8 ms·

Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Amazon promoting its own brands is completely different

Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Amazon promoting its own brands is completely different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. You're confusing a bazaar with a retail store; the two are nothing alike legally or economically. The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment basis in which case it only sales for units actually sold). Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer. Moreover, in essentially all cases, the name brand also made the store brand. In contrast, Amazon not only sells alongside its third-party sellers, it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products. Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that. The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies.

tracer4201 6y ago
Not taking a stance on the main topic, but this isn’t entirely accurate. I worked at gas stations and managed a grocery store during my early days. It depended on the product. With Frito Lay and Pepsi products, they’d often times put stuff on shelves and we’d only pay for what we sold. Similarly, for certain breads and packaged pastries and other items, anything that didn’t sell by the date on the package would get credited to the store. If the item didn’t sell, it’s not that we always just absorbed the cost.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  None of what you said conflicts with how the transactions are actually characterized for legal, tax, and financial purposes. Suppliers often credit stores for unsold inventory if they want to maintain a relationship with the store. As most B2B transactions are paid via invoices on a net-terms basis, this may mean discounts on future orders or credits against outstanding invoices. But you're store already acquired those products.
OpieCunningham 6y ago
Supermarkets do not pay for product as you describe. Manufacturers and/or distributors pay the supermarkets slotting fees to get their products on the shelves. Additionally, slotting fees are higher for ideal shelf location, and in some cases proximity to competitor products. For example, the bottom shelves are undesirable. And then you have end caps which are highly desirable.
- tomtheelder 6y ago
  Slotting fees are real, but of course supermarkets pay for the product. How else would the manufacturer be paid? The fee is basically paying for the right to shelf space, but the supermarket still buys the product to fill the shelves. Also, not all supermarkets, including not all large chains, have such fees.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    They're paid when the product clears. Many big chains like Walmart and Best Buy don't own a significant portion of inventory on shelves or in warehouses. The manufacturers own the inventory up until the products are paid for by the customer.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      This is simply false. Chains like Walmart and Best Buy own their inventory (i.e., they hold legal title). They simply might not have forked over the cash yet, which is very different--for a variety of reasons, the actual transfer of cash can take place weeks or even months later. (This is how invoicing works with most companies. If you are an independent contract, you know exactly how this works.) Very few products in retail are sold on a consignment basis (meaning, when the product sells). Generally, only new products or slow-selling big-ticket items (like refrigerators) get sold on consignment (or similar) arrangements.
      - noizejoy 6y ago
        Legal title isn’t the end-all depending on how the entire contract is structured. e.g. A home owner may hold legal title to a home, but the mortgage is a side contract that may show that the bank may hold more than half of the entire home value. Legal title is just one of many arbitrary constructs that get applied, typically in a way that’s most advantageous to the more powerful party in the relationship. Forking or not forking over cash can be a key component of who really holds the business risk (rather than just legal title).
granzymes 6y ago
Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer. That might be true if Safeway is going to buy the same number of cereal boxes from you every quarter, but that's not what happens. Stores adjust their purchases based on what sells, so if Safeway starts promoting their own cereal then they will start buying less of yours. Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that. Supermarkets frequently charge slotting fees to appear on their shelves. The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies. Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.
- mthoms 6y ago
  None of what you wrote is really relevant to the point the parent was making. They were highlighting the upfront risk of paying for the inventory itself. Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever. The vast, vast majority of other retailers do. Consignment arrangements are the exception, not the rule. Slotting fees, like buying ads on Amazon, have absolutely nothing to do with inventory costs. >Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock. There's exceptions to everything and the parent explicitly mentioned that.
  - colechristensen 6y ago
    > Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever. This is a bit extreme. “Shipped and sold by Amazon” is indeed a large part of their online retail and many people try to buy only directly from Amazon.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      We seem to have come full circle back to the original point. Amazon chooses which products to stock and sell direct based on the risk/reward ratio of each individual product. They determine that ratio by analyzing their 3rd party merchants data. See the problem? Amazon can eliminate/minimize their own risk based on data from their supposed "partners".
actuator 6y ago
So many inaccuracies in this. > it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products. Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it. > Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that. > But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies. Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it. Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers. Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that. I don't know why techies keep pushing this like it means something. The store brand product IS MADE BY THE NAME BRAND SUPPLIER. I repeat, the store brand is just a different SKU offered under the name brand's white label product line. For example, Home Depot's RIGID tool like is made by the same company that makes Milwaukee and Ryobi. Those store brand cereals are made by General Mills. The store brand milk comes from the same regional dairies as the local regional name brand. Every single one of Costco's Kirkland signature products is made for them by a supplier that makes their own name brand products. Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data. No, because Shopify doesn't compete against its own sellers. The antitrust concern arises solely because Amazon is both the platform and a competitor and it uses its access as the platform provider to acquire data to compete.
  - cowsandmilk 6y ago
hnick 6y ago
> Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer. Supermarket economics are more complex. Brands have to pay to go on promotion, and they have to pay to appear in the catalogue. I've heard placement fees for mailbox catalogue placements can be a significant bulk of revenue for some companies. My wife recently started in a new company with retail products and was appalled at what goes on, but it's normal. The supermarket wants to promote your product? Pay up. Per product. They choose which, not you. If you don't, there's a good chance your shelf space gets replaced by a competitor next time it's under review. If you do, you'll often lose money while it's on sale. It's a very predatory arrangement enabled by the duopoly here in AU.
aerovistae 6y ago
> Moreover, in essentially all cases, the name brand also made the store brand. Whoa, what? Total news to me. Source? Or do you work in this sector? This is really interesting.
- jrmg 6y ago
  They might make it, but it’s generally a different, cheaper, product. You can easily see this with food - the ingredients and nutrition information will usually be different.
- noizejoy 6y ago
  This kind if rebadging has been happening in many industries for a very long time. I bumped into this first, way back in the heyday of CD burners, deep diving on all the info and comparisons I could find. The high end Sony and some bargain brand were identical units apart from the case and badge. A real aha moment in my life. With cars, there are often just superficial differences to create a much larger perceived value difference between an Audi or VW or a Lexus or Toyota (on some models). I find this topic quite fascinating, as it relates to human psychology.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  It's been an open secret for decades. There are a lot of sources online, see for exapmle https://hip2save.com/tips/store-brands-made-by-name-brands/ https://hip2save.com/tips/store-brands-made-by-name-brands/. White labeling is frequently more profitable than selling a name brand product because you don't have to spend money on marketing, but due to the different level of quality in most store brand products, the suppliers generally prefer to leave their brand off the package and put only the legal minimum identifying info require. As a result, unless you actually work for one of the brands involved (the store or the supplier) it's extremely hard to know who the supplier is. But every store brand product you buy in a major U.S. retail chain is made by a manufacturer of a name brand product in the same space. (On a similar note, most U.S. "craft" whiskey is made by the same distillery. White labeling for the win. https://www.whiskyadvocate.com/different-craft-whiskey-mgp-distillery/ https://www.whiskyadvocate.com/different-craft-whiskey-mgp-d...)
fbelzile 6y ago
Thank you. This is the first time I've seen my thoughts on this explained so clearly. This is something I felt was unfair but couldn't quite pare it down in a succinct argument like that. It just feels so obvious. What leads someone as smart as Bezos to ignore this line of reasoning? Even if it turns out that it's not "illegal," I feel like deep down, people inside the company just know what they're doing is slimy, or at least, unfair. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of Amazon to call itself a marketplace (or 'bazaar') to avoid future legislative action?
- siliconmountain 6y ago
  It’s not accurate though (see other comments). The one I’m amazed by is the assertion that “ The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment basis in which case it only sales for units actually sold)” which is leaving a lot of money off the table Supermarkets might pay for the product, but Kellogg’s, Budweiser, etc pay them for shelf space, eye level, end of aisle placement, etc. there is a dozen ways they make money off the sellers. Supermarkets don’t just pay for product as a textbook marketplace
  - fbelzile 6y ago
    > Supermarkets might pay for the product, but Kellogg’s, Budweiser, etc pay them for shelf space, eye level, end of aisle placement, etc. there is a dozen ways they make money off the sellers. I don't see how this invalidates the analogy. Brands paying for eye-level placement is the same as 'sponsored products' on Amazon. Any Amazon Seller has a right to do this and Amazon has the right to sell this access. Just like any brand has the right to meet eye-level requirements. Yes, supermarkets have a store brand. Yes, they may also place store brand items at eye-level at no cost. But! I think there are two key differences: 1) In most cases, supermarkets buy from the existing product manufacturer at wholesale in order to be able to slap their brand on the product and use other cost saving measures (ie: bland, cheaper packaging, etc) to sell the same product at a lower price. In cases where they don't buy from the manufacturer, the copy of the product is likely not covered by a patent or is different enough as to not infringe on the patent/trademark. 2) Many Amazon Sellers are small independent companies, just look at their success stories page [1] to see the extent to which they market to small business owners. These businesses likely can't afford to patent their products and when Amazon decides to copy their product (based off the data they collected [2]), they can't defend themselves and their product effectively. Not all Amazon brand products are a problem. The biggest issue is the exploitation of companies in a certain 'sweet spot' on its platform. These small businesses have taken on risk to provide a good product that sells well, but aren't big enough to patent the product or hire lawyers. Maybe Amazon is just a symptom caused by the imbalance of power in the economy right now. Either way, it's unfair and should be fixed. I think separating Amazon "the marketplace" and Amazon "the competing store brand" would help (as long as Amazon "marketplace" sells store data to Amazon "brand name" at the same price it offers everyone else). A law requiring store brand items to be made from an existing manufacturer in it's "marketplace" would also help. Supermarkets would be mostly unaffected, Amazon would need to a) buy the product from it's Sellers at wholesale volume (like a supermarket) and b) compete based on other merits like faster shipping, customer service, etc. [1] https://www.amazon.com/b?node=13496283011 https://www.amazon.com/b?node=13496283011 [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its-own-sellers-to-launch-competing-products-11587650015 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its...
sumedh 6y ago
> it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products Why do you think physical retailers are not doing the same thing?
dcolkitt 6y ago
> But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies. Antitrust law only considers consumer welfare. It's perfectly legal to use monopoly power to squeeze third-party suppliers. Especially if any of those cost-savings are passed along to consumers in the form of lower prices. (Which is pretty indisputable with Amazon.) Antitrust only exists to protect consumers, not other businesses, competitors or suppliers.

tracer4201 6y ago

Not taking a stance on the main topic, but this isn’t entirely accurate. I worked at gas stations and managed a grocery store during my early days. It depended on the product. With Frito Lay and Pepsi products, they’d often times put stuff on shelves and we’d only pay for what we sold. Similarly, for certain breads and packaged pastries and other items, anything that didn’t sell by the date on the package would get credited to the store. If the item didn’t sell, it’s not that we always just absorbed the cost.

gamblor956 6y ago
None of what you said conflicts with how the transactions are actually characterized for legal, tax, and financial purposes. Suppliers often credit stores for unsold inventory if they want to maintain a relationship with the store. As most B2B transactions are paid via invoices on a net-terms basis, this may mean discounts on future orders or credits against outstanding invoices. But you're store already acquired those products.

OpieCunningham 6y ago

Supermarkets do not pay for product as you describe. Manufacturers and/or distributors pay the supermarkets slotting fees to get their products on the shelves. Additionally, slotting fees are higher for ideal shelf location, and in some cases proximity to competitor products. For example, the bottom shelves are undesirable. And then you have end caps which are highly desirable.

tomtheelder 6y ago
Slotting fees are real, but of course supermarkets pay for the product. How else would the manufacturer be paid? The fee is basically paying for the right to shelf space, but the supermarket still buys the product to fill the shelves. Also, not all supermarkets, including not all large chains, have such fees.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  They're paid when the product clears. Many big chains like Walmart and Best Buy don't own a significant portion of inventory on shelves or in warehouses. The manufacturers own the inventory up until the products are paid for by the customer.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    This is simply false. Chains like Walmart and Best Buy own their inventory (i.e., they hold legal title). They simply might not have forked over the cash yet, which is very different--for a variety of reasons, the actual transfer of cash can take place weeks or even months later. (This is how invoicing works with most companies. If you are an independent contract, you know exactly how this works.) Very few products in retail are sold on a consignment basis (meaning, when the product sells). Generally, only new products or slow-selling big-ticket items (like refrigerators) get sold on consignment (or similar) arrangements.
    - noizejoy 6y ago
      Legal title isn’t the end-all depending on how the entire contract is structured. e.g. A home owner may hold legal title to a home, but the mortgage is a side contract that may show that the bank may hold more than half of the entire home value. Legal title is just one of many arbitrary constructs that get applied, typically in a way that’s most advantageous to the more powerful party in the relationship. Forking or not forking over cash can be a key component of who really holds the business risk (rather than just legal title).

granzymes 6y ago

Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer. That might be true if Safeway is going to buy the same number of cereal boxes from you every quarter, but that's not what happens. Stores adjust their purchases based on what sells, so if Safeway starts promoting their own cereal then they will start buying less of yours. Notably, and very importantly: Amazon does not pay for the third-party sellers products available on its website, the third-party sellers have to pay that. Supermarkets frequently charge slotting fees to appear on their shelves. The manufacturers get paid either way (by the retailer, third-party seller, or Amazon if Amazon.com is the seller). But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies. Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock.

mthoms 6y ago
None of what you wrote is really relevant to the point the parent was making. They were highlighting the upfront risk of paying for the inventory itself. Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever. The vast, vast majority of other retailers do. Consignment arrangements are the exception, not the rule. Slotting fees, like buying ads on Amazon, have absolutely nothing to do with inventory costs. >Supermarkets often have contracts where they can return stock to suppliers if it is defective or not selling well and do not always own their stock. There's exceptions to everything and the parent explicitly mentioned that.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  > Amazon does not assume any of this risk. Ever. This is a bit extreme. “Shipped and sold by Amazon” is indeed a large part of their online retail and many people try to buy only directly from Amazon.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    We seem to have come full circle back to the original point. Amazon chooses which products to stock and sell direct based on the risk/reward ratio of each individual product. They determine that ratio by analyzing their 3rd party merchants data. See the problem? Amazon can eliminate/minimize their own risk based on data from their supposed "partners".

actuator 6y ago

So many inaccuracies in this. > it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products. Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it. > Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that. > But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies. Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data.

gamblor956 6y ago
Every retail chain has data on what gets sold inside and where it was kept, how it was promoted etc. They can very well use this data and most probably are using it. Yes, they are. They use this data to determine what products (specifically, what SKUs) to re-order from their suppliers. Only till the time when their store brand starts selling much better and consumers develop a relationship with that. I don't know why techies keep pushing this like it means something. The store brand product IS MADE BY THE NAME BRAND SUPPLIER. I repeat, the store brand is just a different SKU offered under the name brand's white label product line. For example, Home Depot's RIGID tool like is made by the same company that makes Milwaukee and Ryobi. Those store brand cereals are made by General Mills. The store brand milk comes from the same regional dairies as the local regional name brand. Every single one of Costco's Kirkland signature products is made for them by a supplier that makes their own name brand products. Isn't this very similar to the third party sellers having their own Shopify store and someone discovering it through Google Search/FB Shop instead of Amazon Search. The only argument that makes sense here is the usage of data. No, because Shopify doesn't compete against its own sellers. The antitrust concern arises solely because Amazon is both the platform and a competitor and it uses its access as the platform provider to acquire data to compete.
- cowsandmilk 6y ago

hnick 6y ago

> Thus, it is irrelevant to the manufacturer whether the supermarket promotes their store-brand product or the name brand product; they've already been paid by their primary customer. Supermarket economics are more complex. Brands have to pay to go on promotion, and they have to pay to appear in the catalogue. I've heard placement fees for mailbox catalogue placements can be a significant bulk of revenue for some companies. My wife recently started in a new company with retail products and was appalled at what goes on, but it's normal. The supermarket wants to promote your product? Pay up. Per product. They choose which, not you. If you don't, there's a good chance your shelf space gets replaced by a competitor next time it's under review. If you do, you'll often lose money while it's on sale. It's a very predatory arrangement enabled by the duopoly here in AU.

aerovistae 6y ago

> Moreover, in essentially all cases, the name brand also made the store brand. Whoa, what? Total news to me. Source? Or do you work in this sector? This is really interesting.

jrmg 6y ago
They might make it, but it’s generally a different, cheaper, product. You can easily see this with food - the ingredients and nutrition information will usually be different.
noizejoy 6y ago
This kind if rebadging has been happening in many industries for a very long time. I bumped into this first, way back in the heyday of CD burners, deep diving on all the info and comparisons I could find. The high end Sony and some bargain brand were identical units apart from the case and badge. A real aha moment in my life. With cars, there are often just superficial differences to create a much larger perceived value difference between an Audi or VW or a Lexus or Toyota (on some models). I find this topic quite fascinating, as it relates to human psychology.
gamblor956 6y ago
It's been an open secret for decades. There are a lot of sources online, see for exapmle https://hip2save.com/tips/store-brands-made-by-name-brands/ https://hip2save.com/tips/store-brands-made-by-name-brands/. White labeling is frequently more profitable than selling a name brand product because you don't have to spend money on marketing, but due to the different level of quality in most store brand products, the suppliers generally prefer to leave their brand off the package and put only the legal minimum identifying info require. As a result, unless you actually work for one of the brands involved (the store or the supplier) it's extremely hard to know who the supplier is. But every store brand product you buy in a major U.S. retail chain is made by a manufacturer of a name brand product in the same space. (On a similar note, most U.S. "craft" whiskey is made by the same distillery. White labeling for the win. https://www.whiskyadvocate.com/different-craft-whiskey-mgp-distillery/ https://www.whiskyadvocate.com/different-craft-whiskey-mgp-d...)

fbelzile 6y ago

Thank you. This is the first time I've seen my thoughts on this explained so clearly. This is something I felt was unfair but couldn't quite pare it down in a succinct argument like that. It just feels so obvious. What leads someone as smart as Bezos to ignore this line of reasoning? Even if it turns out that it's not "illegal," I feel like deep down, people inside the company just know what they're doing is slimy, or at least, unfair. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of Amazon to call itself a marketplace (or 'bazaar') to avoid future legislative action?

siliconmountain 6y ago
It’s not accurate though (see other comments). The one I’m amazed by is the assertion that “ The supermarket pays for everything on its store shelves (except, rarely, for certain new products on a consignment basis in which case it only sales for units actually sold)” which is leaving a lot of money off the table Supermarkets might pay for the product, but Kellogg’s, Budweiser, etc pay them for shelf space, eye level, end of aisle placement, etc. there is a dozen ways they make money off the sellers. Supermarkets don’t just pay for product as a textbook marketplace
- fbelzile 6y ago
  > Supermarkets might pay for the product, but Kellogg’s, Budweiser, etc pay them for shelf space, eye level, end of aisle placement, etc. there is a dozen ways they make money off the sellers. I don't see how this invalidates the analogy. Brands paying for eye-level placement is the same as 'sponsored products' on Amazon. Any Amazon Seller has a right to do this and Amazon has the right to sell this access. Just like any brand has the right to meet eye-level requirements. Yes, supermarkets have a store brand. Yes, they may also place store brand items at eye-level at no cost. But! I think there are two key differences: 1) In most cases, supermarkets buy from the existing product manufacturer at wholesale in order to be able to slap their brand on the product and use other cost saving measures (ie: bland, cheaper packaging, etc) to sell the same product at a lower price. In cases where they don't buy from the manufacturer, the copy of the product is likely not covered by a patent or is different enough as to not infringe on the patent/trademark. 2) Many Amazon Sellers are small independent companies, just look at their success stories page [1] to see the extent to which they market to small business owners. These businesses likely can't afford to patent their products and when Amazon decides to copy their product (based off the data they collected [2]), they can't defend themselves and their product effectively. Not all Amazon brand products are a problem. The biggest issue is the exploitation of companies in a certain 'sweet spot' on its platform. These small businesses have taken on risk to provide a good product that sells well, but aren't big enough to patent the product or hire lawyers. Maybe Amazon is just a symptom caused by the imbalance of power in the economy right now. Either way, it's unfair and should be fixed. I think separating Amazon "the marketplace" and Amazon "the competing store brand" would help (as long as Amazon "marketplace" sells store data to Amazon "brand name" at the same price it offers everyone else). A law requiring store brand items to be made from an existing manufacturer in it's "marketplace" would also help. Supermarkets would be mostly unaffected, Amazon would need to a) buy the product from it's Sellers at wholesale volume (like a supermarket) and b) compete based on other merits like faster shipping, customer service, etc. [1] https://www.amazon.com/b?node=13496283011 https://www.amazon.com/b?node=13496283011 [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its-own-sellers-to-launch-competing-products-11587650015 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its...

sumedh 6y ago

> it uses its access to their sales data to come up with its own competing products Why do you think physical retailers are not doing the same thing?

dcolkitt 6y ago

> But in the case of Amazon, the third-party sellers on Amazon's website get screwed, and that is where the antitrust concern lies. Antitrust law only considers consumer welfare. It's perfectly legal to use monopoly power to squeeze third-party suppliers. Especially if any of those cost-savings are passed along to consumers in the form of lower prices. (Which is pretty indisputable with Amazon.) Antitrust only exists to protect consumers, not other businesses, competitors or suppliers.