There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

TryingToEscapeTarkov ,

and nothing will happen ever.

TunaCowboy ,

So what’s the government’s price fine for something like that, 5 mil?

BearOfaTime ,

These kinds of crimes should come with a fine that’s 10x what they profited. Then even they manage to hide some of the profit, it’s still gonna hurt.

catboss ,

And jail time as well as taking their personal wealth. Or throw them in the middle of the Atlantic, both options are valid.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

I dont know who yall think decides on what prices a company charges other than the company.

bassomitron ,

Can’t tell if trolling or genuinely boot licking Amazon’s anti-trust behavior.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Anti-trust means opposing monopoly, i assume you mean anti-competitive. And one company making price changes for their own prices is not anti-competitive, especially when its price increases. Thats encouraging competition. Competition is other companies aiming to sell to you for better quality or cheaper prices, and Amazon going up in price just gives competitors more opportunity to outdo them on price. That theyre taking the opportunity to raise their own prices isnt on Amazon in any way, unless it was a concerted price gouging scheme.

GeneralVincent ,

Amazon owns both the product and the platform. They often are involved in the delivery of the products as well. This gives them quite a bit of control over other companies selling on their platform. They can push whatever product they like to the top of the page. They can copy other products and push the original to the last page of results, and then drop their price until the other company can’t compete, and then raise their prices.

They have a lot of control which allows them to be anti competitive. And allegedly they use that

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

None of that is what this article is talking about. This is just about them raising prices.

ElectroNeutrino ,

Price fixing, whether explicit or implied from conduct, is absolutely something anti-trust regulations were designed to prevent.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Price fixing involves multiple companies working together

ElectroNeutrino ,

Which is exactly what was described in the article.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Mmm no its describing an algorithm of raising prices for their own products

ElectroNeutrino ,

Yes, which is the price-fixing I was talking about. There doesn’t need to be an overt agreement to fall under price fixing.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

It does need at least an implied agreement of companies intentionally working together to raise prices. A computer program to determine your own prices does not imply working with any other company.

ElectroNeutrino ,

Go ahead and tell the FTC that you know the law better than they do.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

let them tell you https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing

Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors to raise, lower, maintain, or stabilize prices or price levels. Generally, the antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other competitive terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor.

ElectroNeutrino ,

And yet, they are the ones accusing Amazon of price fixing.

Like I said, go tell them that they got it wrong.

PeleSpirit ,

The documents cited by the FTC paint a different picture. The project ran for five years, and whatever intentions Amazon had for it, it generated about $1.4 billion in additional profits. Amazon is quoted as deeming Project Nessie “an incredible success,” which somewhat contradicts their more recent statement. And if it was strictly about preventing “unsustainable” low prices, it doesn’t make sense that it would only target retailers that would match Amazon’s markups.

snekerpimp ,

So everyone gets $3.50 back?

danc4498 ,

Free 2 week trial of AMC+

nrezcm ,

Autosubscribes at the end of the trial.

danque ,
@danque@lemmy.world avatar

Of course. And without mention or mailing

tony ,

Cancellation must be provided in writing at least 180 days before the end of the contract.

extant ,

No, the government gets a couple million in fines and Amazon raises their prices to compensate for the next quarter but never lowers the cost so they’ll make even more the quarter after.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Unfortunately, when the lawsuit was filed, it was full of redactions, and Nessie was clearly the biggest risk, with every mention and entire pages of the section dedicated to it blocked by black bars.

But the process in court is that these redactions must be first honored and then defended — and clearly the argument of public interest won out over Amazon’s preference.

And so the newly unredacted lawsuit is sporting far fewer stripes, though the occasional proprietary or internal figure is still blocked out.

And if it was strictly about preventing “unsustainable” low prices, it doesn’t make sense that it would only target retailers that would match Amazon’s markups.

That it was “scrapped” is also questionable, since in 2022 the CEO of Worldwide Amazon Stores Doug Herrington suggested turning on “our old friend Nessie, perhaps with some new targeting logic” to boost retail profits.

They may, however, have more detailed refutations in store in their own court filings, though on this matter of Nessie, they may well decide that discretion is the better part of public opinion.

The original article contains 638 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •