4 ms·

> Go to a store, this is what Walmart, Albertsons/Safeway, Costco, etc have been doing for longer than any of the FAANGs have existed. This one is substantivel

> Go to a store, this is what Walmart, Albertsons/Safeway, Costco, etc have been doing for longer than any of the FAANGs have existed. This one is substantively different. Amazon claims it is a market and not a store, and is therefore not legally responsible for things like the quality of products sold there or how they are represented. They claim that both buyers and sellers are their customers, unlike an actual store where only the buyers are the customers. So when Amazon decides to set up its own logistics company, no problem. When they use private market data to place their own products into their market, that's a different matter.

wahern 5y ago
> Amazon claims it is a market and not a store, and is therefore not legally responsible for things like the quality of products sold there or how they are represented. Amazon claims this, but at least in California they still face product liability: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-court-appeal-finds-amazon-not-shielded-liability-defective-product-sold https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-court-appeal... While on its face the outcome doesn't seem surprising to me, this may nonetheless turn out to be a very important national precedent as California was, IIRC, the first jurisdiction to both clearly establish strict product liability for manufacturers and also extend that liability to intermediate sellers in the distribution chain.
- timoth3y 5y ago
  I agree. I don't think Amazon can continue this kind of legal equivocation much longer. The claim to be "a neutral market" when questions of consumer protections arise and "just one web store among many" when questions of improper use of their market ownership arise. The California decision makes a lot of sense. Looking at their business model with their ownership of the customer relationships, control of the payment methods, and the co-mingling of inventory, it's hard to claim that Amazon is just matching buyers and sellers. I'm not really in the "break-up big tech" camp. We already have the laws needed to make companies play fair, we just need to enforce them. That said, the whole Amazon Basics model is kind of questionable. I could see that being split off and forced to operate without access to private market data or preferential placement in the marketplace.
indymike 5y ago
> They claim that both buyers and sellers are their customers, unlike an actual store where only the buyers are the customers. The garden department at your local department (Wal-Mart does this. So do most home repair places) store is operated by another company. So too is the salty snack aisle, soft drink aisle and many other departments where an outside vendor is basically renting shelf space, and paying the rent in margin at the register. In all of these cases, the store also has a house brand that is in the same aisle, competing with the big brands. So, what Amazon is doing is really the same, but in an ecommerce format. BTW, department and grocery stores were running their own logistics company long before Amazon even existed.

wahern 5y ago

> Amazon claims it is a market and not a store, and is therefore not legally responsible for things like the quality of products sold there or how they are represented. Amazon claims this, but at least in California they still face product liability: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-court-appeal-finds-amazon-not-shielded-liability-defective-product-sold https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-court-appeal... While on its face the outcome doesn't seem surprising to me, this may nonetheless turn out to be a very important national precedent as California was, IIRC, the first jurisdiction to both clearly establish strict product liability for manufacturers and also extend that liability to intermediate sellers in the distribution chain.

timoth3y 5y ago
I agree. I don't think Amazon can continue this kind of legal equivocation much longer. The claim to be "a neutral market" when questions of consumer protections arise and "just one web store among many" when questions of improper use of their market ownership arise. The California decision makes a lot of sense. Looking at their business model with their ownership of the customer relationships, control of the payment methods, and the co-mingling of inventory, it's hard to claim that Amazon is just matching buyers and sellers. I'm not really in the "break-up big tech" camp. We already have the laws needed to make companies play fair, we just need to enforce them. That said, the whole Amazon Basics model is kind of questionable. I could see that being split off and forced to operate without access to private market data or preferential placement in the marketplace.

indymike 5y ago

> They claim that both buyers and sellers are their customers, unlike an actual store where only the buyers are the customers. The garden department at your local department (Wal-Mart does this. So do most home repair places) store is operated by another company. So too is the salty snack aisle, soft drink aisle and many other departments where an outside vendor is basically renting shelf space, and paying the rent in margin at the register. In all of these cases, the store also has a house brand that is in the same aisle, competing with the big brands. So, what Amazon is doing is really the same, but in an ecommerce format. BTW, department and grocery stores were running their own logistics company long before Amazon even existed.