Amazon must face US nationwide class action over third-party sales

Post by briffle » Tue, Sep 02, 2025, 8:59 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #18

p1necone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this approach seems to fly all the time for large businesses. Plucky startup takes the 'ask forgiveness rather than permission' approach and ignores a bunch of regulations, legal system doesn't care because they're just a plucky startup. 10 or so years later plucky startup is a massive corpo, another 5 or so years later the legal system catches up but they're a massive corpo making piles of cash and the…

>up but they're a massive corpo making piles of cash and the worst the legal system can do at that point is penalize them with the equivalent of pocket change compared to the piles of cash they made while ignoring those regulations. Examples? Usually when I see this argument being brought up, it's usually something like "[multinational megacorp] fined $x for breaking Belgian privacy laws", and then people pile in say…

Post by gruez » Tue, Sep 02, 2025, 9:07 PM UTC

solardev wrote: post #20

gruez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at Amazon's filings, the argument they made is the following: >Given the unprecedented size of the proposed class consisting of 288 million members, the individualized issues on which their claims depend, and the overwhelming evidence that the challenged conduct resulted in lower prices in Amazon’s store, Plaintiffs have not—and cannot demonstrate that a class action would be manageable. The "individualized i…

I don't see the difference between what the lawyers are saying and the parent's summary of it. > we've wronged too many people to be held accountable Sounds like exactly what it is... it's too big of a class to be managed, and therefore should not be? In fact, the very next line is the judge saying: > Chun found there was no evidence at this stage that the size of the class was overbroad. Other federal courts had cer…

Post by radpanda » Tue, Sep 02, 2025, 9:10 PM UTC

tonetegeatinst wrote: post #17

nickff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal government actually makes that argument all the time, and often prevails with it.

What sources do you have to back this claim up?

Post by solardev » Tue, Sep 02, 2025, 9:13 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #23

solardev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the difference between what the lawyers are saying and the parent's summary of it. > we've wronged too many people to be held accountable Sounds like exactly what it is... it's too big of a class to be managed, and therefore should not be? In fact, the very next line is the judge saying: > Chun found there was no evidence at this stage that the size of the class was overbroad. Other federal courts had cer…

>Sounds like exactly what it is... it's too big of a class to be managed, and therefore should not be? You missed the other 2 of the 3 parts of that argument. >In fact, the very next line is the judge saying: I'm not saying they're objectively right, just that there's more to the argument than "we've wronged too many people to be held accountable".

Post by IncreasePosts » Tue, Sep 02, 2025, 9:18 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #4

> The consumers’ 2021 lawsuit said Amazon violated antitrust law by restricting third-party sellers from offering their products for lower prices elsewhere on rival platforms while they are also for sale on Amazon. I've noticed that third-party sellers generally get around this by having the same list price on their own site, but basically offering everyone a coupon for 15-30% off. Not just for signing up for e-mails…