5 ms·

> alleging that its pricing policy functions as an “anticompetitive restraint” that has “artificially raised the price of goods to consumers across online marke

by rkk3 5y ago

> alleging that its pricing policy functions as an “anticompetitive restraint” that has “artificially raised the price of goods to consumers across online marketplaces” They are arguing that Amazon policy of having the lowest price for listings, artificially inflates the prices? So in order to not inflate prices, Amazon needs to raise prices???

jessaustin 5y ago
They could leave their prices as they are. The suggestion is that they should stop punishing vendors who sell for less through other stores.
mint2 5y ago
Sellers are not allowed to price lower on other online sites, how does Amazon setting a minimum allowed price not keep prices higher? Are you thinking of if Amazon had instead set a maximum allowed price policy?
- rkk3 5y ago
  > not allowed to price lower on other online sites Except the the policy is you cannot list on Amazon at a higher price, because they can only dictate the terms of their platform. Are they setting a minimum or a maximum? "Setting a price on a product or service that is significantly higher than recent prices offered on or off Amazon" [1]https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5TUVJKZHUVMN77V https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5TUVJKZHU...
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    The two statements are logically equivalent. If you can't list at a higher price on Amazon than anywhere else, then you also can't list at a lower price elsewhere.
    - rkk3 5y ago
      Not really, you have to make several huge assumptions for them to get close to logical equivalence like 1) ALL PRODUCTS ARE LISTED ON AMAZON 2) ALL PRODUCTS ARE LISTED ON AMAZON BY THE ORIGINAL UNIQUE MANUFACTURER Are two major ones.
  - mint2 5y ago
    The net effect is Amazon is setting a minimum price on sellers listings outside Amazon’s walled garden, forcing all prices to be the inflated Amazon prices. If a seller wants to sell on momnpop-example.com which only takes a 5% cut and Amazon.com with its 30-40% cut, they are disallowed to pass any of the lower overhead for customers on momnpop-example.com back to the customer as they must price the same as on Amazon. I guess it’s a little confusing because when Amazon sets a maximum price policy on their marketplace pegged against others, it in effect creates a minimum price policy on other marketplaces.
    - rkk3 5y ago
      > I guess it’s a little confusing because when Amazon sets a maximum price policy on their marketplace pegged against others, it in effect creates a minimum price policy on other marketplaces. I just don't find it a convincing argument of harm to the consumer. Let's look at restaurants & delivery apps as distribution channels. They charge 12-15 dollars through the menu on the app for a 10 dollar-hamburger if I had ordered in person, because the margins are different. It's not benefiting the consumer, it's benefiting the business and is actually a deceptive practice to the consumer.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        This example proves the opposite of what you appear to intend. Amazon is the more expensive channel. Of course they would want to force the in-person hamburger price up to $15, so no one gets off his ass and walks down the block when he craves a hamburger. Doordash or whoever don't have the market power to do that now. If somehow they gained such market power (say a worse covid strain appears and only their drivers get to deliver food?), that would harm both consumers and restaurants, helping only the abusive rent-seeking middleman. Free people don't have to abide this kind of shit. This has been illegal in USA since 1890. The only hope for Amazon is to hire every decent economic torts lawyer in the nation before e.g. Shopify get their act together. This is open-and-shut restraint of trade. Given the sums involved, it might actually be possible that a year or two could pass when Bezos doesn't get even more stinking rich...
jjoonathan 5y ago
LOL that's some serious spin. "Amazon policy of having the lowest price" = Amazon punishes any listings if they discover off-amazon channels with lower prices and savings passed on to consumers. That right there is the very spirit of anticompetitive behavior. Refined, distilled, purified, and concentrated. And yes, it absolutely raises prices and puts the proceeds squarely in Amazon's pocket.
- viro 5y ago
  Or you're not allowed to punish Amazon customers for using Amazon and charging more on the platform....
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    If I'm selling widgets and eBay wants a $5 cut while Amazon wants a $10 cut, it is Amazon that is asking for $5 more. Not me.
    - viro 5y ago
      The customer doesn't care. It's the price of business. Charge the same price or don't use the platform.
      - jjoonathan 5y ago
        Wow, this thread is lousy with Amazon spin doctors! A. It's Amazon doing the charging, B. No, it's the price of a regulatory environment that frees the largest distribution channel from the need to compete on price, and C. we're talking about the legality of retaliating for exactly that.
        viro 5y ago
        A. who sets the price? ... not amazon. B & C You want to pass on standard costs of business on to the customer. The fair pricing rule restricts that practice and is pro consumer. As a consumer I don't care the rule hurts ur bottom line. Just like sellers paying for fake reviews should be criminal fraud.

by rkk3 5y ago

jessaustin 5y ago

They could leave their prices as they are. The suggestion is that they should stop punishing vendors who sell for less through other stores.

mint2 5y ago

Sellers are not allowed to price lower on other online sites, how does Amazon setting a minimum allowed price not keep prices higher? Are you thinking of if Amazon had instead set a maximum allowed price policy?

rkk3 5y ago
> not allowed to price lower on other online sites Except the the policy is you cannot list on Amazon at a higher price, because they can only dictate the terms of their platform. Are they setting a minimum or a maximum? "Setting a price on a product or service that is significantly higher than recent prices offered on or off Amazon" [1]https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5TUVJKZHUVMN77V https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/G5TUVJKZHU...
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  The two statements are logically equivalent. If you can't list at a higher price on Amazon than anywhere else, then you also can't list at a lower price elsewhere.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    Not really, you have to make several huge assumptions for them to get close to logical equivalence like 1) ALL PRODUCTS ARE LISTED ON AMAZON 2) ALL PRODUCTS ARE LISTED ON AMAZON BY THE ORIGINAL UNIQUE MANUFACTURER Are two major ones.
- mint2 5y ago
  The net effect is Amazon is setting a minimum price on sellers listings outside Amazon’s walled garden, forcing all prices to be the inflated Amazon prices. If a seller wants to sell on momnpop-example.com which only takes a 5% cut and Amazon.com with its 30-40% cut, they are disallowed to pass any of the lower overhead for customers on momnpop-example.com back to the customer as they must price the same as on Amazon. I guess it’s a little confusing because when Amazon sets a maximum price policy on their marketplace pegged against others, it in effect creates a minimum price policy on other marketplaces.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > I guess it’s a little confusing because when Amazon sets a maximum price policy on their marketplace pegged against others, it in effect creates a minimum price policy on other marketplaces. I just don't find it a convincing argument of harm to the consumer. Let's look at restaurants & delivery apps as distribution channels. They charge 12-15 dollars through the menu on the app for a 10 dollar-hamburger if I had ordered in person, because the margins are different. It's not benefiting the consumer, it's benefiting the business and is actually a deceptive practice to the consumer.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      This example proves the opposite of what you appear to intend. Amazon is the more expensive channel. Of course they would want to force the in-person hamburger price up to $15, so no one gets off his ass and walks down the block when he craves a hamburger. Doordash or whoever don't have the market power to do that now. If somehow they gained such market power (say a worse covid strain appears and only their drivers get to deliver food?), that would harm both consumers and restaurants, helping only the abusive rent-seeking middleman. Free people don't have to abide this kind of shit. This has been illegal in USA since 1890. The only hope for Amazon is to hire every decent economic torts lawyer in the nation before e.g. Shopify get their act together. This is open-and-shut restraint of trade. Given the sums involved, it might actually be possible that a year or two could pass when Bezos doesn't get even more stinking rich...

jjoonathan 5y ago

LOL that's some serious spin. "Amazon policy of having the lowest price" = Amazon punishes any listings if they discover off-amazon channels with lower prices and savings passed on to consumers. That right there is the very spirit of anticompetitive behavior. Refined, distilled, purified, and concentrated. And yes, it absolutely raises prices and puts the proceeds squarely in Amazon's pocket.

viro 5y ago
Or you're not allowed to punish Amazon customers for using Amazon and charging more on the platform....
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  If I'm selling widgets and eBay wants a $5 cut while Amazon wants a $10 cut, it is Amazon that is asking for $5 more. Not me.
  - viro 5y ago
    The customer doesn't care. It's the price of business. Charge the same price or don't use the platform.
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      Wow, this thread is lousy with Amazon spin doctors! A. It's Amazon doing the charging, B. No, it's the price of a regulatory environment that frees the largest distribution channel from the need to compete on price, and C. we're talking about the legality of retaliating for exactly that.
      - viro 5y ago
        A. who sets the price? ... not amazon. B & C You want to pass on standard costs of business on to the customer. The fair pricing rule restricts that practice and is pro consumer. As a consumer I don't care the rule hurts ur bottom line. Just like sellers paying for fake reviews should be criminal fraud.