The biggest single barrier to dealing with Amazon’s multitude of errors and omissions that cost the seller money is the “fair pricing policy”, which forces the seller to absorb the costs inherent in Amazon’s unrelenting inability to do simple things correctly.
I am going to leave this here, in the event one of the staffers is reading the forums looking for examples of how Amazon F’s us in the A on a daily basis.
FU Amazon! At $154… we are paying you to take our money, all because some Wal Mart vendor is selling grey market inventory and you restrict our price trying to get the brand price on Wal Mart higher.
All the partners in this company agree they would gladly…
While I suspect that many of us might agree with the notion that Amazon’s 11 March, 2019 decision to scrub the formerly-‘dispositive’ “S-4 Parity with Your Sales Channels” clause from the ASBSA, in favor of its equally-execrable replacement - the Fair Pricing Amabot - would most likely be best addressed directly on a federal level, it may not be gainsaid that the Great State of California’s ability to influence developments has much historical basis - and this wouldn’t hardly be the first time that the Sacto worthies bent Seattle’s TPTB to tacking along a different course than that which The Thirty Tyrants had previously planned to trod…
Didn’t amazon already lose this exact case in the EU a few years ago? I always wonder why we don’t follow suit each time a tech co loses a major case over there.
It does not always take the heavy axe of federal intervention to make change. The many small daggers of state taxation nexus’ made for quite the bleed on Amazon to force sales tax remittance directly instead of FBA sellers.
Sometimes, I would prefer the mantle of 40 million consumers within a singular border, take on the behemoth, instead of any expectation of the knee pad wearing people on capital hill.
I read the federal government is indebted to Amazon for the fast delivery of sharpies for last minute redactions.
I believe it does address high-pricing alerts, no? From the article:
The complaint also focuses on Amazon’s “Buy Box,” the prominent feature that allows customers to quickly add items to their carts. Bonta contends that sellers who declined to follow Amazon’s pricing expectations risked losing access to the Buy Box, which accounts for most transactions on the site.
Yup. But a sticker is still a small price to pay in exchange for copious federal welfare dollars.. cough cough (looking at you LA, MS, KY, NM, AK)… and not having school textbooks depicting the civil war not being about slavery. LOL
I mean it is a little hard to feel bad for imposing something on some of the other states when you subsidize their existence in the first place, like when my kid gets mad about asparagus with dinner. - “Great… More for us”. (OVERT exaggeration/humor/sarcasm intended)
European Anti-Trust Law has far different goals than US Anti-Trust Law, and is fundamentally irrelevant in the US.
European Anti-Trust Law protects competition. US Anti-Trust Law protects the consumer.
The spin provided by regulators and defense lawyers is totally different and the same actions may be legal in the US, and quite illegal in Europe where screwing the consumer is government sanctioned policy.
There have been third party Amazon sellers in the UK and EU who have been forced to raise their prices to protect their European competitors, and Amazon prices higher in Europe than in the US for the same reason.
This is not an attack on the position of Amazon 3P sellers that the “Fair Pricing Policy” is a poorly implemented piece of stupidity.