“While Amazon does not mandate that the third-party sellers on its site pay for Amazon shipping, advertising or stepped-up account support, some sellers have said that the tech giant makes it difficult for their products to gain traction among consumers unless sellers spend money on those services.”
This claim is not accurate because it is incomplete. Third-party sellers are “small“ (some of them are not so small) competitors with Amazon and the company holds millions of agreements with these sellers that violate the Sherman Act, the most basic antitrust law.
There are other similar cases filed against Amazon, but not by the US federal agencies as of yet.
The third-party competitors cannot claim damages in this case due to unclean hands doctrine. The law requires each third-party seller to compete with Amazon, not collude with it, be that as it may, under any terms.
Only consumers and legitimate businesses are harmed by collusive activity. The belligerents cannot claim damages for the act that themselves are complicit in.
Amazon collusion with third-party sellers is unfair to consumers and legitimate businesses.
Third-party sellers are all acting in self-interest when they agree to collude with Amazon.
They need this channel. They don’t want to build “the next Amazon.” They dont want to develop an alternative. They dont want to take risk.
It is, essentially, easier for a third-party seller to collude than to compete with Amazon. This is a hard fact against what is now a $1.7 trillion company. 40% of all sales on Amazon are a product of collusion, including 100% of all sales from Amazon Home Services division.
#bigtech #shermanact #ftcact U.S. Department of Justice Federal Trade Commission United States Congress United States Senate #antitrust #ecommerce