5 ms·
Some would say that the way commerce works is sellers can sell anywhere at any price that a buyer wants to pay.
by 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 agoThat'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 agoAnd Amazon needs to follow the rules and laws of the place that IT'S trying to sell at.
- endisneigh 3y agoAnd which law dictates a company must allow people or sellers on its platform?
- ARussell 3y agoI'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.
- ARussell 3y agoPerhaps you are right, and also then again perhaps those companies find that they have cause to file a lawsuit.
- throwaway14356 3y agowith astronomic fines (for the customers to pay)
- scarface_74 3y agoThere has been a a standard of “no duty to deal” forever. No company is forced to do business with anyone.
- throwaway14356 3y agoit would be sensible to require a reason for refusing to do business with someone. Normally it wouldn't be but if you are a repeat offender it seems a sensible requirement
- endisneigh 3y agoUnless it's a protected class you can refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. Plenty of supreme court cases on this.
- throwaway14356 3y agocertainly, you can write anything on the form. Any reason is not without? I do doubt you can refuse one foo for being fooish but not the other. Now multiply by 10 000 and pretend you are explaining it to the judge in a context where you've been convicted multiple times.
- brewdad 3y agoWhy not? If I'm willing to pay Amazon $6 for an item I could get for $5 at Walmart, why wouldn't Amazon want to make that sale?
- throwaway14356 3y agothis might come if the shop is large enough
- woooooo 3y agoSure. The rules at the place you're trying to sell. Dictating how you sell elsewhere is a clear step beyond that.
- endisneigh 3y agoThey are not dictating how they sell elsewhere. They are saying they need to offer the best price on their site. It is easy to detect whether or not they actually are, and sellers are simply being called out. There is no obligation to sell on Amazon, nor a requirement for them to raise prices on other platforms. They could simply offer the lowest price everywhere. The result? Lower prices for Amazon customers. If they raise the price, then that's the seller's fault, not Amazon.
- sb8244 3y agoYou...understand how you can't have one without the other, right?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- OGWhales 3y ago> There is no obligation to sell on Amazon While true, this ignores the important point that Amazon is only able to do this anti-competitive practice due to their market dominance that effectively forces many sellers to sell on Amazon. > nor a requirement for them to raise prices on other platforms. That is what this whole thing is about. Sellers that sell on Amazon aren't allowed to sell for lower prices on other platforms that are cheaper to sell on. If Amazon was able to offer lower prices for its customers by offering sellers a marketplace with lower costs compared to competitors that would be great. Instead, they abuse their market dominance to prevent any competitors from offering lower prices by being more cost efficient for sellers. This is extremely nasty as it effectively prevents any competitors to Amazon from building a market share since consumers will have no price incentive to switch and sellers will not want to switch due to the smaller market share on those competitors' platforms. It could not be more clear that this is anti-competitive behavior achieved through abuse of a dominate market position.
- throwaway14356 3y agorules partially set by government