If they do not, then Amazon has to bear the higher shipping costs associated with longer distance.
This is an issue of who should be paying for avoidable transportation costs. Not an anti-trust issue in any obvious way.
But the past 3 years of FTC actions have not required anything obvious.
Well, lets not pretend that just because something is not “obvious” to the public, does not mean there is evidence acquired through other means not available to the world at large. I am currently watching high powered fighter aircraft in the air in front of my office yet there is no aircraft on Flight Aware or ADSB and I don’t do drugs.
The military can turn off transponders at their own whim, and they have their own ATC, on their own frequencies. If you are a pilot go check, and you may find that the area has been designated a “Special Use Airspace” due to “Military Operating Areas”.
Thanks, ill get right on that… 
Ill let one of you tell him.
@packetfire, VTR has just retired from a whole career as a military pilot. Like your own “day job” and other multi-hyphenates here on SellersAskSellers, our non-ecommerce experience and expertise is not always immediately obvious. 
The FTC has suffered many dismissals of their actions in the past three years because they have not proved that any law was broken. When a judge decides they have no case because they have attempted to rewrite the law, that is serious. And that has been the recent history.
They have admitted that they are attempting to use novel interpretations of the law.
Lower court judges have ruled and they have not appealed, so we cannot tar SCOTUS with thwarting them.
They appear to be testing the limits of the law, since the Congress will not extend them. If you share their goals, then you think that is a good thing. If you so not, then it is not.
Ya, well if your assertion was correct 100% of the time OJ Would be behind bars still 
Not being brought to court or not being convicted does not mean one did not do said crime in reality is my assertion.
I assert this is done because laws on the matter have to be novel due to the technological modernity of the crimes outpacing the ability of the legislature to keep up. We see this all the time when the judiciary delves into the concepts of “intent of the law” versus “the letter of the law”.
There is always some clown testing the extent of the laws and doing so does not indicate support or rejection of the goals, but can in turn be welcomed as laws are either vindicated or strengthened through affirmation or rejection defining boundaries.
I’m confused then - he should know the answer to his own question, unless the question is some in joke among you long-time members of the Chowder and Marching Society that became the “in crowd” of “cool kids” here on SAS! 
…my perpetual state 
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.