Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 653 posts

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#321

Post by bryan_w »

imchillyb wrote: post #292
endisneigh wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon controls around 35% of all US e-commerce. Not being able to sell on Amazon instantly removes most of your available customers Math doesn't check out. Not to mention that if sellers stopped selling on Amazon they wouldn't control so much. How exactly is making everyone sell on Amazon going to solve anythin? Sellers should stop using Amazon if they don't like their policies, and the issues will correct themsel…

Or, hear me out here, The Federal Trade Commission orders a study done and the study corroborates the general sentiment here that Amazon is abusing their power in the marketplace. So, the FTC then sues Amazon. Your 'feelings' about how this works only matters to you. The US branch of oversight for trade has declared (with a lawsuit) that this behavior is unconscionable and either is or will be illegal by the time thi…

> The Federal Trade Commission orders a study done

> the study corroborates the general sentiment

Seems fishy ... Good thing that even corporations like Amazon get a day in court.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#322

Post by granzymes »

helen___keller wrote: post #318
granzymes wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the FTC's lawsuit, Amazon no longer binds its sellers with a Most Favored Nation clause. Instead, Amazon now will refuse to promote an offer in its "buy box" space if it detects a lower price for that good on another website. The FTC alleges that this simply reconstitutes the MFA since most sales on Amazon take place from the buy box. Amazon responds that it is within its rights to not promote uncompetit…

Does anyone have examples of popular / name brand products that are pushed down in ranking due to this? I would love to see for myself how this looks in practice

Here's one of the examples that the FTC cites in its complaint (at page 27):

https://www.amazon.com/Pilot-Retractable-Rollerball-Extra-Re...

Compare it to this listing for a very similar product:

https://www.amazon.com/Pilot-Retractable-Rollerball-Ultra-0-...

You'll see that in the FTC's example, you need to click to see more buying details and that at the time of this comment the lowest price is $14.28 with free shipping (on October 12th for my location).

In the other example, the "buy box" highlights the best offer of $9.99 with free shipping (on October 5th for my location).

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#323

Post by nickff »

exabrial wrote: post #25

Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, break them all up. And for the love of crap, stop approving billion dollar mergers.

Why? You seem to be expressing outrage, anger, or frustration, but you're not giving the rest of us anything to think about.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#324

Post by scarface_74 »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #159
endisneigh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Let's use your example. The sellers should stop selling that item on Amazon, and sell their light bulb on Walmart, or where-ever. Customers who really need that will go find it at Walmart, or where-ever. This strengthens the competitors to Amazon, which is bad for Amazon and good for the consumer. The consumer also find the lower price that they wanted. Alternatively, they buy the alternate product on Ama…

You’re just wrong, Amazon controls around 35% of all US e-commerce. Not being able to sell on Amazon instantly removes most of your available customers. The second largest is Walmart and it’s closer to 7%. Walmart, target, whatever, don’t add up to Amazons market.

And how much of the stuff that these sellers are just cheap Chinese crap that they wouldn’t be able to sell at all if Amazon didn’t exist?

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#325

Post by scarface_74 »

mjsweet wrote: post #26
endisneigh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the problem with this. They don't have to sell on Amazon to begin with. Amazon obviously wants their customers to have the best price available. Sellers can just go off Amazon if they don't like it. If sellers end up raising the price on other platforms as a result of this rule, then that says more about them than Amazon. Demanding the lowest price does not harm consumers. Overstock, Wayfair, Walmart and…

From what I understand, it’s not that simple. Sellers need the sheer volume of Amazon to compete. There is also the risk of Amazon duplicating their product and continuing to sell it on their platform… or their competitors filling the void.

If your product doesn’t have any value that can be protected by copyright, patent and you haven’t built any type of affinity with customers, isn’t it by definition just another commoditized product?

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#326

Post by scarface_74 »

ARussell wrote: post #108
endisneigh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is. Yes, but at the end of the day Amazon to remove the seller for any reason, so even if the FTC succeeds here, Amazon will simply purge those sellers who are not offering the best price, even if not explicitly stated. There is no reality where Amazon allows their site to be inundated with higher priced…

Perhaps you are right, and also then again perhaps those companies find that they have cause to file a lawsuit.

There has been a a standard of “no duty to deal” forever. No company is forced to do business with anyone.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#327

Post by dgb23 »

granzymes wrote: post #309
thelastgallon wrote: post #17

An excerpt from: https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/ Amazon binds its sellers over to something called Most Favored Nation status. That means that sellers can't offer their goods more cheaply than they do on Amazon – even if it costs them (lots) less to sell in Target or direct from their websites. This means that every time a seller adds a dollar to their Amazon sale price, they have to add a dollar to…

According to the FTC's lawsuit, Amazon no longer binds its sellers with a Most Favored Nation clause. Instead, Amazon now will refuse to promote an offer in its "buy box" space if it detects a lower price for that good on another website. The FTC alleges that this simply reconstitutes the MFA since most sales on Amazon take place from the buy box. Amazon responds that it is within its rights to not promote uncompetit…

This argument seems sound.

Amazon is not a neutral entity or a public space. It's a private platform with its own interests that are very often in conflict with sellers.

There is this weird cultural expectation of platforms and platform-like applications (social media, multiplayer video games, online stores, proprietary libraries/engines, even entertainment media "universes" and franchises etc.). Participants and consumers seem to think that these platforms are somehow public spaces that they partially own, or at least they act that way.

But you only own what you actually own.

There are legal instruments and structures that actually let you partially own things and/or grant you rights so you can act on these kinds of expectations: coops, open source and other such licenses etc.

When internet culture and commerce wants to mature, then maybe we should start focusing more on building on _legally_ trustworthy foundations.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#328

Post by scarface_74 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #39
endisneigh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the problem with this. They don't have to sell on Amazon to begin with. Amazon obviously wants their customers to have the best price available. Sellers can just go off Amazon if they don't like it. If sellers end up raising the price on other platforms as a result of this rule, then that says more about them than Amazon. Demanding the lowest price does not harm consumers. Overstock, Wayfair, Walmart and…

So, to be clear, you have no problem with Amazon writing their own laws and collecting their own taxes? Because that is what they are effectively doing.

Every company has the right to set the terms and fees to use them. A “tax” is something you are mandated to pay. I get plenty of crap advertised to me on FB that you can’t find on Amazon.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#329

Post by ericjmorey »

hef19898 wrote: post #220
EGreg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No need to open source. Just to pick some examples to build something similar to Amazon's fulfillment part as it was like 6 years ago: Shopify as the front end CargoWise for transportation, warehousing and everything logistics Which leaves some of the more sophistiticated stuff like demand ballancing across the network, but that is doable by either developing something in-house or throwing an ERP system into tue mix.…

How do you get people to visit your site or use your app?

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#330

Post by taeric »

abduhl wrote: post #316
taeric wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've ever been on the interstate system, then you are basically with me. Literally it would be trivial in today's world to have a hookup on your car to check your speed against the local signage on a somewhat real time basis. Sounds absurd, but there is a pretty good chance every long haul truck you see out there is doing exactly that. Similarly, mens rea is a thing. Such that statutory enforcement of rules is o…

I think most people who have driven on the interstate are quite aware that police arbitrarily pull people over for many things given the vast number of laws that are continuously broken by all drivers. I do not think a regime where you’re always breaking a law and can be pulled over just for driving while black is a good example when advocating for prosecutorial discretion. I’d prefer a system that doesn’t result in…

Ah, agreed. And if you take the worst possible interpretation of my post I can see how you get there.

My point was that many rules get enforced on a cost benefit based system. Especially in business where enforcement is necessarily an expensive undertaking. Ideally, part of enforcement will include evolution of the rules so that people don't grow into a situation where what they are doing is suddenly illegal. That said, many of the rules we are looking at here are more along the lines of "you left interstate driving and are now in a city." That is, the landscape and situation pretty much has to factor into the rules. Is why you would be an asshole for worrying about the kid's lemonade stand down the corner. Any grandstanding on how the rules apply universally is... well, just not useful.

Post reply on HN