Live data from Hacker News

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

thebignewsletter.com

531–540 of 653 posts

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

#531

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…

>uncompetitive offers that make its site look bad for not having the lowest available price.

Those costs are Amazon specific... Way to shoot oneself in the foot.

Why should Amazon get to offload their own uncompetitiveness onto sellers?

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

#532

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…

> Amazon responds that it is within its rights to not promote uncompetitive offers Sounds to me like Amazon has found a loophole in the law. It agrees to list anything for sale, with no anti competitive conditions, but then only recommends customers buy things that it believes are in the customers best interests. The FTC will struggle to argue that is illegal. Amazon can't be compelled to recommend stuff. (free speec…

[deleted]

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

#533
post #502

Much of what Amazon does is what other retailers already do. Amazon just does it more overtly and with smaller businesses. In fact, various aspects of this where pioneered by WalMart and Costco. 1. WalMart determines the expected product and expected price and tells vendors to take it or leave it. The agreement often has a stipulation that the same product can never be cheaper elsewhere which is sometimes easy as Wal…

I hate that every discussion of reigning in abusive companies has to come with 1000 comments about how other companies are also being abusive, which should apparently make us just wave the white flag. Nah, let's deal with all the monopolies, and Amazon is a good place to start since like you said, they are just incredibly blatant.

It's obvious astroturfing.

The top two posts with the most upvotes are "Ebay is just as bad" for the startoff line, and "Everybody's just as bad as Amazon. Why are you being so mean and cruel to Amazon?"

Obvious astroturfing, just like the entire Amazon review ecosystem. Surprise? No.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ Bezos' wealth relative to "normal" shown as 1-pixel comparisons. Be careful once you get to the $Trillion portion (you'll be scrolling for the rest of your life.)

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

#534

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…

> Amazon responds that it is within its rights to not promote uncompetitive offers Sounds to me like Amazon has found a loophole in the law. It agrees to list anything for sale, with no anti competitive conditions, but then only recommends customers buy things that it believes are in the customers best interests. The FTC will struggle to argue that is illegal. Amazon can't be compelled to recommend stuff. (free speec…

> what they recommend is in the consumers immediate best interests.

How? Amazon routinely recommends products to me that are objectively inferior compared to other products. For example, I just searched for "peak design travel tripod" and the number one result, which is also marked with "Overall Pick", is a tripod made by a company with the name of KINGJUEEQUESTER that looks like it's made out of cardboard tubes, but at least comes with a free 21 piece lens filter set and selfie stick for $18.99. And it has 3000+ 5 star reviews that are almost nearly identical. "Edward Von McTavish: The KINGJUEEQUESTER tripod arrived. It is of the most impressive quality. The Leg Lock feature fulfills my needs. I recommend for you."

The thing I'm actually searching for isn't even on the first page of results. It's on page two, under "More Results" and has a title of "Peak Design Travel Tripod (Carbon Fiber)" and is priced at $599.95 (the same price you'll find on Peak Design's site).

How is it that showing me anything other than what I searched for supports me as a consumer?

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

#535

Much of what Amazon does is what other retailers already do. Amazon just does it more overtly and with smaller businesses. In fact, various aspects of this where pioneered by WalMart and Costco. 1. WalMart determines the expected product and expected price and tells vendors to take it or leave it. The agreement often has a stipulation that the same product can never be cheaper elsewhere which is sometimes easy as Wal…

Isn't that totally different? I thought brick and mortar stores actually buy inventory (or commit to buy orders in this age of just-in-time) where Amazon is just the middleman connecting buyers and sellers and charging fees on both ends. If Amazon wants to commit to certain sizes of orders, I'm sure the vendors will be happy with contractual price setting.

Amazon warehouse inventory is held ahead of time. That's how the commitment to some stock levels works today.

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

#536
post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that every discussion of reigning in abusive companies has to come with 1000 comments about how other companies are also being abusive, which should apparently make us just wave the white flag. Nah, let's deal with all the monopolies, and Amazon is a good place to start since like you said, they are just incredibly blatant.

"all the monopolies"

The precise term would be the oligopolies.

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

#537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are touching on a point that Benedict Evans has made quite eloquently in the past: >There was a joke a few years ago that rent is the new [Customer Acquisition Cost], and that now applies to everything. The [Total Addressable Market] for search ads is not ‘advertising’ (let alone online advertising) but everything that is spent to reach and serve a customer, starting with retail rents. This applies to Amazon, but…

>There will be no site that does not offer advertising, because advertising allows the site to determine which sellers can afford to pay more while still being profitable. It's still possible that people exist who charge "what it's worth" rather than "what they can get". Those people can still make a fine living off of a two sided market place through flat transaction fees. Craigslist is an example that comes immedia…

But you need the entire marketplace to follow that rule.

You cannot charge "what it's worth" on amazon because you either pay the ad tax or you compete for the lowest price.

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

#538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately or unfortunately, that is something that is easy to research. ie: Amazon Basics https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/amazon-copied-produ... > thousands of pages of internal Amazon documents examined by Reuters – including emails, strategy papers and business plans – show the company ran a systematic campaign of creating knockoffs and manipulating search results to boost its own product lines in India,…

Again have you heard of the Kirkland’s brand? Have you been to a CVS and seen the knockoffs? Literally every single major retailer has house brands that compete with third parties.

Your "What about Kirkland" -ism is irrelevant.

A big company can stall a copyright lawsuit for as long as it wants. Small companies cannot win against a large compamy like Amazon in court.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-14-fi-19337-...

Especially when they can just twist the court system however they wish.

Small victories like the chain wrench lawsuit against Sears happen. But they are rare.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bionic-wrench-sea...

Your response shows that you did no read the article. They specifically show cases where Amazon copied sizes:

> Among the victims of the strategy: a popular shirt brand in India, John Miller, which is owned by a company whose chief executive is Kishore Biyani, known as the country's "retail king." Amazon decided to "follow the measurements of" John Miller shirts down to the neck circumference and sleeve length, the document states.

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

#539
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing people don't get about making competitors to Facebook, Twitter, and other centralized platforms as well. You don't need to boil the ocean in order to serve a single community. For example, Facebook started in Harvard and its value to everyone in Harvard was based on how many people in Harvard used it, not how many people in the world used it. Similarly, if a single product vendor and their customers…

> Similarly, if a single product vendor and their customers form a community, then a free market of fulfillment companies can spring up to stock that specific product, and then partner with the delivery companies (who have their own networks) to deliver the package. One thing that gets overlooked in this is returns. One of the big draws of Amazon is easy returns. Whenever you have decentralized fulfillment centers, r…

Amazon has also optimized returns (for itself) by making its sellers eat the cost of those returns, one way or another. That's not all that controversial, but when you consider what Amazon recommends people buy, it becomes obvious that they have no problem recommending garbage because they don't care if it gets returned. They won't eat that cost. They get the profit from the sale, then let everyone else work it out.

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

#540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t this very common among all resellers? For example if you own a hotel and want other websites to sell your availability they will only list you if you don’t list the same availability for less money. They do this in part because people use the service to search for hotels and even they find one they want they go to other places to see if it’s cheaper.

This is an antitrust lawsuit filed by the FTC, not an accusation of specifically illegal conduct. They're not saying amazon committed a crime by doing this, they're saying that it's evidence of amazon abusing their market position to create a monopoly. "most favoured nation" status is legal, creating a monopoly isn't.

You have that backwards. Monopolies are perfectly legal, it is only establishing and maintaining monopolies by improper conduct (ie specific anti-competitive practices) that is illegal. MFNs are not per se anticompetitive, but by the rule of reason they might be under certain circumstances. The FTC would have to prove that this is one such instance where MFNs are illegal conduct.
Post reply on HN