict trade using the rule of reason.
"To treat as condemned by the act all agreements under which, as a result, the cost of conducting an interstate commercial business may be increased would enlarge the application of the act far beyond the fair meaning of the language used. There must be some direct and immediate effect upon interstate commerce in order to come within the act."
Standard Oil, quoting Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States (1899).
Standard Oil also goes into the fact that restraint of trade is not defined anywhere in the act, etc, as further justification.
All that has happened since then is deciding what "unduly" means for this section
At this point, the sherman act is 133 years old. It would be good to update it and make the language less subject to interpretation.