Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

Amazon Is Accused of Forcing Up Prices in Antitrust Complaint (bloomberg.com) 19

In a letter sent to federal lawmakers, an online merchant has accused Amazon.com of forcing him and other sellers to use the company's expensive logistics services, which in turn forces them to raise prices for consumers. From a report: The 62-page document, reviewed by Bloomberg, lays out an antitrust case that emphasizes harm to consumers -- the traditional basis for such cases in the U.S. Until now, antitrust experts have suggested that Amazon was not vulnerable to such an argument and that regulators would need to find another way to restrain the company's growing market power. The complaint, based on an analysis of thousands of Amazon transactions over several years involving more than 100 products, turns all of that thinking on its head. It accuses Amazon of "tying" its marketplace and logistics services together, an antitrust violation in which a company uses dominance in one market to give itself an advantage in another market where it's less established.

The letter refers to previous Supreme Court rulings on tying, including one against Kodak in 1992 that said the photocopier manufacturer violated antitrust laws by forcing customers who bought its machines to also use its parts and repair services. "When it comes to Amazon's dealings with third-party merchants, some of the conduct actually does lend itself to antitrust scrutiny," said Hal Singer, an antitrust expert and Georgetown University adjunct professor retained by the merchant to work on the analysis. "If you can connect the conduct to some measureable harm, in this case increased prices, that gets you into the antitrust ballpark."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Is Accused of Forcing Up Prices in Antitrust Complaint

Comments Filter:
  • by cusco ( 717999 ) <brian.bixby@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Friday November 08, 2019 @05:38PM (#59395780)

    There are innumerable ways to sell on Amazon, Fulfillment By Amazon is only one of them. Many vendors prefer it because they don't have to pay for warehouses, negotiate with shippers, etc. Many vendors ship from their own facilities and deal with UPS/USPS/Fed Ex on their own. Many vendors also sell their products through their own web site for lower prices than they offer on Amazon. I can't help but think that they're going to have a hard time proving this one.

    Full Disclosure: I work at Amazon but have nothing to do with the retail side.

    • You are 100% correct. My own personal company does all 3 - FBA (especially in the EU, out of the UK warehouse - simpler/cheaper for us and our consumers), direct on Amazon listings, and direct on our own website. We also have dealers in several countries who handle their own Amazon and direct website accounts in their own countries, too... And if anything, we've found our direct website sales are about on-par with Amazon volumes, and FBA and direct-ship Amazon sales are evenly split...
  • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Friday November 08, 2019 @05:42PM (#59395794)

    eBay aggressively pushes their global shipping program on sellers which costs international buyers big time. Often the cost of shipping is more than the item itself. It's quite a racket. Simple USPS international parcel shipping is usually half the cost. Unfortunately once a seller agrees to use the global shipping service they cannot change it when I contact them to point out how expensive it is. Sellers have no idea how expensive this is for buyers. And sellers get nothing from this. It's a money grab for eBay's partner plain and simple. I've stopped buying things in eBay because of this nonsense.

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      eBay aggressively pushes their global shipping program on sellers which costs international buyers big time. Often the cost of shipping is more than the item itself. It's quite a racket. Simple USPS international parcel shipping is usually half the cost. Unfortunately once a seller agrees to use the global shipping service they cannot change it when I contact them to point out how expensive it is. Sellers have no idea how expensive this is for buyers. And sellers get nothing from this. It's a money grab for

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Face Amazon done fucked up, trying to force use of their overpriced logistics via restriction upon access to the retail market, nett result only one solution now possible, the break up of Amazon, separating retail from logistics, they are screwed, the straw that broke the camels back, really greed driven stupidity egoistic mistake. They are in real trouble now.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Amazon's got a lot of vertical integration going on. With the exception of the actual production of the goods themselves, they seem to be involved at every step along the way. This is the kind of behavior anti-trust laws were designed to ward against.
  • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Friday November 08, 2019 @06:01PM (#59395858) Journal

    You can self-fulfill if you like. IF you want to offer the 2 day Prime delivery option directly, you can do that, too - but if you fail more than a few percent of the time, Amazon will yank your ability to offer 2 day Prime delivery. If you use their logistics, they're on the hook for 2 Day Prime.

    Personally, my company does both - we fulfill direct (via one listing) and use FBA (Fulfilled By Amazon - logistics) for another (both are for the same products). Overseas in the EU is pretty much all FBA, for all of Asia and Australia it's direct fulfillment (lower order volume there).

  • The letter refers to previous Supreme Court rulings on tying, including one against Kodak in 1992 that said the photocopier manufacturer violated antitrust laws by forcing customers who bought its machines to also use its parts and repair services.

    I don't think there is a single tech company that doesn't corral consumers through subscriptions, designed incompatibilities, or other deceptive business practices.

    From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

    Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket.[1] The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts.

    One example that I can think of would be printers. They don't allow their ink cartridges to work between competitive models, and they even have IC's to lock cartridges to specific models of the same make. How is that not an antitrust violation?

    I'd also say look at Apple. They design their products to be incompatible outside of thei

    • by cusco ( 717999 )

      Yeah, it's popular to hate on Amazon now. They're too successful and profitable for the Left, and too competent and forward-thinking for the right.

  • "an online merchant has accused Amazon.com of forcing him and other sellers to use the company's expensive logistics services, which in turn forces them to raise prices for consumers. "

    I guess his landlord forces him to pay rent and the electricity company forces him to pay for the used power, forcing him to make his wares more expensive as well.
    Poor guy.

  • Though both companies have 5 letters in their name, are invented words, begin and end with the same letter, and had their heydays in 1992.
    • ...and both companies faced antitrust suits in 1992. From NY Times, Dec 8 1993: Plaintiffs' lawyers in a class-action antitrust lawsuit by 25,000 independent service and repair organizations against the Xerox Corporation said yesterday that Xerox had agreed to settle the suit. The Federal suit, filed in Marshall, Tex., in April 1992 with allegations dating back four years, claimed that Xerox suppressed competition in the sales and servicing of its copiers and parts.

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Working...