|
|
|
|
|
|
by kiklion
994 days ago
|
|
|
How is it clearly anti-competitive if they are providing a better value for the consumer? When a name brand has market power and charges a premium for a basic product, then another company entering the market and undercutting them is great for the consumer. We can make regulations to ensure that a distributor, advertiser, retailer and the product owner engage in arms length transactions but there’s nothing inherently wrong with a store brand offering products comparable to name brand at significantly reduced prices. |
|
|
imo the problem is specifically generics branded and marketed by the marketplace. That's where a conflict of interest between the marketplace and sellers arises, which ultimately harms end-customers.
Amazon Private Brands (APB) typically buys from the same companies that make the random generics like "XOFUNBO" no-name brands. The issue is Amazon can use it's insider data to buy, brand, and market generics in-house, without paying the fees charged to sellers - achieving costs that 3p sellers fundamentally cannot compete with. Amazon's own corporate training highlights that sharing sales data with 3p sellers is illegal and anti-competitive, I don't know why APB should be seen as any different.
This is not even considering how sellers need to earn end-customer trust while Amazon can muscle coasting on their trust as the marketplace.
Marketplaces must be neutral ground for sellers, full stop. No seller can be given privileged access. Otherwise the market distorts to favor a seller and that ultimately harms the end-customers in the long-term by suppressing competition.