Yeah they were violating the regulations with Cloudtail & Appario and with growing pressure they've no choice now.
But still there are loads of sellers claiming to be an 'Amazon Brand'[1] on their listing. If Amazon does have something to do with them, Then again it's a violation of the regulations.
Then, What about 'Amazon Basics' products[2]? I'm sure Amazon manufactures them.
The whole thing is messy and keeps changing according to the 'Mega Billionaires' fight to hold their position, But if this results in temporary consumer choice until one of them wins and we have to pledge our souls then it's fine with me.
I am also confused. Perhaps they have an earlier court decision that enjoins them from banning sellers for this kind of activity?
Failing that, perhaps they're seeking the court decision so they can't appear to be biased, in future courts eyes or in the eyes of a potential anti-trust suit? Keep in mind Amazon is basically both a provider here (of the "Amazon selling platform") and a consumer of that platform ("Sold by Amazon") and weird hybrids in-between ("sold by X, fulfilled by Amazon").
It could simply be that Amazon does not want to be seen as banning their competitors. Funny situation, I hope the courts understand it well, which may be part of why Amazon is bringing this suit so they can define the terms and the tone of how the suit is eventually brought.
Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, Amazon probably has too long of fingers. On the other hand, if we (the US) are going to be bad at enforcing anti-trust laws, we should at least be consistent about it.
IMHO these websites should be disallowed to sell their own brands. (I wouldn't mind if physical retailers wouldn't be allowed to sell their own brands either.)
> Last month, India tightened rules that will disallow foreign-owned online retailers from selling products via companies in which they own equity, and forbid them from pushing merchants to sell exclusively through their platforms
Unfortunately I agree-- no repercussions at all. I've been visiting the site basically from the beginning and had no idea Amazon bought them. I guess I missed that one blog post from 2007.
So basically, Amazon is not allowed to look at what products are selling well on Amazon before they decide which products to make. However, Amazon is still allowed to sell products, and presumably market research firms are going to give them the same results, more or less. So what did this accomplish, really? It seems like some UK lawmaker is up for reelection and wants a feather in their cap.
Amazon does this all of the time. They set the terms for what can be sold on their website. If the vendors can't agree to those terms, then they can't sell on the website. This is what happened with the recent e-books debate. However, you only hear about the high-profile cases. AWS really doesn't have much to do with those decisions, so I'm not seeing the argument this article is making.
Amazon didn’t break any laws when they paid whatever amount they did or didn’t pay. Also I’m not sure which oligarch you’re talking about.
And they’re not the only ones who did this. It’s just convenient to flash Amazons name next to this headline since there are enough companies out there who refuse to compete or do anything innovative but want you to blindly give them your money.
But still there are loads of sellers claiming to be an 'Amazon Brand'[1] on their listing. If Amazon does have something to do with them, Then again it's a violation of the regulations.
Then, What about 'Amazon Basics' products[2]? I'm sure Amazon manufactures them.
The whole thing is messy and keeps changing according to the 'Mega Billionaires' fight to hold their position, But if this results in temporary consumer choice until one of them wins and we have to pledge our souls then it's fine with me.
[1] https://www.amazon.in/s?k=amazon+brand
[2] https://www.amazon.in/s?k=amazon+basics
reply