[array4277]

It is a well-documented fact that Amazon forces it's sellers to "fix" their prices to match the Amazon price. If you sell on Amazon, you're not allowed to sell the same item for less ANYWHERE. This- coupled with Amazon's insane fees- should be a huge red flag to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and maybe a Attorney General can get them to do their damn job and crack down on it... I wouldn't hold my breath though.

[mparkms]

You definitely shouldn't hold your breath considering the CFPB effectively doesn't exist anymore.

[mixdup]

The biggest mistake we've made is allowing Amazon (and now Walmart) to both be a seller and to operate what is supposed to be an open marketplace

It's insane that the landlord of the mall is also running the biggest store in the mall

It's led to this scheme, but also just the general enshittification of buying things online. You can never trust what you buy from Amazon because their "marketplace sellers" will send you a counterfeit, and it's hard to find some brand names because they don't want to be in that cesspool

As low rent and lowest common denominator as Walmart was in the 90s, at least I could go in and know that a) I probably was getting the lowest price on that Rubbermaid trash can b) it was legitimately a Rubbermaid trashcan and not someone who ripped off the molds, used plastic that was 50% as good, and sells it under the brand Xyxldk, and c) could reasonably expect to find that trashcan offered for sale in the first place

[cyberrock]

Doesn't this (except for the counterfeits) apply to Costco too? Is the difference just that Costco never pretended to be an open marketplace, just like how Apple never pretended that iOS is an open system?

[mdasen]

No. When you go into a Costco, Costco is a retailer who bought merchandise to sell to you. When you go to Amazon, a large amount of the products are being sold by third party vendors while Amazon is taking a large cut.

[BrenBarn]

I think a bigger mistake is just allowing Amazon (and Walmart) to even exist at their current size. There simply shouldn't be any sellers that large, or any marketplace operators that large.

[zmgsabst]

Your example about malls is actually common in Asia:

- Central and Aeon own malls;

- Tesco owns multi-story shopping complexes including banking, retail, fast food, etc;

- and for that matter, Walmart, Target, Costco, and some grocery stores in the US operate multiple smaller businesses inside, eg banks or fast food.

It’s really not that uncommon for a corporation to operate part of their commercial space as a subsidiary marketplace.

[mixdup]

Walmart isn't directly competing with the Subway or bank that operates in the front of their store. There's not a second grocery store operating inside Walmart

[Incipient]

EEE

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

I prefer FUKIDOG brand trashcans

[zer00eyz]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2025/12/18/how-w...

Why amazon sellers have not opened up a class action lawsuit is beyond me. This case, succeed or fail will surface enough documentation that they may find cause.

[sethops1]

Because Amazon holds all the power and will certainly retaliate. At best such a case could end up in front of a Supreme Court 6-3 in Amazon's favor.

[nielsbot]

ackshually I don't think that's the best case, but indeed very likely. SCOTUS judges (politicians in robes, really) are first selected for their pro-business bent.

[SilverElfin]

Small companies and individuals cannot pursue expensive lawsuits. It risks their livelihood while it goes through courts over years. And even if you win other big marketplaces may stop doing business with you. Plus class actions are prohibited in many contractual agreements - you’re forced into individual arbitration. It shouldn’t be legal but that’s normal today.

[teeray]

> Small companies and individuals cannot pursue expensive lawsuits.

The fact that lawsuits are won by whoever has more money and time is so deeply problematic. I have no idea how you’d go about equalizing it. Spending limits with devastating consequences if it can be proven that you broke them?

[sfn42]

Simple, just make it public. You don't bring a lawyer, a lawyer is appointed.

This way everyone is on equal footing. Doesn't matter if you're a homeless bum or Jeff Bezos. Both just get an appointed lawyer.

If a suit is found frivolous, you are on the hook for the costs, as long as it's reasonable it's paid for by the state and if a party is found at fault they may also be required to cover the costs.

[bitmasher9]

Two more ideas

* More juries, and maybe something jury like for civil suits.

* Simplify the law and legal proceedings to the point where the extra time preparing won’t lead to better outcomes.

[toast0]

> * More juries, and maybe something jury like for civil suits.

Juries are available for civil suits, but most parties prefer not to have them because jury results have high variability. I'm following a case, currently pending appeal, where the jury found against the defendants for breach of contract, but awarded $0 in damages, so there's no actual relief regarding the breach.

[vablings]

Even simpler idea, Let the jury know the legal expenses of either party

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Loser pays legal fees would be one small step in roughly the right direction (though it has its own set of problems too).

[graemep]

We have that in the UK, but its at the discretion of judges, and the loser can ask the court to look at the other sides costs and only award a reasonable amount rather than full costs (to deter people from running up costs to intimidate the other side).

it works reasonably well.

[Vaslo]

I worked for a large CPG company and what you are describing happens everywhere all the time and there is zero illegal about it. It’s called a most favored nation clause and if you do decide to sell lower elsewhere and don’t reduce your price to match (and beat) their competitor, then your MFN customer delists you or stops buying from you.

This is happening constantly with the private label brands you see in major stores. There is no CFPB needed here, Amazon has no obligation to carry your product and can dump you anytime. Why would CFPB get involved?

Some of you are just ridiculous with “get gubbermint involved” on everything. If you want to combat this then don’t buy from Amazon, we don’t need CFPB.

[marcus_holmes]

Similar to the shit they're doing on Audible, too. If you want to be part of their subscription service, then you cannot sell your book anywhere else, including your own website, or have it available in libraries. And if you're not part of their subscription service, then part of your sale proceeds gets diverted to authors who are part of the subscription service [0].

[0] https://kindlepreneur.com/audible-royalty-changes/

[consp]

Isn't that a textbook definition of racketeering?

[SilverElfin]

This is why Andy Jassy was a big supporter of BLM in the Biden era and is now funding the Melania documentary in the Trump era. Amazon bribes each administration to avoid the law. Many companies do this though, not just them. Companies worth more than a trillion shouldn’t exist, yet here they are corrupting our entire system.