4 ms·

This doesn't seem to be the right tack. There's legitimate reasons to favor sellers that use your own logistics. Hard to see that as anti-competitive. Even h

by treis 3y ago

This doesn't seem to be the right tack. There's legitimate reasons to favor sellers that use your own logistics. Hard to see that as anti-competitive. Even harder to see why they picked this issue when there's seemingly many more blatant ones going on.

TheCaptain4815 3y ago
Not only that, I'm sure most customers PREFER sellers that use Amazon's logistics. I sure do. It's more trustworthy, you know the product exists at an amazon warehouse, faster shipping, etc.
- sergiotapia 3y ago
  I'm the total opposite. How can I trust Amazon if they aren't the ones selling me the merchandise? 3rd party sellers killed that website entirely for me. I needed to buy creatine and the last place I would buy it would be Amazon because there are too many chinese counterfeits, and worse Amazon seems to wash their hands of any responsibility. I ultimately bought creatine from nootropicsdepot. I buy things directly from the manufacturer now or physically from Target.
  - Projectiboga 3y ago
    Yep and their mixing sku-s has created a whole sub industry where everything that fails quality control ends up here too. They should be required to track what came from who, so if counterfeits are discovered the rest of the stock can be pulled. I don't see how much effort it would take to add a sticker barcode.
Eji1700 3y ago
The cynic in me says it's because this way they can say "we tried" and not actually do anything. Antitrust lawsuits died the day MS got a slap on the wrist, and we've been paying for it as a society ever since. I really doubt the authenticity of this effort, but I also lack the expertise to judge properly so maybe I shouldn't be so pessimistic.
- likpok 3y ago
  I don't think it's the cynical take, the current FTC chair seriously believes that the FTC should be doing more antitrust enforcement and the paper that got her noticed specifically called out Amazon (IIRC the amazon/diapers.com conflict). She runs into challenges because she has a somewhat novel theory of antitrust. This causes conflict between the long-standing staffers (who both want to win cases and seem to dislike the new direction) and with judges (who don't seem to be buying her theories).
  - CPLX 3y ago
    Her theory of antitrust goes back 100+ years. It’s that there should be robust competition and when firms get too large and powerful they should be broken up. The alternate theory is the novel one. That theory basically sums up to “no we shouldn’t” and also “after a few years in public service I am happy to announce I have taken a role at a large monopolistic company and can now afford a summer home.” For more info read this book: https://mattstoller.com/ https://mattstoller.com/
    - grogenaut 3y ago
      Are using novel as in newer or novel as in different than widely considered at current?
    - kuchenbecker 3y ago
      The current standard is "consumer harm" with lower prices considered per-se evidence to the contrary. The issue here is monopsony rather than monopoly because Amazon is fantastic for consumers but Terrible for sellers because there is effectively a single online market to sell in owned by Amazon. My worry would be a feedback loop giving Amazon increasing dominance due to this effect, and would like to see both vertical integration and Monopsony more heavily scrutinized, but this lawsuit seems to target a feature with an objective benefit to consumers given Amazon's amazing shipping and return policy.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  > the day MS got a slap on the wrist That "slap on the wrist" was sufficient to prevent MS from owning the browser.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Even harder to see why they picked this issue when there's seemingly many more blatant ones going on. I know nothing about their thinking here, but very often when you see enforcement agencies focusing on something that seems like a lesser problem in the basket of problems, it's because they're selecting the specific point they feel they can win in court on. What wins in court is related to what you can prove, not necessarily related to what the worst offense is.
tootie 3y ago
I think her strategy is pretty plausible. They're abusing their position. I won't say it's slam dunk monopolism, but we've been on a decades-long trend of looser and looser regulation and I think it's high time the FTC takes a stand to actually tighten a bit. I'm not familiar enough with legal statute to say how strong their case will be, but it certainly feels like the kind of the thing they should be doing and I trust Lina Khan to have her ducks in a row. She wouldn't be teeing up a high profile case that doesn't have a high chance of success.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> There’s legitimate reasons to favor sellers that use your own logistics. Hard to see that as anti-competitive. Whether or not there are also “legitimate reasons”, its not hard at all to see favoritism on a platform with market dominance conditioned on use of another service as leveraging dominance in one market to gain control of another.
- treis 3y ago
  Hard for me to buy "selling on Amazon.com" and "fulfilling orders sold on Amazon.com" as separate markets.
pessimizer 3y ago
There are good reasons for violating most rules. That's why we write laws; in order to make violating those rules more expensive, therefore not profitable. It's not exculpating for a burglar to claim that a burglary was a really good choice for them at the time. edit: > There's legitimate reasons to favor sellers that use your own logistics. Hard to see that as anti-competitive. These sentences bother me so much. The argument is about what is or is not legitimate, and you're not making an case, you're just giving a verdict. Why is it hard to see?
burkaman 3y ago
What are the legitimate reasons?

by treis 3y ago

TheCaptain4815 3y ago

Not only that, I'm sure most customers PREFER sellers that use Amazon's logistics. I sure do. It's more trustworthy, you know the product exists at an amazon warehouse, faster shipping, etc.

sergiotapia 3y ago
I'm the total opposite. How can I trust Amazon if they aren't the ones selling me the merchandise? 3rd party sellers killed that website entirely for me. I needed to buy creatine and the last place I would buy it would be Amazon because there are too many chinese counterfeits, and worse Amazon seems to wash their hands of any responsibility. I ultimately bought creatine from nootropicsdepot. I buy things directly from the manufacturer now or physically from Target.
- Projectiboga 3y ago
  Yep and their mixing sku-s has created a whole sub industry where everything that fails quality control ends up here too. They should be required to track what came from who, so if counterfeits are discovered the rest of the stock can be pulled. I don't see how much effort it would take to add a sticker barcode.

Eji1700 3y ago

The cynic in me says it's because this way they can say "we tried" and not actually do anything. Antitrust lawsuits died the day MS got a slap on the wrist, and we've been paying for it as a society ever since. I really doubt the authenticity of this effort, but I also lack the expertise to judge properly so maybe I shouldn't be so pessimistic.

likpok 3y ago
I don't think it's the cynical take, the current FTC chair seriously believes that the FTC should be doing more antitrust enforcement and the paper that got her noticed specifically called out Amazon (IIRC the amazon/diapers.com conflict). She runs into challenges because she has a somewhat novel theory of antitrust. This causes conflict between the long-standing staffers (who both want to win cases and seem to dislike the new direction) and with judges (who don't seem to be buying her theories).
- CPLX 3y ago
  Her theory of antitrust goes back 100+ years. It’s that there should be robust competition and when firms get too large and powerful they should be broken up. The alternate theory is the novel one. That theory basically sums up to “no we shouldn’t” and also “after a few years in public service I am happy to announce I have taken a role at a large monopolistic company and can now afford a summer home.” For more info read this book: https://mattstoller.com/ https://mattstoller.com/
  - grogenaut 3y ago
    Are using novel as in newer or novel as in different than widely considered at current?
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    The current standard is "consumer harm" with lower prices considered per-se evidence to the contrary. The issue here is monopsony rather than monopoly because Amazon is fantastic for consumers but Terrible for sellers because there is effectively a single online market to sell in owned by Amazon. My worry would be a feedback loop giving Amazon increasing dominance due to this effect, and would like to see both vertical integration and Monopsony more heavily scrutinized, but this lawsuit seems to target a feature with an objective benefit to consumers given Amazon's amazing shipping and return policy.
HWR_14 3y ago
> the day MS got a slap on the wrist That "slap on the wrist" was sufficient to prevent MS from owning the browser.

JohnFen 3y ago

> Even harder to see why they picked this issue when there's seemingly many more blatant ones going on. I know nothing about their thinking here, but very often when you see enforcement agencies focusing on something that seems like a lesser problem in the basket of problems, it's because they're selecting the specific point they feel they can win in court on. What wins in court is related to what you can prove, not necessarily related to what the worst offense is.

tootie 3y ago

I think her strategy is pretty plausible. They're abusing their position. I won't say it's slam dunk monopolism, but we've been on a decades-long trend of looser and looser regulation and I think it's high time the FTC takes a stand to actually tighten a bit. I'm not familiar enough with legal statute to say how strong their case will be, but it certainly feels like the kind of the thing they should be doing and I trust Lina Khan to have her ducks in a row. She wouldn't be teeing up a high profile case that doesn't have a high chance of success.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> There’s legitimate reasons to favor sellers that use your own logistics. Hard to see that as anti-competitive. Whether or not there are also “legitimate reasons”, its not hard at all to see favoritism on a platform with market dominance conditioned on use of another service as leveraging dominance in one market to gain control of another.

treis 3y ago
Hard for me to buy "selling on Amazon.com" and "fulfilling orders sold on Amazon.com" as separate markets.

pessimizer 3y ago

There are good reasons for violating most rules. That's why we write laws; in order to make violating those rules more expensive, therefore not profitable. It's not exculpating for a burglar to claim that a burglary was a really good choice for them at the time. edit: > There's legitimate reasons to favor sellers that use your own logistics. Hard to see that as anti-competitive. These sentences bother me so much. The argument is about what is or is not legitimate, and you're not making an case, you're just giving a verdict. Why is it hard to see?

burkaman 3y ago

What are the legitimate reasons?