| I am hopeful that now that the FTC has a pro-consumer Chair that some of these anti-consumer acts will be curtailed. I would also argue that some of these bad acts could be considered to be false / deceptive trade practices under the various state laws (in the U.S. at least). For example, some people would never have bought a FireTV cube for streaming video if Amazon had revealed that they would be adding advertisements to the consumer's video-viewing experience. But: how much incentive is there for individuals to file a small claims suit against Amazon for a $79 device? Generally speaking you might get treble damages but not much more unless you've had actual damages. And although class action suits are frustrating and should be "fixed" so that those harmed get the bulk of the proceeds (i.e. it's not okay that consumers receive discount coupons or $10 checks while plaintiff's counsel receives a disproportionally huge payday) this is one thing we've lost by generally not allowing class actions. David v. Goliath is not as effective as 15,000 Davids v. Goliath. Not to even mention the mandatory arbitration imposed on consumers (which do sometimes carve out the ability to file in small claims court). We have cultivated, or at least allowed, a very anti-consumer bias to take hold in U.S. law. |
The fact that they use the monopoly power on the phone to force Manufacturers to use Android TV is insane to me. The fact that they then quickly made the experience extremely anti consumer is a playbook monopoly play.