11 ms·

I don't see the problem with this. They don't have to sell on Amazon to begin with. Amazon obviously wants their customers to have the best price available. Sel

I don't see the problem with this. They don't have to sell on Amazon to begin with. Amazon obviously wants their customers to have the best price available. Sellers can just go off Amazon if they don't like it. If sellers end up raising the price on other platforms as a result of this rule, then that says more about them than Amazon. Demanding the lowest price does not harm consumers. Overstock, Wayfair, Walmart and others do the same thing. The result is the lowest price for a given product on all sites. This is unquestionably good for consumers. If the price is higher then the fault is simply that of the seller for raising it. All e-commerce sites want the lowest price for their customers. Of course, people don't see nuance and just see BigCompany bad.

mjsweet 3y ago
From what I understand, it’s not that simple. Sellers need the sheer volume of Amazon to compete. There is also the risk of Amazon duplicating their product and continuing to sell it on their platform… or their competitors filling the void.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  So what? That's how e-commerce works. Why should Amazon be obligated to fill their store with higher priced items compared to their competitors? No one is going to visit a store where every item could be purchased cheaper somewhere else. This is exactly why price match is a thing, because they don't want their costumers soliciting different stores to begin with. The move that Amazon's price be no higher than offered elsewhere is the most pro-consumer move possible. Hilarious people are complaining about it. Any second-order effects of this are on the actual seller, not Amazon.
  - mjsweet 3y ago
    The market should decide. That’s commerce.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Yes, exactly. These sellers should and can just leave Amazon if they have a problem with it.
      - mjsweet 3y ago
        No, they should be able to set their own pricing as they see fit.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        They are able to do so, but Amazon is not obligated to have them on their platform if they aren't providing the best price to their customers.
        mjsweet 3y ago
        Amazon is a product search engine and should be treated as such. Vendors must have the freedom to set pricing on any platform as they see fit. If all product search engines and ecommerce platforms behaved in this anticompetitive behaviour then what would we have? A weird commercial landscape that lacks flexibility… in the end the consumer looses because free market forces are not in play.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        Amazon is not a product search engine, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. They are a store and describe themselves as such. You cannot find products on Amazon that are not for sale by them or sellers who agree to their rules, an actual product search engine would allow this.
        mjsweet 3y ago
        Good luck with that! Amazon is the most powerful product search engine available. I love it and use it almost every day. Amazon will spend a lot of money trying to convince the feds they are otherwise… no amount of lobbying, PR pieces, paid ops and persistent commenting on boards like this one will stop valid questions being asked in hearings. It’s only a matter of time sorry.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    I don't even know where to begin with this comment. Do you know what anticompetitive behavior is? Do you know how markets are supposed to work? Amazon is leveraging their position in the market to unfairly disadvantage their competitors, thereby distorting the market, decreasing its efficiency, and increasing end prices for consumers everywhere. Market-distorting behavior like this is why antitrust regulation is necessary to keep markets functioning efficiently.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Everything you're stating is false. Amazon is trying to do right by its customers, and they are not obligated to let sellers not give their customers the best price available. Sellers are not obligated to sell on Amazon. Your conclusion that this increases end pries for consumers has nothing to do with Amazon, but the sellers themselves.
      - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
        Amazon was already told not to do this for anti-trust reasons, and they promised to oblige. Unless the government, Amazon, and the general public are all incorrect about what constitutes monopolistic behavior, you are. The idea that Amazon is openly defying pro-consumer laws to do right by its customers is absurd.
    - passwordoops 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a shill, lol.
        ziml77 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Some would say that the way commerce works is sellers can sell anywhere at any price that a buyer wants to pay.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      That's not how commerce works. Commerce works by following the rules of places that you are trying to sell at. You can't sell anything anywhere.
      - ARussell 3y ago
        And Amazon needs to follow the rules and laws of the place that IT'S trying to sell at.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        And which law dictates a company must allow people or sellers on its platform?
        ARussell 3y ago
        I'm not GP. I didn't make that argument. I agree that Amazon is not obliged to allow just anyone on their platform. Sellers must abide by the rules that Amazon sets in place. At the same time, Amazon must abide by the laws of the locations at which it wants to sell. So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        > So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is. Yes, but at the end of the day Amazon to remove the seller for any reason, so even if the FTC succeeds here, Amazon will simply purge those sellers who are not offering the best price, even if not explicitly stated. There is no reality where Amazon allows their site to be inundated with higher priced goods compared to competitors.
  - EliRivers 3y ago
    The move that Amazon's price be no higher than offered elsewhere is the most pro-consumer move possible. Yet here we are with sellers WANTING to sell their items at a lower price on places other than Amazon, but if they do, they'll go out of business. That doesn't sound pro-consumer. I'm a consumer. I'd like to be able to buy items for the lowest price the seller wants to offer me. That's not happening in some cases because if they do, Amazon will exclude them and they'll go out of business. Yeah, definitely not pro-consumer. Pro-amazon, sure.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Would Amazon be obligated to list the items regardless? Otherwise just dropping pricing conditions would only help those sellers that Amazon has enough interest to list regardless - for some products the "equilibrium" might not be great.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  If your product doesn’t have any value that can be protected by copyright, patent and you haven’t built any type of affinity with customers, isn’t it by definition just another commoditized product?
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    Well, here's a real example. About a decade ago there was a simple video conferencing system called Nautilus. A simple LCD screen that let you call other people with the device and talk to them, not having to bother with computers or smartphones. The sort of thing that is good for talking with elderly relatives who may not be very computer or phone savvy. I bought one (from Amazon) for myself and my elderly parents. It worked well, but a few years later Amazon came out with their Echo Show products which are basically the same thing, which killed the Nautilus. I'm sure it was covered by patents and what not, but you can't protect the idea. Amazon obviously saw that it sold reasonably well and used its power as both a marketplace and a technology company to undercut their own seller.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Really? That’s your example? Everyone and their mother has a video conferencing solution and the idea has been around as something to aspire to since the 60s with the Jetsons . Do you agree with the look and feel lawsuit that Apple had against MS? Or think that Roku, Amazon, Google , etc did something untoward because they came after Apple with set top boxes?
      - jhbadger 3y ago
        Well, for historical accuracy, Roku was first in regard to streaming devices you hooked up to your TV. Apple and the rest copied them. And it is pretty much obvious that Microsoft copied Apple (and yes, you can argue that Apple in turn copied PARC). But what makes Amazon copying things different is that they are a marketplace for other people's products and a maker of products themselves. That has an intrinsic conflict of interest.
Jensson 3y ago
It is none of Amazons business what prices they put when they list their wares on other services, the only reason they care is that they want to crush the competition. Dictating how retailers can interact with your competitors is anti-competitive. Dictating what prices they can offer when they put up listings is a part of that, it is anti-competitive.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - tartuffe78 3y ago
    Amazon is abusing it's monopoly power to hurt competition, when Amazon is the only place to certain things, consumer cost will go up.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      > when Amazon is the only place to certain things No seller is obligated to sell on Amazon to begin with, so this entire premise is false.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        "No manufacturer is obligated to buy Standard Oil or Carnegie steel, so this entire premise is false."
        endisneigh 3y ago
        Yes, because there are not literally thousands of e-commerce stores out there. Amazon is the only one. UPS, USPS and FedEx don't exist either. You must use Prime to transport your stuff.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Look, with this reasoning there is literally no world in which Amazon can be implicated for monopoly abuse of power. Apparently, having any other option (even if it is damaged by monopoly abuse) is good enough for you. Clearly the FTC disagrees with your logic, and I'm glad they do. FedEx, UPS and USPS should be sued too if they did what Amazon is doing.
kmeisthax 3y ago
So, to be clear, you have no problem with Amazon writing their own laws and collecting their own taxes? Because that is what they are effectively doing.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Every company has the right to set the terms and fees to use them. A “tax” is something you are mandated to pay. I get plenty of crap advertised to me on FB that you can’t find on Amazon.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  If sellers were obligated to sell on Amazon that would be the case, but it's not, is it? Ironically, people complaining about this are exacerbating the issue. If sellers who actually cared left Amazon it would loosen Amazon's dominance in e-commerce.
  - tartuffe78 3y ago
    They're obligated to by the grip Amazon already has on the e-commerce market. Letting Amazon make anti-competitive moves that increase their grip will only worsen the situation.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      This grip you're describing only exists because they don't leave, and nothing is stopping them. Again, no one is forcing people to sell on Amazon. They could use Shopify or sell on eBay. People act as if you have to sell on Amazon. You don't. That assumption and expectation is why Amazon is dominant to begin with. Sellers should leave if they don't like it, and that will naturally soften Amazon dominance.
      - anonymousab 3y ago
        > and nothing is stopping them. Imminent collapse and bankruptcy when they leave due to Amazon's dominant market position. That you can set up a shop anywhere does not mean anything when all of your potential customers are only going to the Amazon digital strip mall.
cedilla 3y ago
It does the opposite - it prevents the price going lower than cost plus Amazon fees. Amazon is not exactly cheap for sellers, so the price has to go up everywhere.
- pnutjam 3y ago
  I read that, on average, Amazon collects 50% of the cost in fees; from sellers.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And how much do you think traditional retail marks up prices from wholesale to retail?
    - pnutjam 3y ago
      Why is that relevant?
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Because Amazon is a retail company and the amount that Amazon charges is not much different than the cost overhead of getting any product through the channel.
        pnutjam 3y ago
        so my (theoretical) company that optimizes to keep these costs lower shouldn't be able to compete on those fees?
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Sure, if all you care about is money, then you can already go on Amazon and choose alternate vendors that are available at a lower price with slower shipping.
brookst 3y ago
I'll take the charitable interpretation and assume you just don't understand the mechanics of the policy. Amazon is saying that sellers cannot offer a fair low price to customers on other platforms if the seller can't also offer it on Amazon. This is 1) anticompetitive, 2) anticonsumer, and 3) insane. Consider this test: - Seller buys a crappy LED bulb from China for $0.80 - Seller is happy to list the bulb on Walmart, Target, etc, for $2.00. Net of fees and shipping and stuff they make enough money - Amazon charges $3 in fees. Obviously the seller can't afford to sell for $2 on Amazon. They sell for $5 instead. - However, now the seller also can't sell for $2 on competing sites. Amazon, leveraging its market share, has dictated that the seller must price Amazon's fees into pricing on non-Amazon sites, so consumers pay $5 to Target for something the seller would have been happy getting $2 for. This is insane.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I disagree. Let's use your example. The sellers should stop selling that item on Amazon, and sell their light bulb on Walmart, or where-ever. Customers who really need that will go find it at Walmart, or where-ever. This strengthens the competitors to Amazon, which is bad for Amazon and good for the consumer. The consumer also find the lower price that they wanted. Alternatively, they buy the alternate product on Amazon which would be cheaper than the inflated price (per your example). Again, good for the customer. Everyone wins in every scenario except for the seller, which is how Amazon and every wholesaler operates. Suppose the FTC wins this case and sellers can put whatever price on whatever site. Amazon, like any store wants the lowest price. Not to mention there are only some many items you can show on the first page of results. They will find some other reason to remove these sellers and/or their items. Now maybe there's another case to stop that behavior too. The result is that companies are not obligated to let sellers on their site. That is insane. In summary, there will never be a scenario where Amazon allows sellers to sell the exact same item for more than Amazon's competitors, unless the government forces Amazon to let sellers sell whatever on their site.
  - jbluepolarbear 3y ago
    You’re just wrong, Amazon controls around 35% of all US e-commerce. Not being able to sell on Amazon instantly removes most of your available customers. The second largest is Walmart and it’s closer to 7%. Walmart, target, whatever, don’t add up to Amazons market.
throwaway14356 3y ago
it is about the desire to control things that are non of your business.
Buttons840 3y ago
> Demanding the lowest price does not harm consumers. Amazon demands that sellers increase their prices on selling platforms with lower overhead. A demand to increase prices does harm consumers.

mjsweet 3y ago

From what I understand, it’s not that simple. Sellers need the sheer volume of Amazon to compete. There is also the risk of Amazon duplicating their product and continuing to sell it on their platform… or their competitors filling the void.

endisneigh 3y ago
So what? That's how e-commerce works. Why should Amazon be obligated to fill their store with higher priced items compared to their competitors? No one is going to visit a store where every item could be purchased cheaper somewhere else. This is exactly why price match is a thing, because they don't want their costumers soliciting different stores to begin with. The move that Amazon's price be no higher than offered elsewhere is the most pro-consumer move possible. Hilarious people are complaining about it. Any second-order effects of this are on the actual seller, not Amazon.
- mjsweet 3y ago
  The market should decide. That’s commerce.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Yes, exactly. These sellers should and can just leave Amazon if they have a problem with it.
    - mjsweet 3y ago
      No, they should be able to set their own pricing as they see fit.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        They are able to do so, but Amazon is not obligated to have them on their platform if they aren't providing the best price to their customers.
        mjsweet 3y ago
        Amazon is a product search engine and should be treated as such. Vendors must have the freedom to set pricing on any platform as they see fit. If all product search engines and ecommerce platforms behaved in this anticompetitive behaviour then what would we have? A weird commercial landscape that lacks flexibility… in the end the consumer looses because free market forces are not in play.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        Amazon is not a product search engine, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. They are a store and describe themselves as such. You cannot find products on Amazon that are not for sale by them or sellers who agree to their rules, an actual product search engine would allow this.
        mjsweet 3y ago
        Good luck with that! Amazon is the most powerful product search engine available. I love it and use it almost every day. Amazon will spend a lot of money trying to convince the feds they are otherwise… no amount of lobbying, PR pieces, paid ops and persistent commenting on boards like this one will stop valid questions being asked in hearings. It’s only a matter of time sorry.
- kibwen 3y ago
  I don't even know where to begin with this comment. Do you know what anticompetitive behavior is? Do you know how markets are supposed to work? Amazon is leveraging their position in the market to unfairly disadvantage their competitors, thereby distorting the market, decreasing its efficiency, and increasing end prices for consumers everywhere. Market-distorting behavior like this is why antitrust regulation is necessary to keep markets functioning efficiently.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Everything you're stating is false. Amazon is trying to do right by its customers, and they are not obligated to let sellers not give their customers the best price available. Sellers are not obligated to sell on Amazon. Your conclusion that this increases end pries for consumers has nothing to do with Amazon, but the sellers themselves.
    - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
      Amazon was already told not to do this for anti-trust reasons, and they promised to oblige. Unless the government, Amazon, and the general public are all incorrect about what constitutes monopolistic behavior, you are. The idea that Amazon is openly defying pro-consumer laws to do right by its customers is absurd.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a shill, lol.
      - ziml77 3y ago
        [flagged]
- woooooo 3y ago
  Some would say that the way commerce works is sellers can sell anywhere at any price that a buyer wants to pay.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    That's not how commerce works. Commerce works by following the rules of places that you are trying to sell at. You can't sell anything anywhere.
    - ARussell 3y ago
      And Amazon needs to follow the rules and laws of the place that IT'S trying to sell at.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        And which law dictates a company must allow people or sellers on its platform?
        ARussell 3y ago
        I'm not GP. I didn't make that argument. I agree that Amazon is not obliged to allow just anyone on their platform. Sellers must abide by the rules that Amazon sets in place. At the same time, Amazon must abide by the laws of the locations at which it wants to sell. So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        > So if a state says that they cannot force a seller to keep their lowest price on Amazon, then that's the way it is. Yes, but at the end of the day Amazon to remove the seller for any reason, so even if the FTC succeeds here, Amazon will simply purge those sellers who are not offering the best price, even if not explicitly stated. There is no reality where Amazon allows their site to be inundated with higher priced goods compared to competitors.
- EliRivers 3y ago
  The move that Amazon's price be no higher than offered elsewhere is the most pro-consumer move possible. Yet here we are with sellers WANTING to sell their items at a lower price on places other than Amazon, but if they do, they'll go out of business. That doesn't sound pro-consumer. I'm a consumer. I'd like to be able to buy items for the lowest price the seller wants to offer me. That's not happening in some cases because if they do, Amazon will exclude them and they'll go out of business. Yeah, definitely not pro-consumer. Pro-amazon, sure.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Would Amazon be obligated to list the items regardless? Otherwise just dropping pricing conditions would only help those sellers that Amazon has enough interest to list regardless - for some products the "equilibrium" might not be great.
scarface_74 3y ago
If your product doesn’t have any value that can be protected by copyright, patent and you haven’t built any type of affinity with customers, isn’t it by definition just another commoditized product?
- jhbadger 3y ago
  Well, here's a real example. About a decade ago there was a simple video conferencing system called Nautilus. A simple LCD screen that let you call other people with the device and talk to them, not having to bother with computers or smartphones. The sort of thing that is good for talking with elderly relatives who may not be very computer or phone savvy. I bought one (from Amazon) for myself and my elderly parents. It worked well, but a few years later Amazon came out with their Echo Show products which are basically the same thing, which killed the Nautilus. I'm sure it was covered by patents and what not, but you can't protect the idea. Amazon obviously saw that it sold reasonably well and used its power as both a marketplace and a technology company to undercut their own seller.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Really? That’s your example? Everyone and their mother has a video conferencing solution and the idea has been around as something to aspire to since the 60s with the Jetsons . Do you agree with the look and feel lawsuit that Apple had against MS? Or think that Roku, Amazon, Google , etc did something untoward because they came after Apple with set top boxes?
    - jhbadger 3y ago
      Well, for historical accuracy, Roku was first in regard to streaming devices you hooked up to your TV. Apple and the rest copied them. And it is pretty much obvious that Microsoft copied Apple (and yes, you can argue that Apple in turn copied PARC). But what makes Amazon copying things different is that they are a marketplace for other people's products and a maker of products themselves. That has an intrinsic conflict of interest.

Jensson 3y ago

It is none of Amazons business what prices they put when they list their wares on other services, the only reason they care is that they want to crush the competition. Dictating how retailers can interact with your competitors is anti-competitive. Dictating what prices they can offer when they put up listings is a part of that, it is anti-competitive.

endisneigh 3y ago
[flagged]
- tartuffe78 3y ago
  Amazon is abusing it's monopoly power to hurt competition, when Amazon is the only place to certain things, consumer cost will go up.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    > when Amazon is the only place to certain things No seller is obligated to sell on Amazon to begin with, so this entire premise is false.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      "No manufacturer is obligated to buy Standard Oil or Carnegie steel, so this entire premise is false."
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        Yes, because there are not literally thousands of e-commerce stores out there. Amazon is the only one. UPS, USPS and FedEx don't exist either. You must use Prime to transport your stuff.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Look, with this reasoning there is literally no world in which Amazon can be implicated for monopoly abuse of power. Apparently, having any other option (even if it is damaged by monopoly abuse) is good enough for you. Clearly the FTC disagrees with your logic, and I'm glad they do. FedEx, UPS and USPS should be sued too if they did what Amazon is doing.

kmeisthax 3y ago

So, to be clear, you have no problem with Amazon writing their own laws and collecting their own taxes? Because that is what they are effectively doing.

scarface_74 3y ago
Every company has the right to set the terms and fees to use them. A “tax” is something you are mandated to pay. I get plenty of crap advertised to me on FB that you can’t find on Amazon.
endisneigh 3y ago
If sellers were obligated to sell on Amazon that would be the case, but it's not, is it? Ironically, people complaining about this are exacerbating the issue. If sellers who actually cared left Amazon it would loosen Amazon's dominance in e-commerce.
- tartuffe78 3y ago
  They're obligated to by the grip Amazon already has on the e-commerce market. Letting Amazon make anti-competitive moves that increase their grip will only worsen the situation.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    This grip you're describing only exists because they don't leave, and nothing is stopping them. Again, no one is forcing people to sell on Amazon. They could use Shopify or sell on eBay. People act as if you have to sell on Amazon. You don't. That assumption and expectation is why Amazon is dominant to begin with. Sellers should leave if they don't like it, and that will naturally soften Amazon dominance.
    - anonymousab 3y ago
      > and nothing is stopping them. Imminent collapse and bankruptcy when they leave due to Amazon's dominant market position. That you can set up a shop anywhere does not mean anything when all of your potential customers are only going to the Amazon digital strip mall.

cedilla 3y ago

It does the opposite - it prevents the price going lower than cost plus Amazon fees. Amazon is not exactly cheap for sellers, so the price has to go up everywhere.

pnutjam 3y ago
I read that, on average, Amazon collects 50% of the cost in fees; from sellers.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  And how much do you think traditional retail marks up prices from wholesale to retail?
  - pnutjam 3y ago
    Why is that relevant?
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Because Amazon is a retail company and the amount that Amazon charges is not much different than the cost overhead of getting any product through the channel.
      - pnutjam 3y ago
        so my (theoretical) company that optimizes to keep these costs lower shouldn't be able to compete on those fees?
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Sure, if all you care about is money, then you can already go on Amazon and choose alternate vendors that are available at a lower price with slower shipping.

brookst 3y ago

I'll take the charitable interpretation and assume you just don't understand the mechanics of the policy. Amazon is saying that sellers cannot offer a fair low price to customers on other platforms if the seller can't also offer it on Amazon. This is 1) anticompetitive, 2) anticonsumer, and 3) insane. Consider this test: - Seller buys a crappy LED bulb from China for $0.80 - Seller is happy to list the bulb on Walmart, Target, etc, for $2.00. Net of fees and shipping and stuff they make enough money - Amazon charges $3 in fees. Obviously the seller can't afford to sell for $2 on Amazon. They sell for $5 instead. - However, now the seller also can't sell for $2 on competing sites. Amazon, leveraging its market share, has dictated that the seller must price Amazon's fees into pricing on non-Amazon sites, so consumers pay $5 to Target for something the seller would have been happy getting $2 for. This is insane.

endisneigh 3y ago
I disagree. Let's use your example. The sellers should stop selling that item on Amazon, and sell their light bulb on Walmart, or where-ever. Customers who really need that will go find it at Walmart, or where-ever. This strengthens the competitors to Amazon, which is bad for Amazon and good for the consumer. The consumer also find the lower price that they wanted. Alternatively, they buy the alternate product on Amazon which would be cheaper than the inflated price (per your example). Again, good for the customer. Everyone wins in every scenario except for the seller, which is how Amazon and every wholesaler operates. Suppose the FTC wins this case and sellers can put whatever price on whatever site. Amazon, like any store wants the lowest price. Not to mention there are only some many items you can show on the first page of results. They will find some other reason to remove these sellers and/or their items. Now maybe there's another case to stop that behavior too. The result is that companies are not obligated to let sellers on their site. That is insane. In summary, there will never be a scenario where Amazon allows sellers to sell the exact same item for more than Amazon's competitors, unless the government forces Amazon to let sellers sell whatever on their site.
- jbluepolarbear 3y ago
  You’re just wrong, Amazon controls around 35% of all US e-commerce. Not being able to sell on Amazon instantly removes most of your available customers. The second largest is Walmart and it’s closer to 7%. Walmart, target, whatever, don’t add up to Amazons market.

throwaway14356 3y ago

it is about the desire to control things that are non of your business.

Buttons840 3y ago

> Demanding the lowest price does not harm consumers. Amazon demands that sellers increase their prices on selling platforms with lower overhead. A demand to increase prices does harm consumers.