3 ms·
That's true, I assumed from your original comment where you said "directly from a company in the primary supply chain of the shoe company" that the shoes were f
by traek 8y ago
That's true, I assumed from your original comment where you said "directly from a company in the primary supply chain of the shoe company" that the shoes were from further up the supply chain, like a factory, rather than further down. My mistake.
Even if the product were from an authorized retailer, I don't see how the shoe company's request to Amazon was illegal. Restraint of trade means that contracts restricting commerce are in some cases unenforceable. It doesn't mean that Amazon is compelled to do business with the reseller if they would rather prioritize their relationship with the shoe company.
- edoo 8y agoIf Amazon had terminated their listings without any cause or even because of competition agreements it probably would have been legal. Since it was in direct compliance with an illegal demand and Amazon stated as such they probably doomed themselves. Judges tend to look very poorly on large companies ramrodding the small guys. The small business wasn't prepared to spend $50k+ just initiating the process and went on with their business model.