15 ms·

I criticized Amazon’s policies in a blog – their lawyers have subpoenaed me

922 points by graeme 3y ago

lisasays 3y ago
SOP for large companies. They can kill you just by sitting on you.
- eYrKEC2 3y ago
  America needs "loser pays tort reform". The process shouldn't be the punishment.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > America needs "loser pays tort reform". That would be awful. A lot of lawsuits are done on contingency because the litigant can't afford to pay their own legal bills. It would for sure have a chilling effect if you sue a big company and then you have to declare bankruptcy if you lose.
  - _b 3y ago
    Loser pays causes higher legal fees, because on average, one only has to pay half of one's own fees, and also because losing becomes more costly making it worth it to spend more to try to avoid losing.
kderbyma 3y ago
Amazon is shit. Dear amazon. come ruin me haha. They are filled with egotistical people stuck running a hamster wheel...
- throwaway1777 3y ago
  One of the most toxic work cultures in tech
  - Zetice 3y ago
    One of the most polarizing, some people prefer Amazon's style of working.
  - tacker2000 3y ago
    Not only for their tech workers, for their 3rd party sellers, their suppliers, their blue collar workers, etc as well… this company is just rotten to the core…
amluto 3y ago
Two thoughts (and check with an attorney!) 1. You may be able to file an Anti-SLAPP motion. 2. You could consider filing a complaint with the SEC.
- powera 3y ago
  Unless I am mistaken in my reading-between-the-lines, he is upset about the volume of discovery in the State of California lawsuit against Amazon where he has been named an expert witness. The volume of discovery would be completely normal in such a case, but would be rejected by any sane judge if Amazon were suing him personally for ... libel? I'm not sure what Amazon even could sue him for, criticizing the company isn't a crime.
  - AaronFriel 3y ago
    Is the state not reimbursing/covering these costs related to their lawsuit? I can't imagine anyone would ever be an expert witness if they had to bear all costs either party or the judge imposes on them.
    - nordsieck 3y ago
      I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that expert witnesses often charge extremely high rates for their services. Perhaps those rates are so high, in part, to compensate for all of this hassle.
  - buzer 3y ago
    I'm not familiar with how lawsuit process works in the US, but wouldn't the fact that he got served imply that he actually got sued by Amazon? Or is it normal that witness gets served as well?
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Discovery is weird, and if you ever get a request for it from someone with more money/lawyers than sense, you really should get your OWN lawyer to push back, as there are ways to get them to pay for it.
gnicholas 3y ago
I read the thread but can't tell what Amazon's lawsuit alleges. Are they suing him for slander or something?
- hmoodie 3y ago
  The state of California is using him as a witness for their lawsuit against Amazon. Amazon lawyers are trying to discredit him. Amazon is not suing him directly but they have discovery rights
  - nightpool 3y ago
    That's what I assumed too, but the thread clearly says "And in response [to being a witness], Amazon served me with a lawsuit". So either he's misrepresenting the situation or Amazon is playing hardball and should face an anti-SLAPP
    - hmoodie 3y ago
      likely just speaking imprecisely
  - balls187 3y ago
    I don't think that is fully correct. Yes he is a witness to the State of California's case. However, if he had to turn over documents per Amazon's request as part of the State of California's case, he would be entitled to request Amazon pay for the costs to produce those documents (usually something in response like my hourly rate is $100/hr and it will take me 20 hours to produce). However, separately, Amazon has named him party to a lawsuit (what they are alleging is not disclosed), which allows Amazon to compel production of documents, and given he is a named party to the lawsuit, is fully responsible for the cost.
    - ars 3y ago
      > he would be entitled to request Amazon pay for the costs to produce those documents Actually he would request that payment from California - they are the ones that hired him as an expert witness, not Amazon.
gabereiser 3y ago
All those requests for documents and Amazon lawyers saying it’s not good enough should be ignored. IANAL but they are the petitioner, the onus is on them. Anything you say, said, publicly, on a podcast, in Congress, is free-speech. Come at me bro.
- yellow_lead 3y ago
  Yeah, this is exactly the opposite of what you should do. If Amazon filed a lawsuit against them, these requests are probably apart of discovery. Failure to comply with requests for docs or depositions during discovery can have bad consequences for the plaintiff.
  - gabereiser 3y ago
    he complied... the lawyers said that wasn't sufficient. As someone who may self represent, the courts have a responsibility to ensure due process and a timely case. He submitted documents. He didn't refuse. I'm suggesting refusing the follow ups but by all means, submit the documents for discovery.
- spoonfeeder006 3y ago
  IANAL also, but who knows, there could be some technicality or loophole that lets them do shit like that Btw Fuck Amazon
elliekelly 3y ago
I’m not sure I follow why this is even a fact at issue? If Amazon policy applies a price floor to all Amazon sellers on all platforms they sell the product on then of course Amazon has caused higher prices for consumers elsewhere. Sure the policy has also probably resulted in lower prices for some products on Amazon but it seems undeniable that the external result would be higher prices on other platforms for some products.
mgkimsal 3y ago
Given that he was involved by California, could they not shoulder some of the cost of his paperwork work?
shin_lao 3y ago
Typical tactics. They request an insane amount of documents. It's a DoS attack, nothing else. Their goal is to drown you until you give up. They don't care about your documents or anything.
stale2002 3y ago
As much as I hate the idea of a large corporation threatening lawsuits against people to suppress criticism, this situation.... doesn't seem to be that? From reading the thread, it seems like this individual is a witness/party in a major lawsuit against amazon, and as a part of discovery amazon is asking for documents from this person. That seems like a fairly reasonably/necessary request from someone who is testifying in a lawsuit? Someone feel free to correct me, if there are additional issues with amazon in this case.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Totally agreed. This guy literally went to Congress to testify against Amazon. He's not just a guy who just wrote a little blog post, he chose to become a major critic of Amazon and part of a state lawsuit. I totally commend everything he's doing, but I'm baffled by these tweets. When you go after a corporation, you should know what you're signing up for. Spending 16 hours gathering documents to deal with a subpoena is an expected part of that. He's complaining about legal bills but hasn't actually explained what they are, and there's so much anti-Amazon hatred out there it seems like it would be pretty easy to get his legal bills covered either by a sympathetic organization, pro bono, or just a GoFundMe or something. So I don't get what he's trying to accomplish by complaining. If there were a button to donate money towards legal fees, this would make a lot more sense. But there isn't.
kypro 3y ago
I don't get it? Isn't it illegal to make claims about a company / individual without evidence? I guess I looked at Amazon's policy in the opposite way, that it probably means that prices on Amazon are equally as low as elsewhere, not that it makes sense to jack up prices everywhere but on Amazon... And Amazon isn't forcing anyone to price products in any given way since sellers are free to remove their products from Amazon if they chose. Therefore it would seem like this guy has made dubious claims about Amazon that will be difficult to support and is now upset that Amazon is suing him... Can someone explain why I'm wrong because I probably am. Is this an Amazon problem or an issue with the legal system (or maybe both)? Not that I should have to say it, but obviously I don't support anti-competitive practises.
- nine_zeros 3y ago
  A person can make any claims in America without needing any evidence. But if they make those claims in court, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The Twitter person did not make the claim in court. Not sure why his lawyers are presenting more evidence to Amazon. It is not his burden.
- aflag 3y ago
  Amazon is not suing him. The state of California is suing Amazon and he is a witness to the case. Amazon is burying him with discovery requests. It's not a crime to criticise a company without evidence.
  - aeyes 3y ago
    In the Twitter thread he wrote: > And in response, Amazon served me with a lawsuit.
    - aflag 3y ago
      I couldn't find that.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Isn't it illegal to make claims about a company / individual without evidence? No, it is not. Opinions are not illegal, and this stuff clearly falls into opinions. Furthermore, even if his claims were factual claims, the claims would have to be proved to be wrong and it would have to be proved that he acted in malice, and not just ignorance. Also, he isn't being sued for defamation, so this is a completely unrelated side argument in this situation.
kemayo 3y ago
I might be misunderstanding, and haven't read anything other than this twitter thread, but it sounds like this is the discovery process in the lawsuit filed by the State of California against Amazon, in which Molson is a witness. It doesn't sound like Amazon is suing him for anything, but the discovery process in big cases can be a lot, and the requests are overwhelming him. As such, given that he's not actually a party to the suit, I'd think that California and its attorneys should be assisting Molson with document requests?
- gamblor956 3y ago
  Based on the discovery requests, it appears Amazon is mostly requesting documents and discovery from him that CA can't help him with, since Molson is in control of those documents. Being an expert witness usually means that the party employing your services generally pays for your time to respond to discovery requests. In this case, it appears he was cited in CA's complaint but CA did not actually engage him as an expert witness so it doesn't appear (based on the Twitter thread) that he is being paid for his testimony.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Third parties can require reasonable compensation for complying with discovery requests.
    - gamblor956 3y ago
      As all of the requested documents should be standard business records kept in the normal course of running his sales business, and he does not have any employees, "reasonable compensation" in this matter is presumed to be zero unless he can demonstrate to a judge otherwise.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- pphysch 3y ago
  TFT clearly says "And in response [to being a witness for CA], Amazon served me with a lawsuit"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
londons_explore 3y ago
Thing with this kind of lawsuit... If you win, you win nothing. If you lose, you lose your house and are in debt for life. It's a lose lose situation. Which is exactly why I have no public opinion on Amazon, unless anyone wants to ask me off the record.
- echelon 3y ago
  Amazon is a bully and is becoming a brand new type of monopoly that is killing all sorts of businesses. How in the world is it okay for a single company to be a grocery store, internet infrastructure company, film studio, game studio, online shopping platform, advertising platform, home security company, and more? They're using their incredible scale to price lots of American businesses out of business. They offer movies for "free", for instance. Amazon needs to pick its lanes and stick to them. It'd be better for consumers if it were broken up into two or more companies. I'm also thinking about this through the lens of an entrepreneur. All of these giant multiple category-spanning monopolies can easily duplicate what you do and offer it for free. That's wildly unfair.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    That's because globalization leads to single company doing everything. Think WALL-E's Buy-N-Large [0]. In fact, nowadays just - 62 persons own the same as half the world [1], - 5 companies own all media in US (it was 50 companies 40 years ago) [2] - 147 companies own 40% of public companies [3] [4] - 737 companies control 80% of public companies [3] [4] [0] https://www.theverge.com/21266860/wall-e-pixar-movie-yesterdays-future https://www.theverge.com/21266860/wall-e-pixar-movie-yesterd... [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/62-people-own-same-half-world-reveals-oxfam-davos-report https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/62-people-own-same-h... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/49229c/til_in_1983_90_of_us_media_was_controlled_by/ https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/49229c/til_i... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/11/21/the-147-companies-that-sort-of-control-sort-of-everything-full-list-revealed/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/11/21/the-147-c... [4] https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728 https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728
ars 3y ago
This title is a lie. Amazon is doing stuff because California is suing Amazon and cited this person as a witness. The blog has exactly zero to do with it. And since this HN title comes from the author himself, and is a blatant lie, I don't trust anything else he says.
- rijoja 3y ago
  [flagged]
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  Has the title changed? At the present time, it is "I criticized Amazon’s policies in a blog. Their lawyers are trying to ruin me" which appears to be entirely accurate.
  - ars 3y ago
    The title is as you quoted it, and no it's not in the slightest accurate. Amazon is not doing something because of a blog, as I told you: It's because California is calling him as a witness. Implying the blog had anything to do with it is simply a lie.
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      Wasn't he called as a witness because of the blog?
      - ars 3y ago
        He wasn't "called", i.e. involuntary, rather he was hired as a witness, i.e. they are paying him, and he could say no if he wanted to.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
no_wizard 3y ago
NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is for informational and entertainment purposes only Everyone seems to be conflating the California AG requests with Amazons. I parsed more closely about what the ask here is, and its that Amazon is asking via separate motions for the same information given to the AG case which, due to how discovery works, they should already have, this to me reads as an attempt to press Molson legally and thus spend time and money on complying with these requests. They're also asking for additional information above what the CA AG office asked for or may have considered immaterial to their case. Its a fishing exercise to see if they can find anything to discredit Molson as a witness. Due to the wording in the thread, I found it confusing, but I read some of the posted pics of the asks, and its clear that Amazon is not only re-asking for what the CA AG office asked for, but also additional information. The wording makes it seem like only the AG office is asking for information. EDIT: Also, i see some folks think this is a situation where someone is being sued. Nowhere does it say Molson is being sued, Molson is essentially alleging that this is an overreach of discovery[0] via being "buried" by it. Molson has apparently confused a subpoena with a lawsuit however EDIT 2: I think Molson is conflating a few things (such as lawsuit vs subpoena) and I can't say I blame anyone, the legal system is complex and it can be really hard to remember these things under pressure. Its important to look at the posted documents more than anything, Molson was subpoenaed to provide discovery and I think Molson may have conflated that with a "lawsuit" EDIT 3: Given this is Twitter, he may have meant something like being served in a lawsuit or meant subpoena and not lawsuit without realizing and can't edit the tweets. I still think we can give Molson the benefit of the doubt here [0]: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-2023-010/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sec...
- EA-3167 3y ago
  If there isn't a lawsuit or a criminal case, how is there discovery?
  - Satisfy4400 3y ago
    There's a civil lawsuit involving the State of California and Amazon. When you have a civil case, you can get discovery from third parties using subpoenas, which seems to be what's happening here.
lnsru 3y ago
The big corp I work for has many fun “speak up” policies. And after few years here I can tell only thing - speaking up is probably the fastest way to get in trouble. So yeah, the companies like silence and will send lawyers and/or Human Resources representatives to fix all the issues.
- optymizer 3y ago
  Agreed. This has been my experience as well. Corporations like to have an internal culture and will put on a show to keep up appearances, but deep down what every manager, from the lowest level to the SVPs, what they want is to not look bad and by association, for their team to not look bad. Speaking up attracts unwanted attention across the company and that makes 'waves'. As representatives of the business, there are lots of 'tools' managers have at their disposal, but none of them will put the company in a worse position, so your best outcome is a situation where both the company and you win. In all other situations, assuming no external involvement, you will come off worse for speaking up. For example, if you speak up against some sexist remarks made by a company SVP, the corp will put on a dog and pony show at best, and then you will be managed out for making waves. If you really want to come out ahead, make sure you can do some serious damage to the company so you have some leverage. Naively speaking up with nothing else in your pocket is going to get you crushed like a cockroach or paraded around like a pet at all-hands and 'celebrated' while all the higher ups make sure that no real changes are made.
Satisfy4400 3y ago
Wouldn't he be able to recover the costs for complying with the subpoena under Cal. Evidence Code section 1563? "All reasonable costs incurred in a civil proceeding by a witness who is not a party with respect to the production of all or any part of business records requested pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum shall be charged against the party serving the subpoena duces tecum." Something's not adding up about his twitter posts.
snthd 3y ago
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority has an open investigation on similar issues: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-amazons-marketplace https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-amazons-mark... >The CMA is investigating Amazon’s conduct in relation to the way that non-public third-party seller data may be used within Amazon’s retail business, *how Amazon sets criteria for selecting which product offer is placed within the ‘Buy Box’* and *which sellers can list products under Amazon’s ‘Prime label’* on its Marketplace in the UK. >If you are a third-party seller on Amazon’s Marketplace that would like to get in touch with us about our investigation, please contact us via email at amazonmarketplaceinvestigation@cma.gov.uk
- christkv 3y ago
  Oh they do it. When I offered a self published book at a lower price on another site I got an automated email from Amazon saying my product would be de-promoted if I did not sell it at the same price on Amazon.
johndhi 3y ago
I'm a former litigator. Third party discovery is generally a pain in the ass. The parties to a lawsuit have some rights to compel witnesses to share documents etc. Often it's hard to push back but eventually you just stop responding and the party to the litigation needs to decide how worth it is (without pissing off the judge) to make your life hell. Sounds like Amazon is going hard on this guy.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  What is the worst thing that can happen if you stop responding?
  - balls187 3y ago
    Being found in contempt of court. Penalty range from a slap on the wrist to jail time.
  - johndhi 3y ago
    This article is pretty good: https://www.cades.com/2022/07/11/third-party-subpoenas-whos-going-to-pay-for-that/ https://www.cades.com/2022/07/11/third-party-subpoenas-whos-... Basically it goes like this: -they send you a subpoena, you kinda try to respond -they tell you they want more documents and your response is insufficient, and they threaten that the subpoena is issued with the authority of the court and contempt is a potential remedy etc -if you get really annoyed, you threaten to (or actually move to) quash the subpoena -Ultimately the judge is supposed to determine whether, based on the resources available to you, the subpoena is causing you "significant expense." If it is, the judge needs to ensure the expense isn't too significant by working with you. If you're being careful and paying a lawyer for all of this, this can be pretty damn expensive to go through. I guess in theory if you just fire from the hip yourself and try to learn the rules (probably not advised) you could be OK, but then you risk making little errors that Amazon will blast you and your testmiony with.
- balls187 3y ago
  > without pissing off the judge I find it interesting that many lawyers in the US have this POV.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rdl 3y ago
Not a lawyer, not legal advice. (I'm not going to criticize a man who runs an educational toy company for not being precise about "lawsuit" "discovery" "subpoena" etc.) I believe (subject to clarification) that he's a fact (regular) witness in CA's action against Amazon, and the discovery requests from Amazon are overly burdensome to him. He has no commercial interest in this litigation (except very attenuated benefit to his company if the Amazon policies change). It's unclear if this is just unthinking automatic action by Amazon/their lawyers, truly necessary for their case, or intentionally vexatious behavior, but it does seem clear there are two effects: 1) Silence critics of well resourced or litigious organizations 2) Promote anonymous speech (if they couldn't figure out who posted information, they'd have no one to vex through the courts.) If I were not directly a party to something like this, I'd be very motivated to not expose myself to months/years of pain. None of this sold more educational toys for him in any volume. Using his specific identity and other stuff did add credibility to his initial arguments, but from reading the original blog post, it stands on its own merits, and especially if it had been a "name shaped pseudonym", I wouldn't have questioned it.
- rdl 3y ago
  I clarified with him on twitter and in fact my “most charitable” interpretation was correct (although he got $32 as a paid witness; I guess inflation! I remember when this was $10-12 and parking validation). I hope someone at Amazon sees this and reigns in their lawyers; he is not their enemy and making him and a bunch of other fans of Amazon (including me) into adversaries for no reason is…not in the best interest of Amazon or AMZN shareholders.)
shipscode 3y ago
What I take from this: Keep your head down & your mouth shut. It’s no face, no trace, no case out here. Also siding with the state of California instead of Amazon would be signaling red alarms in my head. Nothing those states (NY, CA, WA, CO, etc) are involved in right now is morally legit.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
femto113 3y ago
I'm guessing the critical issue is this assertion in the original blog post If we sell our products for less on channels outside Amazon and Amazon detects this, our products will not appear as prominently in search and, if you do find them, they will lose their prime check mark and with that, their sales. Everything else seems pretty straightforward facts or opinions, but that bit attributes some significant behavior to Amazon without providing any sort of evidence that it happens.
- elliekelly 3y ago
  But wouldn’t Amazon be in the best position to have the evidence they do or do not engage in this behavior? Surely if anyone knows whether Amazon reduces product search visibility and the product’s prime checkmark it’s Amazon.
- mtlynch 3y ago
  I don't think this is even in dispute. I'm a seller on Amazon and they'll suppress my listings (hide from search results, hide the buy button on listings) if I offer a lower price on my own website. They have some details about it here: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/S9A4Q8K4Q6KT8TV?ref=efph_S9A4Q8K4Q6KT8TV_relt_DMU6WZNPLTKM9J3&locale=en-US https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
  - femto113 3y ago
    I'm not sold that it's reasonable to equate "losing Featured Offer status because of violating objective criteria" with "Amazon is suppressing my listings". Amazon does look at off-Amazon prices to decide whether to feature an offer, but abstractly that's entirely justifiable from a consumer-friendly perspective: if Amazon knows something is available for less elsewhere but still promotes the sale they are setting up the buyer for a negative experience and themselves & the seller for excess returns and/or customer service hassles. If Amazon doesn't look at external prices at all then they have no way to protect against price gouging on platform. It seems like what's implicitly being asked for here is a special carve out to sell for less "on your own website", but that feels like a really slippery slope: what qualifies as "your own"--e.g. would an Etsy store? a drop shipper storefront?
LatteLazy 3y ago
This seems complicated and messy. A few random thoughts, I am not a lawyer... * being a critic of Amazon's policies IS being a critic of Amazon. There is nothing wrong with either but let's not pretend they are different. * he made a specific claim: that amazon's policies increased prices for consumers, that is VERY hard to define, let alone. You could argue just as well that their policies REDUCED prices on Amazon. I think that was foolish as he has invited this suit and now has to offer some defence. If his claims were repeated to congress, he might have some immunity there, but I don't think that applies to a civil suit... * the CA DA who brought the main case should be assisting here, as he is "their witness". That might mean helping get documents, it might mean quashing requests for them etc. * the US legal system is a huge mess and basically whoever is willing to spend the most money probably wins. "Don't hate the player" etc. * I wonder how courts will rule on this policy, I can see arguments both ways...
sigstoat 3y ago
this guy needs his own lawyer. being a witness (expert or otherwise) in case doesn't mean the lawyers who want you to testify are _your_ lawyers. these sorts of subpoenas can sometimes be whittled down with only a little bit of effort. and even if they're not, you can bill for your costs to satisfy them.
cperciva 3y ago
When I was subpoenaed in a case where I was working as an expert, "my side" paid for the time I spent responding to the subpoena. Seems to me that the author's complaint should be with the California AG, not worth Amazon's lawyers.
fds22afdsa 3y ago
UGGghh. Amazon didn't serve anyone with a lawsuit. Amazon is being sued and the AG called you as a witness. If you're making waves about something important, you're going to get the good parts (testifying before a sympathetic congress) and the bad (testifying before antagonistic lawyers in conference rooms).
tristor 3y ago
I am not a lawyer, however this person should definitely hire one. On a cursory reading it appears they need to comply with any discovery requests that match those requested by the California AG's office, which they should already have prepared so its minimal additional effort to comply with, any sort of vexacious requests beyond this can be denied and they could potentially file an anti-SLAPP suit against Amazon as well. The main point though is this guy should not be writing huge Twitter threads where he's making statements that are not precisely accurate (lawsuit vs subpoena) and should hire a qualified attorney to deal with this.
belval 3y ago
> So Amazon's lawyers want to show that I'm lying or wrong. > That's why they've requested all these documents. > They want to find the ones which make me look bad. The guy volunteered to be an expert witness... Of course the defense will try to make him look like an incompetent. What did he expect exactly? He should be angry at the California AG for not supporting him properly, but expecting outrage at Amazon for defending their interests in a lawsuit mostly shows a lack of understanding how litigation works.
- ShroudedNight 3y ago
  > but expecting outrage at Amazon for defending their interests in a lawsuit mostly shows a lack of understanding how litigation works. This is cast as an aspersion of the author, but this seems like a perfectly reasonable position for someone who isn't an expert in law to find themselves in.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    He literally co-founded an IP litigation related business. https://www.molsonhart.com/ https://www.molsonhart.com/ It seems fair to assume a founder would have (or would have developed by now) this foundational understanding.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > The guy volunteered to be an expert witness From what I gather from the article, no, he didn't. The CA Attorney General named him as a witness without asking or notifying him. Which does, I think, mean he ought to be asking the CA Attorney General's office for help with this.
rpaddock 3y ago
Federal Rule #26 is always Interesting on disclosure. "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26 was amended in 1993 to require the disclosure of related case materials without awaiting a discovery request. In the 2000 case Kleiner v. Burns the court interpreted Rule 26 to include backup media, and even deleted files." - "2028 - A Dystopian Story" By Jack Ganssle. “Do I Really Have To Do That?” Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Electronic Information: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1222&context=jolt https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer... Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
jredwards 3y ago
That's some interesting editorializing. "I criticized Amazon's policies in a blog" and "I testified before congress about how Amazon was bad for American consumers" are not exactly the same thing. Not that I'm saying he's in the wrong, but this titling is a bit clickbaity.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
qingcharles 3y ago
This could also lead to jail time for the guy. If he fails to properly respond to the discovery and deposition requests then the court can indict him for criminal contempt. I've known many people spend significant time in jail for contempt for not complying with court orders, mostly in the sphere of child support payments that they can't afford to make, so they are sent to jail to learn how to be less poor.
londgine 3y ago
> Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. If Amazon has such a policy, they sure don't enforce it. I found a product cheaper elsewhere and wanted to see if Amazon would price match. Their response was: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G9EAYKPV5YYDB8P7 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... tl;Dr, it says no.
snitty 3y ago
One thing that nicely threads the needle between "he's just a witness in the AG" and "he was sued by amazon in a separate matter," is if he lives in a state other than California, and Amazon had to file a special matter in his home state in order to enforce the subpoena issued in the California case. It's confusing, given what information he provided, and I'm not really clear what's going on.
neycoda 3y ago
This is why anonymity in this country matters when it comes to the little guy criticizing the big guy.
kazinator 3y ago
> Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. A billion Chinese sellers don't care; they sell the same product under different names all over the place at random prices. > This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers. Implausible. Just from a technical viewpoint; Amazon is not able to police things that go on entirely within their site, never mind outside. This buffoon stupidly picked a fight with Amazon's lawyers for nothing. Amazon could not find a product off-Amazon, and a product on-Amazon, and determine that they are the same, if their lives depended on it.
- mtlynch 3y ago
  Just a single data point: I'm an e-commerce seller. I sell on both Amazon and my own website. When I raise prices on Amazon to offset Amazon's fees, Amazon buries my listings and hides the buy button. To restore the listing, I have to reduce Amazon's price to match my site's or raise prices on my site to match Amazon. It's not hard for them to find my website because I have to give it to them in the onboarding process to prove I'm authorized to sell my product.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    If that's so, can't you find out where they are connecting from (or other attributes) and show them a different website?
    - mtlynch 3y ago
      How would one distinguish an Amazon bot visitor from a legitimate visitor? Unless Amazon goes out of it's way to announce itself (and why would it?), I don't see how a merchant would identify an Amazon price checking bot.
      - kazinator 3y ago
        This is not something that can be solved with speculation; only hands-on. If I had to solve the problem, my first line of attack would be to feed them a domain or URL only they know about, if possible. So that if there are visitors, they must be Amazon insiders. I'd look for any helpful clues in their access information or patterns. I'd make sure that only entities which can solve a Captcha can view the price information. If Amazon uses humans for this task, I'm guessing they are low-paid overseas workers. We may be able to feed them different content based on geography, which will work if the target market for our products is the developed world. Other ideas: I'd have the prices appear not as text but images only. OCR would be required to get the numeric value. Time based: high prices appear on the site first in text form, but after a javascripted time delay, they are covered up by images showing the real price. The robot would have to execute the time delay to wait for the real data, and OCR it from images. Another idea: don't show prices at all, except to logged-in users who have created an account on your site, verified by e-mail. Offer lower prices through a non-web channel. If you can get some users to subscribe to a newsletter, there you can publish secret URL's that unlock discounts. Anyway, I'm confident I could outwit Amazon with one brain hemisphere tied behind my back. (Left or right, doesn't matter).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
_b 3y ago
Hart says "Amazon served me with a lawsuit,"[0] but it was Amazon who was sued by California citing Hart as a witness to support the lawsuit. Hart is having to go through discovery as part of that.[1][2] Amazon is allowed to do this discovery, on the theory it should be able to scrutinize claims being made against it, particularly when billions of dollars are at stake. Hart's estimate for the fees Amazon charges him seem approximately the same as the fees Amazon estimates it would charge for products like his.[3] Given that, perhaps he shouldn't matter much for the lawsuit. But the law is vague, often saying something is prohibited only when it is bad for competition. So vague claims of what helps vs hurts competition matters, which is why Hart's testimony matters. Most stores choose not to feature items that one can readily buy cheaper elsewhere. So what exactly is the state's theory about when that is legal or not in such a way it is illegal for Amazon to be doing -- and is the state's theory here supported by the laws? The problem really is the laws around what is anti-competitive are vague & subjective. As a result, everyone has to spend a ton of money on lawyers (and lobbyists) to figure out an outcome. Instead of this, the legislature should revise the law to be clear. I assume this is not done because the lawyers and lobbyists like the flow of money to them created by vague laws, but it also might be because vague laws are easier for the legislature to write. [0] https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663582603906088961 https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663582603906088961 [1] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2022-09-14%20California%20v.%20Amazon%20Complaint-redacted.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2022-... [2] https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663601424226189315 https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663601424226189315 [3] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/revcalpublic https://sellercentral.amazon.com/revcalpublic look up "B06XJCKS46"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
Sounds like Moneyland at work.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> If they lose, they could be broken up for being a monopoly. Correct. Monopolies have been given a pass because they supposedly have not raised prices for consumers. If it can be shown that they have then their argument falls apart.
sxhunga 3y ago
It is a right action by Amazon towards companies that have stock due to the discrepancy between the value of the goods and the real price that these same products are sold on Amazon by companies with the same profile
firstSpeaker 3y ago
I am not saying Amazon is good, so please do not assume I am defending Amazon by posting this comment and asking this question. Molson has claimed something and then got interviewed by an important podcast, and ended up testifying the congress about his claim. Now the party that he has been making the claim about is asking him to provide the evidence that he based his writing on. I am not sure if I understand what part of it is unfair or bad? Could someone please explain what part of this is unfair as it looks like he, because of his claim, is a witness for the case.
dredmorbius 3y ago
Threaded: <https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663582588210905091.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663582588210905091.html>
dpifke 3y ago
The general rules are here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 Of note is rule 45(d), which states in part: A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

922 points by graeme 3y ago

lisasays 3y ago

SOP for large companies. They can kill you just by sitting on you.

eYrKEC2 3y ago
America needs "loser pays tort reform". The process shouldn't be the punishment.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > America needs "loser pays tort reform". That would be awful. A lot of lawsuits are done on contingency because the litigant can't afford to pay their own legal bills. It would for sure have a chilling effect if you sue a big company and then you have to declare bankruptcy if you lose.
- _b 3y ago
  Loser pays causes higher legal fees, because on average, one only has to pay half of one's own fees, and also because losing becomes more costly making it worth it to spend more to try to avoid losing.

kderbyma 3y ago

Amazon is shit. Dear amazon. come ruin me haha. They are filled with egotistical people stuck running a hamster wheel...

throwaway1777 3y ago
One of the most toxic work cultures in tech
- Zetice 3y ago
  One of the most polarizing, some people prefer Amazon's style of working.
- tacker2000 3y ago
  Not only for their tech workers, for their 3rd party sellers, their suppliers, their blue collar workers, etc as well… this company is just rotten to the core…

amluto 3y ago

Two thoughts (and check with an attorney!) 1. You may be able to file an Anti-SLAPP motion. 2. You could consider filing a complaint with the SEC.

powera 3y ago
Unless I am mistaken in my reading-between-the-lines, he is upset about the volume of discovery in the State of California lawsuit against Amazon where he has been named an expert witness. The volume of discovery would be completely normal in such a case, but would be rejected by any sane judge if Amazon were suing him personally for ... libel? I'm not sure what Amazon even could sue him for, criticizing the company isn't a crime.
- AaronFriel 3y ago
  Is the state not reimbursing/covering these costs related to their lawsuit? I can't imagine anyone would ever be an expert witness if they had to bear all costs either party or the judge imposes on them.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that expert witnesses often charge extremely high rates for their services. Perhaps those rates are so high, in part, to compensate for all of this hassle.
- buzer 3y ago
  I'm not familiar with how lawsuit process works in the US, but wouldn't the fact that he got served imply that he actually got sued by Amazon? Or is it normal that witness gets served as well?
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Discovery is weird, and if you ever get a request for it from someone with more money/lawyers than sense, you really should get your OWN lawyer to push back, as there are ways to get them to pay for it.

gnicholas 3y ago

I read the thread but can't tell what Amazon's lawsuit alleges. Are they suing him for slander or something?

hmoodie 3y ago
The state of California is using him as a witness for their lawsuit against Amazon. Amazon lawyers are trying to discredit him. Amazon is not suing him directly but they have discovery rights
- nightpool 3y ago
  That's what I assumed too, but the thread clearly says "And in response [to being a witness], Amazon served me with a lawsuit". So either he's misrepresenting the situation or Amazon is playing hardball and should face an anti-SLAPP
  - hmoodie 3y ago
    likely just speaking imprecisely
- balls187 3y ago
  I don't think that is fully correct. Yes he is a witness to the State of California's case. However, if he had to turn over documents per Amazon's request as part of the State of California's case, he would be entitled to request Amazon pay for the costs to produce those documents (usually something in response like my hourly rate is $100/hr and it will take me 20 hours to produce). However, separately, Amazon has named him party to a lawsuit (what they are alleging is not disclosed), which allows Amazon to compel production of documents, and given he is a named party to the lawsuit, is fully responsible for the cost.
  - ars 3y ago
    > he would be entitled to request Amazon pay for the costs to produce those documents Actually he would request that payment from California - they are the ones that hired him as an expert witness, not Amazon.

gabereiser 3y ago

All those requests for documents and Amazon lawyers saying it’s not good enough should be ignored. IANAL but they are the petitioner, the onus is on them. Anything you say, said, publicly, on a podcast, in Congress, is free-speech. Come at me bro.

yellow_lead 3y ago
Yeah, this is exactly the opposite of what you should do. If Amazon filed a lawsuit against them, these requests are probably apart of discovery. Failure to comply with requests for docs or depositions during discovery can have bad consequences for the plaintiff.
- gabereiser 3y ago
  he complied... the lawyers said that wasn't sufficient. As someone who may self represent, the courts have a responsibility to ensure due process and a timely case. He submitted documents. He didn't refuse. I'm suggesting refusing the follow ups but by all means, submit the documents for discovery.
spoonfeeder006 3y ago
IANAL also, but who knows, there could be some technicality or loophole that lets them do shit like that Btw Fuck Amazon

elliekelly 3y ago

I’m not sure I follow why this is even a fact at issue? If Amazon policy applies a price floor to all Amazon sellers on all platforms they sell the product on then of course Amazon has caused higher prices for consumers elsewhere. Sure the policy has also probably resulted in lower prices for some products on Amazon but it seems undeniable that the external result would be higher prices on other platforms for some products.

mgkimsal 3y ago

Given that he was involved by California, could they not shoulder some of the cost of his paperwork work?

shin_lao 3y ago

Typical tactics. They request an insane amount of documents. It's a DoS attack, nothing else. Their goal is to drown you until you give up. They don't care about your documents or anything.

stale2002 3y ago

As much as I hate the idea of a large corporation threatening lawsuits against people to suppress criticism, this situation.... doesn't seem to be that? From reading the thread, it seems like this individual is a witness/party in a major lawsuit against amazon, and as a part of discovery amazon is asking for documents from this person. That seems like a fairly reasonably/necessary request from someone who is testifying in a lawsuit? Someone feel free to correct me, if there are additional issues with amazon in this case.

crazygringo 3y ago
Totally agreed. This guy literally went to Congress to testify against Amazon. He's not just a guy who just wrote a little blog post, he chose to become a major critic of Amazon and part of a state lawsuit. I totally commend everything he's doing, but I'm baffled by these tweets. When you go after a corporation, you should know what you're signing up for. Spending 16 hours gathering documents to deal with a subpoena is an expected part of that. He's complaining about legal bills but hasn't actually explained what they are, and there's so much anti-Amazon hatred out there it seems like it would be pretty easy to get his legal bills covered either by a sympathetic organization, pro bono, or just a GoFundMe or something. So I don't get what he's trying to accomplish by complaining. If there were a button to donate money towards legal fees, this would make a lot more sense. But there isn't.

kypro 3y ago

I don't get it? Isn't it illegal to make claims about a company / individual without evidence? I guess I looked at Amazon's policy in the opposite way, that it probably means that prices on Amazon are equally as low as elsewhere, not that it makes sense to jack up prices everywhere but on Amazon... And Amazon isn't forcing anyone to price products in any given way since sellers are free to remove their products from Amazon if they chose. Therefore it would seem like this guy has made dubious claims about Amazon that will be difficult to support and is now upset that Amazon is suing him... Can someone explain why I'm wrong because I probably am. Is this an Amazon problem or an issue with the legal system (or maybe both)? Not that I should have to say it, but obviously I don't support anti-competitive practises.

nine_zeros 3y ago
A person can make any claims in America without needing any evidence. But if they make those claims in court, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The Twitter person did not make the claim in court. Not sure why his lawyers are presenting more evidence to Amazon. It is not his burden.
aflag 3y ago
Amazon is not suing him. The state of California is suing Amazon and he is a witness to the case. Amazon is burying him with discovery requests. It's not a crime to criticise a company without evidence.
- aeyes 3y ago
  In the Twitter thread he wrote: > And in response, Amazon served me with a lawsuit.
  - aflag 3y ago
    I couldn't find that.
stale2002 3y ago
> Isn't it illegal to make claims about a company / individual without evidence? No, it is not. Opinions are not illegal, and this stuff clearly falls into opinions. Furthermore, even if his claims were factual claims, the claims would have to be proved to be wrong and it would have to be proved that he acted in malice, and not just ignorance. Also, he isn't being sued for defamation, so this is a completely unrelated side argument in this situation.

kemayo 3y ago

I might be misunderstanding, and haven't read anything other than this twitter thread, but it sounds like this is the discovery process in the lawsuit filed by the State of California against Amazon, in which Molson is a witness. It doesn't sound like Amazon is suing him for anything, but the discovery process in big cases can be a lot, and the requests are overwhelming him. As such, given that he's not actually a party to the suit, I'd think that California and its attorneys should be assisting Molson with document requests?

gamblor956 3y ago
Based on the discovery requests, it appears Amazon is mostly requesting documents and discovery from him that CA can't help him with, since Molson is in control of those documents. Being an expert witness usually means that the party employing your services generally pays for your time to respond to discovery requests. In this case, it appears he was cited in CA's complaint but CA did not actually engage him as an expert witness so it doesn't appear (based on the Twitter thread) that he is being paid for his testimony.
- Retric 3y ago
  Third parties can require reasonable compensation for complying with discovery requests.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    As all of the requested documents should be standard business records kept in the normal course of running his sales business, and he does not have any employees, "reasonable compensation" in this matter is presumed to be zero unless he can demonstrate to a judge otherwise.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
pphysch 3y ago
TFT clearly says "And in response [to being a witness for CA], Amazon served me with a lawsuit"

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

londons_explore 3y ago

Thing with this kind of lawsuit... If you win, you win nothing. If you lose, you lose your house and are in debt for life. It's a lose lose situation. Which is exactly why I have no public opinion on Amazon, unless anyone wants to ask me off the record.

echelon 3y ago
Amazon is a bully and is becoming a brand new type of monopoly that is killing all sorts of businesses. How in the world is it okay for a single company to be a grocery store, internet infrastructure company, film studio, game studio, online shopping platform, advertising platform, home security company, and more? They're using their incredible scale to price lots of American businesses out of business. They offer movies for "free", for instance. Amazon needs to pick its lanes and stick to them. It'd be better for consumers if it were broken up into two or more companies. I'm also thinking about this through the lens of an entrepreneur. All of these giant multiple category-spanning monopolies can easily duplicate what you do and offer it for free. That's wildly unfair.
- myshpa 3y ago
  That's because globalization leads to single company doing everything. Think WALL-E's Buy-N-Large [0]. In fact, nowadays just - 62 persons own the same as half the world [1], - 5 companies own all media in US (it was 50 companies 40 years ago) [2] - 147 companies own 40% of public companies [3] [4] - 737 companies control 80% of public companies [3] [4] [0] https://www.theverge.com/21266860/wall-e-pixar-movie-yesterdays-future https://www.theverge.com/21266860/wall-e-pixar-movie-yesterd... [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/62-people-own-same-half-world-reveals-oxfam-davos-report https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/62-people-own-same-h... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/49229c/til_in_1983_90_of_us_media_was_controlled_by/ https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/49229c/til_i... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/11/21/the-147-companies-that-sort-of-control-sort-of-everything-full-list-revealed/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/11/21/the-147-c... [4] https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728 https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728

ars 3y ago

This title is a lie. Amazon is doing stuff because California is suing Amazon and cited this person as a witness. The blog has exactly zero to do with it. And since this HN title comes from the author himself, and is a blatant lie, I don't trust anything else he says.

rijoja 3y ago
[flagged]
sebzim4500 3y ago
Has the title changed? At the present time, it is "I criticized Amazon’s policies in a blog. Their lawyers are trying to ruin me" which appears to be entirely accurate.
- ars 3y ago
  The title is as you quoted it, and no it's not in the slightest accurate. Amazon is not doing something because of a blog, as I told you: It's because California is calling him as a witness. Implying the blog had anything to do with it is simply a lie.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    Wasn't he called as a witness because of the blog?
    - ars 3y ago
      He wasn't "called", i.e. involuntary, rather he was hired as a witness, i.e. they are paying him, and he could say no if he wanted to.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

no_wizard 3y ago

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is for informational and entertainment purposes only Everyone seems to be conflating the California AG requests with Amazons. I parsed more closely about what the ask here is, and its that Amazon is asking via separate motions for the same information given to the AG case which, due to how discovery works, they should already have, this to me reads as an attempt to press Molson legally and thus spend time and money on complying with these requests. They're also asking for additional information above what the CA AG office asked for or may have considered immaterial to their case. Its a fishing exercise to see if they can find anything to discredit Molson as a witness. Due to the wording in the thread, I found it confusing, but I read some of the posted pics of the asks, and its clear that Amazon is not only re-asking for what the CA AG office asked for, but also additional information. The wording makes it seem like only the AG office is asking for information. EDIT: Also, i see some folks think this is a situation where someone is being sued. Nowhere does it say Molson is being sued, Molson is essentially alleging that this is an overreach of discovery[0] via being "buried" by it. Molson has apparently confused a subpoena with a lawsuit however EDIT 2: I think Molson is conflating a few things (such as lawsuit vs subpoena) and I can't say I blame anyone, the legal system is complex and it can be really hard to remember these things under pressure. Its important to look at the posted documents more than anything, Molson was subpoenaed to provide discovery and I think Molson may have conflated that with a "lawsuit" EDIT 3: Given this is Twitter, he may have meant something like being served in a lawsuit or meant subpoena and not lawsuit without realizing and can't edit the tweets. I still think we can give Molson the benefit of the doubt here [0]: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-2023-010/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sec...

EA-3167 3y ago
If there isn't a lawsuit or a criminal case, how is there discovery?
- Satisfy4400 3y ago
  There's a civil lawsuit involving the State of California and Amazon. When you have a civil case, you can get discovery from third parties using subpoenas, which seems to be what's happening here.

lnsru 3y ago

The big corp I work for has many fun “speak up” policies. And after few years here I can tell only thing - speaking up is probably the fastest way to get in trouble. So yeah, the companies like silence and will send lawyers and/or Human Resources representatives to fix all the issues.

optymizer 3y ago
Agreed. This has been my experience as well. Corporations like to have an internal culture and will put on a show to keep up appearances, but deep down what every manager, from the lowest level to the SVPs, what they want is to not look bad and by association, for their team to not look bad. Speaking up attracts unwanted attention across the company and that makes 'waves'. As representatives of the business, there are lots of 'tools' managers have at their disposal, but none of them will put the company in a worse position, so your best outcome is a situation where both the company and you win. In all other situations, assuming no external involvement, you will come off worse for speaking up. For example, if you speak up against some sexist remarks made by a company SVP, the corp will put on a dog and pony show at best, and then you will be managed out for making waves. If you really want to come out ahead, make sure you can do some serious damage to the company so you have some leverage. Naively speaking up with nothing else in your pocket is going to get you crushed like a cockroach or paraded around like a pet at all-hands and 'celebrated' while all the higher ups make sure that no real changes are made.

Satisfy4400 3y ago

Wouldn't he be able to recover the costs for complying with the subpoena under Cal. Evidence Code section 1563? "All reasonable costs incurred in a civil proceeding by a witness who is not a party with respect to the production of all or any part of business records requested pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum shall be charged against the party serving the subpoena duces tecum." Something's not adding up about his twitter posts.

snthd 3y ago

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority has an open investigation on similar issues: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-amazons-marketplace https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-amazons-mark... >The CMA is investigating Amazon’s conduct in relation to the way that non-public third-party seller data may be used within Amazon’s retail business, *how Amazon sets criteria for selecting which product offer is placed within the ‘Buy Box’* and *which sellers can list products under Amazon’s ‘Prime label’* on its Marketplace in the UK. >If you are a third-party seller on Amazon’s Marketplace that would like to get in touch with us about our investigation, please contact us via email at amazonmarketplaceinvestigation@cma.gov.uk

christkv 3y ago
Oh they do it. When I offered a self published book at a lower price on another site I got an automated email from Amazon saying my product would be de-promoted if I did not sell it at the same price on Amazon.

johndhi 3y ago

I'm a former litigator. Third party discovery is generally a pain in the ass. The parties to a lawsuit have some rights to compel witnesses to share documents etc. Often it's hard to push back but eventually you just stop responding and the party to the litigation needs to decide how worth it is (without pissing off the judge) to make your life hell. Sounds like Amazon is going hard on this guy.

weinzierl 3y ago
What is the worst thing that can happen if you stop responding?
- balls187 3y ago
  Being found in contempt of court. Penalty range from a slap on the wrist to jail time.
- johndhi 3y ago
  This article is pretty good: https://www.cades.com/2022/07/11/third-party-subpoenas-whos-going-to-pay-for-that/ https://www.cades.com/2022/07/11/third-party-subpoenas-whos-... Basically it goes like this: -they send you a subpoena, you kinda try to respond -they tell you they want more documents and your response is insufficient, and they threaten that the subpoena is issued with the authority of the court and contempt is a potential remedy etc -if you get really annoyed, you threaten to (or actually move to) quash the subpoena -Ultimately the judge is supposed to determine whether, based on the resources available to you, the subpoena is causing you "significant expense." If it is, the judge needs to ensure the expense isn't too significant by working with you. If you're being careful and paying a lawyer for all of this, this can be pretty damn expensive to go through. I guess in theory if you just fire from the hip yourself and try to learn the rules (probably not advised) you could be OK, but then you risk making little errors that Amazon will blast you and your testmiony with.
balls187 3y ago
> without pissing off the judge I find it interesting that many lawyers in the US have this POV.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rdl 3y ago

Not a lawyer, not legal advice. (I'm not going to criticize a man who runs an educational toy company for not being precise about "lawsuit" "discovery" "subpoena" etc.) I believe (subject to clarification) that he's a fact (regular) witness in CA's action against Amazon, and the discovery requests from Amazon are overly burdensome to him. He has no commercial interest in this litigation (except very attenuated benefit to his company if the Amazon policies change). It's unclear if this is just unthinking automatic action by Amazon/their lawyers, truly necessary for their case, or intentionally vexatious behavior, but it does seem clear there are two effects: 1) Silence critics of well resourced or litigious organizations 2) Promote anonymous speech (if they couldn't figure out who posted information, they'd have no one to vex through the courts.) If I were not directly a party to something like this, I'd be very motivated to not expose myself to months/years of pain. None of this sold more educational toys for him in any volume. Using his specific identity and other stuff did add credibility to his initial arguments, but from reading the original blog post, it stands on its own merits, and especially if it had been a "name shaped pseudonym", I wouldn't have questioned it.

rdl 3y ago
I clarified with him on twitter and in fact my “most charitable” interpretation was correct (although he got $32 as a paid witness; I guess inflation! I remember when this was $10-12 and parking validation). I hope someone at Amazon sees this and reigns in their lawyers; he is not their enemy and making him and a bunch of other fans of Amazon (including me) into adversaries for no reason is…not in the best interest of Amazon or AMZN shareholders.)

shipscode 3y ago

What I take from this: Keep your head down & your mouth shut. It’s no face, no trace, no case out here. Also siding with the state of California instead of Amazon would be signaling red alarms in my head. Nothing those states (NY, CA, WA, CO, etc) are involved in right now is morally legit.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

femto113 3y ago

I'm guessing the critical issue is this assertion in the original blog post If we sell our products for less on channels outside Amazon and Amazon detects this, our products will not appear as prominently in search and, if you do find them, they will lose their prime check mark and with that, their sales. Everything else seems pretty straightforward facts or opinions, but that bit attributes some significant behavior to Amazon without providing any sort of evidence that it happens.

elliekelly 3y ago
But wouldn’t Amazon be in the best position to have the evidence they do or do not engage in this behavior? Surely if anyone knows whether Amazon reduces product search visibility and the product’s prime checkmark it’s Amazon.
mtlynch 3y ago
I don't think this is even in dispute. I'm a seller on Amazon and they'll suppress my listings (hide from search results, hide the buy button on listings) if I offer a lower price on my own website. They have some details about it here: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/S9A4Q8K4Q6KT8TV?ref=efph_S9A4Q8K4Q6KT8TV_relt_DMU6WZNPLTKM9J3&locale=en-US https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
- femto113 3y ago
  I'm not sold that it's reasonable to equate "losing Featured Offer status because of violating objective criteria" with "Amazon is suppressing my listings". Amazon does look at off-Amazon prices to decide whether to feature an offer, but abstractly that's entirely justifiable from a consumer-friendly perspective: if Amazon knows something is available for less elsewhere but still promotes the sale they are setting up the buyer for a negative experience and themselves & the seller for excess returns and/or customer service hassles. If Amazon doesn't look at external prices at all then they have no way to protect against price gouging on platform. It seems like what's implicitly being asked for here is a special carve out to sell for less "on your own website", but that feels like a really slippery slope: what qualifies as "your own"--e.g. would an Etsy store? a drop shipper storefront?

LatteLazy 3y ago

This seems complicated and messy. A few random thoughts, I am not a lawyer... * being a critic of Amazon's policies IS being a critic of Amazon. There is nothing wrong with either but let's not pretend they are different. * he made a specific claim: that amazon's policies increased prices for consumers, that is VERY hard to define, let alone. You could argue just as well that their policies REDUCED prices on Amazon. I think that was foolish as he has invited this suit and now has to offer some defence. If his claims were repeated to congress, he might have some immunity there, but I don't think that applies to a civil suit... * the CA DA who brought the main case should be assisting here, as he is "their witness". That might mean helping get documents, it might mean quashing requests for them etc. * the US legal system is a huge mess and basically whoever is willing to spend the most money probably wins. "Don't hate the player" etc. * I wonder how courts will rule on this policy, I can see arguments both ways...

sigstoat 3y ago

this guy needs his own lawyer. being a witness (expert or otherwise) in case doesn't mean the lawyers who want you to testify are _your_ lawyers. these sorts of subpoenas can sometimes be whittled down with only a little bit of effort. and even if they're not, you can bill for your costs to satisfy them.

cperciva 3y ago

When I was subpoenaed in a case where I was working as an expert, "my side" paid for the time I spent responding to the subpoena. Seems to me that the author's complaint should be with the California AG, not worth Amazon's lawyers.

fds22afdsa 3y ago

UGGghh. Amazon didn't serve anyone with a lawsuit. Amazon is being sued and the AG called you as a witness. If you're making waves about something important, you're going to get the good parts (testifying before a sympathetic congress) and the bad (testifying before antagonistic lawyers in conference rooms).

tristor 3y ago

I am not a lawyer, however this person should definitely hire one. On a cursory reading it appears they need to comply with any discovery requests that match those requested by the California AG's office, which they should already have prepared so its minimal additional effort to comply with, any sort of vexacious requests beyond this can be denied and they could potentially file an anti-SLAPP suit against Amazon as well. The main point though is this guy should not be writing huge Twitter threads where he's making statements that are not precisely accurate (lawsuit vs subpoena) and should hire a qualified attorney to deal with this.

belval 3y ago

> So Amazon's lawyers want to show that I'm lying or wrong. > That's why they've requested all these documents. > They want to find the ones which make me look bad. The guy volunteered to be an expert witness... Of course the defense will try to make him look like an incompetent. What did he expect exactly? He should be angry at the California AG for not supporting him properly, but expecting outrage at Amazon for defending their interests in a lawsuit mostly shows a lack of understanding how litigation works.

ShroudedNight 3y ago
> but expecting outrage at Amazon for defending their interests in a lawsuit mostly shows a lack of understanding how litigation works. This is cast as an aspersion of the author, but this seems like a perfectly reasonable position for someone who isn't an expert in law to find themselves in.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  He literally co-founded an IP litigation related business. https://www.molsonhart.com/ https://www.molsonhart.com/ It seems fair to assume a founder would have (or would have developed by now) this foundational understanding.
pdonis 3y ago
> The guy volunteered to be an expert witness From what I gather from the article, no, he didn't. The CA Attorney General named him as a witness without asking or notifying him. Which does, I think, mean he ought to be asking the CA Attorney General's office for help with this.

rpaddock 3y ago

Federal Rule #26 is always Interesting on disclosure. "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26 was amended in 1993 to require the disclosure of related case materials without awaiting a discovery request. In the 2000 case Kleiner v. Burns the court interpreted Rule 26 to include backup media, and even deleted files." - "2028 - A Dystopian Story" By Jack Ganssle. “Do I Really Have To Do That?” Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Electronic Information: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1222&context=jolt https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer... Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

jredwards 3y ago

That's some interesting editorializing. "I criticized Amazon's policies in a blog" and "I testified before congress about how Amazon was bad for American consumers" are not exactly the same thing. Not that I'm saying he's in the wrong, but this titling is a bit clickbaity.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

qingcharles 3y ago

This could also lead to jail time for the guy. If he fails to properly respond to the discovery and deposition requests then the court can indict him for criminal contempt. I've known many people spend significant time in jail for contempt for not complying with court orders, mostly in the sphere of child support payments that they can't afford to make, so they are sent to jail to learn how to be less poor.

londgine 3y ago

> Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. If Amazon has such a policy, they sure don't enforce it. I found a product cheaper elsewhere and wanted to see if Amazon would price match. Their response was: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G9EAYKPV5YYDB8P7 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... tl;Dr, it says no.

snitty 3y ago

One thing that nicely threads the needle between "he's just a witness in the AG" and "he was sued by amazon in a separate matter," is if he lives in a state other than California, and Amazon had to file a special matter in his home state in order to enforce the subpoena issued in the California case. It's confusing, given what information he provided, and I'm not really clear what's going on.

neycoda 3y ago

This is why anonymity in this country matters when it comes to the little guy criticizing the big guy.

kazinator 3y ago

> Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. A billion Chinese sellers don't care; they sell the same product under different names all over the place at random prices. > This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers. Implausible. Just from a technical viewpoint; Amazon is not able to police things that go on entirely within their site, never mind outside. This buffoon stupidly picked a fight with Amazon's lawyers for nothing. Amazon could not find a product off-Amazon, and a product on-Amazon, and determine that they are the same, if their lives depended on it.

mtlynch 3y ago
Just a single data point: I'm an e-commerce seller. I sell on both Amazon and my own website. When I raise prices on Amazon to offset Amazon's fees, Amazon buries my listings and hides the buy button. To restore the listing, I have to reduce Amazon's price to match my site's or raise prices on my site to match Amazon. It's not hard for them to find my website because I have to give it to them in the onboarding process to prove I'm authorized to sell my product.
- kazinator 3y ago
  If that's so, can't you find out where they are connecting from (or other attributes) and show them a different website?
  - mtlynch 3y ago
    How would one distinguish an Amazon bot visitor from a legitimate visitor? Unless Amazon goes out of it's way to announce itself (and why would it?), I don't see how a merchant would identify an Amazon price checking bot.
    - kazinator 3y ago
      This is not something that can be solved with speculation; only hands-on. If I had to solve the problem, my first line of attack would be to feed them a domain or URL only they know about, if possible. So that if there are visitors, they must be Amazon insiders. I'd look for any helpful clues in their access information or patterns. I'd make sure that only entities which can solve a Captcha can view the price information. If Amazon uses humans for this task, I'm guessing they are low-paid overseas workers. We may be able to feed them different content based on geography, which will work if the target market for our products is the developed world. Other ideas: I'd have the prices appear not as text but images only. OCR would be required to get the numeric value. Time based: high prices appear on the site first in text form, but after a javascripted time delay, they are covered up by images showing the real price. The robot would have to execute the time delay to wait for the real data, and OCR it from images. Another idea: don't show prices at all, except to logged-in users who have created an account on your site, verified by e-mail. Offer lower prices through a non-web channel. If you can get some users to subscribe to a newsletter, there you can publish secret URL's that unlock discounts. Anyway, I'm confident I could outwit Amazon with one brain hemisphere tied behind my back. (Left or right, doesn't matter).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

_b 3y ago

Hart says "Amazon served me with a lawsuit,"[0] but it was Amazon who was sued by California citing Hart as a witness to support the lawsuit. Hart is having to go through discovery as part of that.[1][2] Amazon is allowed to do this discovery, on the theory it should be able to scrutinize claims being made against it, particularly when billions of dollars are at stake. Hart's estimate for the fees Amazon charges him seem approximately the same as the fees Amazon estimates it would charge for products like his.[3] Given that, perhaps he shouldn't matter much for the lawsuit. But the law is vague, often saying something is prohibited only when it is bad for competition. So vague claims of what helps vs hurts competition matters, which is why Hart's testimony matters. Most stores choose not to feature items that one can readily buy cheaper elsewhere. So what exactly is the state's theory about when that is legal or not in such a way it is illegal for Amazon to be doing -- and is the state's theory here supported by the laws? The problem really is the laws around what is anti-competitive are vague & subjective. As a result, everyone has to spend a ton of money on lawyers (and lobbyists) to figure out an outcome. Instead of this, the legislature should revise the law to be clear. I assume this is not done because the lawyers and lobbyists like the flow of money to them created by vague laws, but it also might be because vague laws are easier for the legislature to write. [0] https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663582603906088961 https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663582603906088961 [1] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2022-09-14%20California%20v.%20Amazon%20Complaint-redacted.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2022-... [2] https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663601424226189315 https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663601424226189315 [3] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/revcalpublic https://sellercentral.amazon.com/revcalpublic look up "B06XJCKS46"

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

Sounds like Moneyland at work.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

> If they lose, they could be broken up for being a monopoly. Correct. Monopolies have been given a pass because they supposedly have not raised prices for consumers. If it can be shown that they have then their argument falls apart.

sxhunga 3y ago

It is a right action by Amazon towards companies that have stock due to the discrepancy between the value of the goods and the real price that these same products are sold on Amazon by companies with the same profile

firstSpeaker 3y ago

I am not saying Amazon is good, so please do not assume I am defending Amazon by posting this comment and asking this question. Molson has claimed something and then got interviewed by an important podcast, and ended up testifying the congress about his claim. Now the party that he has been making the claim about is asking him to provide the evidence that he based his writing on. I am not sure if I understand what part of it is unfair or bad? Could someone please explain what part of this is unfair as it looks like he, because of his claim, is a witness for the case.

dredmorbius 3y ago

Threaded: <https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663582588210905091.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663582588210905091.html>

dpifke 3y ago

The general rules are here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 Of note is rule 45(d), which states in part: A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply.