4 ms·

No business is happy with competition. That doesn't make contractual collusion any less anti-competitive. If it is, as you allege, the norm, that only makes dea

No business is happy with competition. That doesn't make contractual collusion any less anti-competitive. If it is, as you allege, the norm, that only makes dealing with it more urgent.

legitster 4y ago
The FTC considers certain exclusivity contracts as pro-competitive: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/exclusive-supply-or-purchase-agreements https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  But exclusivity contracts is not what's in question here, which preclude you from selling elsewhere (as opposed to selling elsewhere but at a lower price). Also exclusivity contracts usually come with minimum volume commitments (since you're locked in). That's quite different than third-party sellers on Amazon. And it usually has to do with brand perception. Nordstrom doesn't want you selling that same product at Target because it devalues the brand.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    To add, both parties usually get additional value out of an exclusivity deal, which is why they voluntarily enter into an arrangement. In the case of Amazon though (and I caveat this with the fact that I’m not aware of the full details) this is about being able to sell on Amazon at all, there are no extra perks involved for the sellers.
    - legitster 4y ago
      Based on the details of the suit and the anecdotes here though, it doesn't sound like Amazon actually drops the product. They withhold it from One Click or reduce its listing. The analogy in a retail setting might be losing your signage or being yanked from a good location.
      - tarakat 4y ago
        > being yanked from a good location "Reducing the listing" can potentially mean being pushed to page 23 of search results. In retail, that would be equivalent to never leaving the warehouse, available only upon specific request by a customer.
    - insane_dreamer 4y ago
      Absolutely -- usually the value for the seller is a guaranteed (depending on exact terms) minimum volume of sales through a successful channel.
tshaddox 4y ago
Right. The law isn't saying that they have to be happy about it.

No business is happy with competition. That doesn't make contractual collusion any less anti-competitive. If it is, as you allege, the norm, that only makes dealing with it more urgent.

legitster 4y ago

The FTC considers certain exclusivity contracts as pro-competitive: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/exclusive-supply-or-purchase-agreements https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

insane_dreamer 4y ago
But exclusivity contracts is not what's in question here, which preclude you from selling elsewhere (as opposed to selling elsewhere but at a lower price). Also exclusivity contracts usually come with minimum volume commitments (since you're locked in). That's quite different than third-party sellers on Amazon. And it usually has to do with brand perception. Nordstrom doesn't want you selling that same product at Target because it devalues the brand.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  To add, both parties usually get additional value out of an exclusivity deal, which is why they voluntarily enter into an arrangement. In the case of Amazon though (and I caveat this with the fact that I’m not aware of the full details) this is about being able to sell on Amazon at all, there are no extra perks involved for the sellers.
  - legitster 4y ago
    Based on the details of the suit and the anecdotes here though, it doesn't sound like Amazon actually drops the product. They withhold it from One Click or reduce its listing. The analogy in a retail setting might be losing your signage or being yanked from a good location.
    - tarakat 4y ago
      > being yanked from a good location "Reducing the listing" can potentially mean being pushed to page 23 of search results. In retail, that would be equivalent to never leaving the warehouse, available only upon specific request by a customer.
  - insane_dreamer 4y ago
    Absolutely -- usually the value for the seller is a guaranteed (depending on exact terms) minimum volume of sales through a successful channel.

tshaddox 4y ago

Right. The law isn't saying that they have to be happy about it.