[judge2020]

This probably plays into the antitrust issues.

Amazon is so big that they can drop probably $200,000+ In revenue in exchange for news articles like this one and to let users know Amazon always takes their side.

Say a new non-unicorn competitor joins the e-commerce space. They can't afford to burn money like Amazon can, so disputes are treated on a case-by-case basis with investigating sometimes taking weeks before choosing whether or not to side with and refund the customer or not. This causes:

1. People don't think this competitor cares about them/sides with them as much as Amazon does since support cases take a long time 2. People get angry when eventually they don't get their refund (since Amazon will courtesy refund long time prime customers often with no questions asked) and post about it online [with a warped story in their favor]

Suddenly people stop buying from this company because there isn't a 99.5% chance that the company will refund any future fraud or mishaps. Why take the chance buying from them if Amazon is known to always do whatever it takes to keep you happy?

This is a prime example of how eBay works as well. Maybe this has recently changed, but as a seller, ebay is commonly known to always side with the buyer in disputes unless the seller can prove the buyer's claim wrong. This is largely to prevent eBay from receiving a name of a service where you can get scammed easily (whether or not this has achieved the desired effect is another story).

[dodobirdlord]

> Suddenly people stop buying from this company because there isn't a 99.5% chance that the company will refund any future fraud or mishaps.

In this scenario one company offers a better product via a better customer experience. Simply being able to offer a better product because of scale is now enough to get people talking about antitrust issues. Not everything is an antitrust issue. It's really starting to grate on me that it's impossible these days for a title to have "Amazon" in it and nobody to be down in the comment section grinding an axe about trust-busting. Is it an antitrust issue that Amazon can hire better lawyers if they get sued? Is it an antitrust issue that Amazon can afford to staff enough customer support employees to process all of their complaints in a timely manner?

[okcando]

This complaint is closely related to the idea that selling a product at below-cost is anticompetitive, and that does have basis in antitrust law.

The idea that customer service can be a "product" run at a loss to gain an unfair advantage is at least a little compelling. I don't know if it has merit but it's an interesting question.

[judge2020]

As it is/was with oil, the only real issues are when they're used to harm the consumer after the companies that under-sold their product later sells their product for much more or otherwise harms the consumer.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing?wprov=sfti1

[Can_Not]

> It's really starting to grate on me that it's impossible these days for a title to have "Amazon" in it and nobody to be down in the comment section grinding an axe about trust-busting

How do walk right into text book examples of modern antitrust issues and get mad people notice?

No, of course none of the strawmen are the issue, it's their vertical and horizontal sizes that break the theoretical math of competitive markets and the use of their weight to enforce their hegemonic authoritarianism on/against municipalities and small businesses.