Internal emails show how Amazon raises prices across the Internet, lawsuit says
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I would say it's well past anti-trust time, but we all know the current regime is pro-trust (if that's a word).
Upvote
124
(126
/
-2)
Upvote
52
(54
/
-2)
Guys - this happens more often than you think. Amazon is just the biggest target for scrutiny.
Collusion is incredibly widespread. Especially in the 'move fast and break things' tech industry.
But good luck stopping it. The feds dont care.
Collusion is incredibly widespread. Especially in the 'move fast and break things' tech industry.
But good luck stopping it. The feds dont care.
Upvote
98
(103
/
-5)
Don't worry, even if Amazon is found guilty it won't matter. Soon enough they will just "encourage" their suppliers to use a favored AI platform for pricing across the board, and miraculously prices will go up everywhere. Collusion without the paper trail - just another benefit of using ClaudePrime, Amazon's preferred pricing engine!
Upvote
84
(85
/
-1)
Shop local.
"The best day to plant a tree was thirty years ago. The second best was thirty years minus one day. Something something. Plant a tree today."
"The best day to plant a tree was thirty years ago. The second best was thirty years minus one day. Something something. Plant a tree today."
Upvote
46
(50
/
-4)
... wait, do I understand correctly that they're seeking a preliminary injunction to block Amazon from doing something illegal while the trial proceeds? Or is price-fixing itself not always illegal, and the question here is whether the price-fixing in question is the illegal kind?
If my initial understanding is right, does anyone have enough legal knowledge to comment on whether that's as bizarre as it sounds? ("Your Honor, we maintain that Mr. X has been embezzling. As such, we would like a preliminary injunction blocking him from doing any more embezzling while this trial proceeds." "Objection! If Mr. X can't embezzle, he'll have no livelihood at all.")
Upvote
78
(78
/
0)
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)
"I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" worked then and it works now.
It's not like they forced anyone to do anything, they were just talking.
It's not like they forced anyone to do anything, they were just talking.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
The actual requested injunction goes beyond just saying that Amazon would be barred from price fixing. Here’s the full text:
Upvote
40
(40
/
0)
I thought they already settled or had gotten Amazon on collusion for e-Books already? A cursory Google shows they may be still re-litigated due to lack of evidence or standing or some other BS.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I cant see this going anywhere, limiting Monopolies is very damaging to shareholder value.
When was the last time Antitrust was actually pursued and had meaningful reform? Hopefully this will be the start. Walmart, Google, Microsoft, Apple App Store etc etc etc are all based on gaining monopoly power.
When was the last time Antitrust was actually pursued and had meaningful reform? Hopefully this will be the start. Walmart, Google, Microsoft, Apple App Store etc etc etc are all based on gaining monopoly power.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
poke 532810
Ars Praetorian
A few years ago, I wanted to order something from Office Depot. The price the company’s website seemed a bit high, so I checked the price on Amazon. It was much lower even though the Amazon listing showed that the item was sold by and fulfilled by Office Depot. I went ahead and ordered it through Amazon, and sure enough, it arrived in an Office Depot box with an Office Depot packing slip inside. I’ve found the same price difference at times since then. This sounds like the same sort of nonsense described in the article.
Upvote
34
(34
/
0)
The unwillingness of our political leadership to change things is not sufficient reason for apathy. It is, in fact, quite the opposite.
Share this information, complain to your Congress critters, vote based on their actions, and look for alternatives to Amazon whenever you shop. You are not powerless. Even if your influence is small, it is finite. Every integral is the sum of infinitesimals.
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
I've tried to minimize my buying with them at least. I'm down to about one order a year, for things you legitimately can't get in other places, or vendors that resell through them anyway. It's possible to cut your Amazon buying way back if you're truly willing to try.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
Which is what's wild. Breaking up monopolies actually increases shareholder value. I just takes a bit longer than a quarter.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
This is similar to how Pepsi makes sure that anyone selling their product below Walmart prices suddenly stops receiving discounts or has to pay a higher wholesale price. All to make sure that Walmart has the lowest prices. Pepsi actively price checked other grocery stores prices to see who needed to have their discounts taken away or their wholesale prices raised.
It is so infuriating that even when you chose to shop local or shop at regional chains is that the biggest retailers are working with manufactures/vendors to ensure that those smaller shops or regional chains cannot offer lower prices.
It is so infuriating that even when you chose to shop local or shop at regional chains is that the biggest retailers are working with manufactures/vendors to ensure that those smaller shops or regional chains cannot offer lower prices.
Upvote
36
(36
/
0)
Worst comes to worst, John Roberts will just have to protect those poor corporations from any harm via the shadow docket again.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
It's not just the current regime. It's how the US legal system has been trending for decades. It started in the 1980s:
(source: The Reagan Presidential Library, by way of https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-secret-plot-to-unleash-corporate)
Even Judge Mehta, who found Google is a monopolist, decided Google was too important to actually force change upon. Judges just don't care to enforce anti-trust law anymore. I'm not sure how one fixes a system where the arbiters of law do not actually comply with the law.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
It's Walmart calling the shots on that arrangement though, right? I can't see how it benefits Pepsi other than avoiding being punished by Walmart.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
“Hey! You seem to be illegally colluding to force Amazon to always have a lower price than competitors, while also illegally colluding to keep that “low” price artificially high”
“Nuh-uh! We might be illegally colluding, but we’re proud of it so take that!”
I uh, I don’t think that’s the winning argument you think it is my guy, you’re kind of proving their point.
“Nuh-uh! We might be illegally colluding, but we’re proud of it so take that!”
I uh, I don’t think that’s the winning argument you think it is my guy, you’re kind of proving their point.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I can't speak to vendors for products Walmart resells, but I know from people who were involved in the sales that selling a product to Walmart corporate, they require that you can't offer another company a better deal than what they get, but it sounds very similar.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Anecdotally, as a reverse example, I bought a cheap Android tablet on Amazon a couple of weeks ago*. Doing a search turned up two versions of the same thing, priced at around £240.
But digging deeper, the vendor had an Amazon shop. And on that Amazon shop the identical product, despatched from the vendor's own UK warehouse, was £180 sent by DPD rather than fulfilled by Amazon.
All I can say is that Amazon's own delivery service seems to be rather expensive compared to DPD, because it couldn't possibly be that Amazon would deliberately bury a direct sale that was so much cheaper than the Amazon fulfilled version, would they?
*It's an extremely convenient way of comparing two papers on the same subject when the main computer is just a 13 inch Thinkpad.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Now do an article about the Prime Video scam where you can start watching a series available on Prime, come back to it a week later and have to pay to watch more.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Cellular phone providers have been colluding for decades, and at almost every price point. There is zero real competition among T-mobile, AT&T, and Verizon; they just play promotional games (temporarily give someone a good rate to switch to their service,) and every 2 or 3 years shift around a few minor aspects of their plans ("bundled benefits"), give them new names, and call it "innovative."
And all the smaller, piggyback carriers end up at the same price points too ,generally. I think Mint is the only one that doesn't, but not sure if their $15 / line offering is truly equivalent to the common $25 / line offered by many of the budget carriers like Consumer Celluar.
Broadband providers have colluded for decades as well, except less in terms of price points and more in terms of "you stay out of this big market over here, and we'll stay out of that big market over there," effectively giving each of them (Verizon, Comcast, Spectrum) a series of regional monopolies.
The whole thing is FUBAR and for sure no one in this clown administration will lift a finger... except maybe to dismiss any active lawsuits that might be out there.
Last edited:
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I have not bought anything on Amazon since around 2006. I also stopped shopping at Whole Foods and no longer use Grubhub. I don't subscribe to their tv service. It is actually pretty easy since so far everything that is sold on or by Amazon is available somewhere else.
Even if this is a meaningless gesture and doesn't change anything, I don't care. It makes me feel better to have nothing to do with them.
That they are causing prices to go up across the internet is unsurprising. There are already many reasons to find them despicable.
Even if this is a meaningless gesture and doesn't change anything, I don't care. It makes me feel better to have nothing to do with them.
That they are causing prices to go up across the internet is unsurprising. There are already many reasons to find them despicable.
Upvote
20
(21
/
-1)
Collusion requires explicit agreement, not just a tacit avoidance of price competition.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Add this after your google search terms to exclude a site: "-site:amazon.com". Or use a browser extension. Filter these sociopaths out of your life. Need the same for the fake president too.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
If anyone wants to know how Amazon can afford to give Anthropic $5 Billion to buy chips from Amazon well, this is how.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
FTC already dropped case against Walmart and Pepsi after the current administration came to power.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
i buy mint by the year and its great. i pay around $200 and get all the service i need (im not a heavy user) for the next year. so far tho hasn't ruined it.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRacha
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Yeah, look at mattress stores, eyewear, diamond jewelry, shoe stores, just for starters. Ever notice that on a search for an item, it cattlechutes you, based on location and IP, to amazon, walmart, home depot as top choices? Where are all the mom and pop merchants? their SEO suck? Or even how Walmart vendors are crazy high for prices unless you know what you are looking for.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
If the phone maker sets a retail price and requires the sellers to stick to it, that's not the same kind of collusion as T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon agreeing to sell the phone for the same price. The former is pretty much standard operating procedure. The latter is price-fixing. I suspect they are smart enough not to do the latter (although, these are terrible companies, you never know).
In this case, Amazon is accused of using their leverage over the vendor in order to set up price-fixing, without having to communicate with their competitors directly. Basically creating a pretense that no collusion occurred. That's what makes it different.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Mint is one of my best tech investments. Been paying $15 for years, no inflation, and I've gotten more data for the same price. I'm sure it won't last forever sadly.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)