4 ms·

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

by 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.
- kypro 3y ago
  Thanks for clarifying, although I guess I'm still unclear why this isn't considered a "factual claim": > 1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. > 2. If they do, Amazon hides their products. > 3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers. This is being stated as a fact, not an opinion. He isn't saying, "I believe this is bad for consumers", he is claiming that Amazon is doing something that is bad for consumers. I also see the title has now changed to "subpoenaed" which would seem more accurate. I'm happy to assume Amazon is doing this in bad faith. What I wasn't happy to assume was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer. This isn't a disproveable factual claim. Something being "bad" is an opinion. It is also a secondary interpretation. Someone being bad at economics is not defamation. Defamation would be more like, if someone claimed that Amazon was, I don't know, stealing money from your Amazon account. Because that's a factual action. Interpreting how amazons actions effect other people is an opinion, not a claim. And once again, Amazon agrees with me, not you, because they aren't suing anyone for defamation.
rcoveson 3y ago
Amazon collects a fee for every item sold, something like 10%. What sellers want to do is pass that fee on to the customer while keeping their prices lower at other outlets where the fees aren't as high, so they make a constant margin on every sale. But Amazon doesn't want to develop a reputation as the "product search engine" that you never make an actual purchase through because it's always more expensive than just going to the seller's own website. So I believe where things have settled is sellers making less than they want to make from sales through Amazon and, bizarrely, more than they intended to make through sales on their own sites, because they can't set a lower price than their Amazon one.
- zackees 3y ago
  Not 10%, more like 35% when all is said and done. Add in FBA and it’s closer to 45%. add in advertising and the majority of the sale price is going into amazon.
- Spivak 3y ago
  This policy has a "unintended" side-effect of making Amazon always cheaper, since the face-value price has to be the same or higher, and Amazon's advantage is their logistics network it means that cost + shipping is a calculation that Amazon will always win. I get why Amazon is afraid of this, a bunch of retailers setting Amazon prices higher to drive sales to their own site, but this would really just push Amazon to quantify and charge directly for their value as a discovery platform. This doom situation really has to explain why it hasn't killed Target and why retailers wouldn't be willing to pay Amazon a premium for an additional sales avenue.
- kypro 3y ago
  > So I believe where things have settled is sellers making less than they want to make from sales through Amazon and, bizarrely, more than they intended to make through sales on their own sites, because they can't set a lower price than their Amazon one. So companies are making less on the products they sell through Amazon because as you say "sellers want to do is pass that fee on to the customer" but can't because Amazon's policies prevent this and this bad for the consumer because? You also didn't explain why businesses are forced to use Amazon. Is it not possible for companies to just not sell if they can't charge the consumer 10% more as they would like?

by kypro 3y ago

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.

kypro 3y ago
Thanks for clarifying, although I guess I'm still unclear why this isn't considered a "factual claim": > 1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. > 2. If they do, Amazon hides their products. > 3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers. This is being stated as a fact, not an opinion. He isn't saying, "I believe this is bad for consumers", he is claiming that Amazon is doing something that is bad for consumers. I also see the title has now changed to "subpoenaed" which would seem more accurate. I'm happy to assume Amazon is doing this in bad faith. What I wasn't happy to assume was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer. This isn't a disproveable factual claim. Something being "bad" is an opinion. It is also a secondary interpretation. Someone being bad at economics is not defamation. Defamation would be more like, if someone claimed that Amazon was, I don't know, stealing money from your Amazon account. Because that's a factual action. Interpreting how amazons actions effect other people is an opinion, not a claim. And once again, Amazon agrees with me, not you, because they aren't suing anyone for defamation.

rcoveson 3y ago

Amazon collects a fee for every item sold, something like 10%. What sellers want to do is pass that fee on to the customer while keeping their prices lower at other outlets where the fees aren't as high, so they make a constant margin on every sale. But Amazon doesn't want to develop a reputation as the "product search engine" that you never make an actual purchase through because it's always more expensive than just going to the seller's own website. So I believe where things have settled is sellers making less than they want to make from sales through Amazon and, bizarrely, more than they intended to make through sales on their own sites, because they can't set a lower price than their Amazon one.

zackees 3y ago
Not 10%, more like 35% when all is said and done. Add in FBA and it’s closer to 45%. add in advertising and the majority of the sale price is going into amazon.
Spivak 3y ago
This policy has a "unintended" side-effect of making Amazon always cheaper, since the face-value price has to be the same or higher, and Amazon's advantage is their logistics network it means that cost + shipping is a calculation that Amazon will always win. I get why Amazon is afraid of this, a bunch of retailers setting Amazon prices higher to drive sales to their own site, but this would really just push Amazon to quantify and charge directly for their value as a discovery platform. This doom situation really has to explain why it hasn't killed Target and why retailers wouldn't be willing to pay Amazon a premium for an additional sales avenue.
kypro 3y ago
> So I believe where things have settled is sellers making less than they want to make from sales through Amazon and, bizarrely, more than they intended to make through sales on their own sites, because they can't set a lower price than their Amazon one. So companies are making less on the products they sell through Amazon because as you say "sellers want to do is pass that fee on to the customer" but can't because Amazon's policies prevent this and this bad for the consumer because? You also didn't explain why businesses are forced to use Amazon. Is it not possible for companies to just not sell if they can't charge the consumer 10% more as they would like?