European Commission accuses Amazon of using third-party seller data to bolster its own...

[Polycount]

In brief: Big tech companies always seem to be at the center of at least a few antitrust lawsuits and investigations, and Amazon is certainly no exception to that rule. Today, the digital retail behemoth has been embroiled in another such suit: the European Commission believes the company is unfairly using third-party seller data to bolster its own products.

Amazon is in a bit of a strange position as far as digital retailers go. Not only does the company sell a wide array of its own, custom products; ranging from mice to keyboards and from speakers to chairs, but it also hosts thousands upon thousands of other product listings as well.

As such, the Commission believes Amazon has exploited its dominant market position to gain an unfair advantage over the third-party sellers whose products it hosts. Commission investigators found that Amazon feeds back-end data about third-party sellers' products into its own algorithms to help it decide which products to launch.

The Commission says Amazon is using this data to directly copy the products of some third-party sellers and then sell its own versions at a lower price point. This is something Amazon has been accused of in the past, and it's how several products in the company's "Amazon Basics" catalog came to be.

"We must ensure that dual role platforms with market power, such as Amazon, do not distort competition," explains European Commission executive vice president Margrethe Vestager in a statement. "Data on the activity of third party sellers should not be used to the benefit of Amazon when it acts as a competitor to these sellers."

This investigation began a whopping two years ago, and has finally resulted in the above findings. However, those are only preliminary -- a second investigation is starting soon, and it will focus on a related part of Amazon's business model: the "buy box." The buy box is simply the portion of a given Amazon listing that features the large "Add to Cart" and "Add to List" buttons.

When multiple sellers are listing the same product, only one of them can occupy the buy box at a given time (with the rest being pushed to a smaller "Other Sellers" section below). The European Commission's concern lies in the possibility that Amazon is favoring itself here, or third-party sellers who choose to use the retailer's shipping systems in lieu of independent alternatives like FedEx or UPS.

If Amazon is found guilty after this second investigation concludes, it could be forced to pay up to 10 percent of its annual revenue in fines, which would be a substantial chunk of change. Of course, Amazon's deep pockets also mean it can afford to retain world-class lawyers, so it remains to be seen whether or not any charges will stick in the end.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/87551-european-commission-accuses-amazon-using-third-party-seller.html

 

[Uncle Al]

Hmmmm ..... they say this like it's news ..... maybe they just got hooked up to the internet .....

 

[emmzo]

The European Commission seems the only authority with balls to stand time and time again, against these mega-corporation bullies with an avid appetite for monopoly.

 

[psycros]

The European Commission seems the only authority with balls to stand time and time again, against these mega-corporation bullies with an avid appetite for monopoly.

The EU thinks it can squeeze more out of big American companies via punitive charges than through traditional kickbacks even though history shows that only the lawyers get rich off cases like this.

 

[Puiu]

The EU thinks it can squeeze more out of big American companies via punitive charges than through traditional kickbacks even though history shows that only the lawyers get rich off cases like this.

Yet laws are still being made and it's normal to attack the big US companies since they are the ones that love to be anti-comeptitive or do stupid things that should not be allowed.

 

[Endymio]

Yet laws are still being made and it's normal to attack the big US companies since they are the ones that love to be anti-comeptitive

What you mean to say is it's normal to sue the companies that have money, instead of wasting time on the ones that don't. In legal circles, it's called the law of deep pockets.

The EU thinks it can squeeze more out of big American companies via punitive charges than through traditional kickbacks even though history shows that only the lawyers get rich off cases like this.

Actually, the EU's been rather successful in their shakedown strategy of US tech firms. They've gotten several billion out of Microsoft alone, something like $5B out of Google, a billion from Qualcomm, and don't forget the $13 billion out of Apple, not even under the guise of anticompetitive practices, but simply because it felt Ireland's tax structure wasn't confiscatory enough.

 

[emmzo]

The EU thinks it can squeeze more out of big American companies via punitive charges than through traditional kickbacks even though history shows that only the lawyers get rich off cases like this.

Oh, the poor multi-billion dollars companies being ripped off `cause they have all that money... do you realize these lawsuits have legal merit? Amazon stole data and used it for their own profit. Oh, but no, let`s look the other way because they pay taxes...Really?

 

[emmzo]

What you mean to say is it's normal to sue the companies that have money, instead of wasting time on the ones that don't. In legal circles, it's called the law of deep pockets.

Actually, the EU's been rather successful in their shakedown strategy of US tech firms. They've gotten several billion out of Microsoft alone, something like $5B out of Google, a billion from Qualcomm, and don't forget the $13 billion out of Apple, not even under the guise of anticompetitive practices, but simply because it felt Ireland's tax structure wasn't confiscatory enough.

Oh, I see it now: collecting tax means confiscating... I bet all your fellow CEOs feel the same way.

 

[Puiu]

Oh, the poor multi-billion dollars companies being ripped off `cause they have all that money... do you realize these lawsuits have legal merit? Amazon stole data and used it for their own profit. Oh, but no, let`s look the other way because they pay taxes...Really?

do they pay taxes? O_o well... it might be a bit more than what Trump is paying

 

[Endymio]

Oh, I see it now: collecting tax means confiscating... I bet all your fellow CEOs feel the same way.

Your reading comprehension is poor. The EU decided that Apple, by paying the tax rate set by its host nation (Ireland) was engaging in "unfair trade practices", and reached into Apple's pocket to extract -- not the taxes which were legally due -- but an additional $14 billion "fine".

Or tried to, I should say. Apple won the initial appeal against this action, and hopefully will win the final appeal as well.

Oh, the poor multi-billion dollars companies being ripped off `cause they have all that money... do you realize these lawsuits have legal merit?

In the majority of cases, these suits do not have merit. That's just the point. Your tone makes clear you believe that wealthy corporations (and individuals too, I suspect) should be treated more harshly, and given less legal protection than anyone else. That's a dangerous road to walk down.

Amazon stole data and used it for their own profit.

No one is alleging Amazon "stole" data. The actual legal argument is that Amazon used data it had rightfully acquired by virtue of its dominant market position to expand into other markets. The law sounds reasonable ... until you realize that, had a company smaller than Amazon engaged in exactly the same acts, that would be acceptable under the law. One standard for large firms, a separate standard for others.

 

[emmzo]

Your reading comprehension is poor. The EU decided that Apple, by paying the tax rate set by its host nation (Ireland) was engaging in "unfair trade practices", and reached into Apple's pocket to extract -- not the taxes which were legally due -- but an additional $14 billion "fine".

Or tried to, I should say. Apple won the initial appeal against this action, and hopefully will win the final appeal as well.

In the majority of cases, these suits do not have merit. That's just the point. Your tone makes clear you believe that wealthy corporations (and individuals too, I suspect) should be treated more harshly, and given less legal protection than anyone else. That's a dangerous road to walk down.

No one is alleging Amazon "stole" data. The actual legal argument is that Amazon used data it had rightfully acquired by virtue of its dominant market position to expand into other markets. The law sounds reasonable ... until you realize that, had a company smaller than Amazon engaged in exactly the same acts, that would be acceptable under the law. One standard for large firms, a separate standard for others.

My reading comprehension is fine, but logic eludes you. If lawsuits did not have LEGAL merit then they would have been dismissed in court. If they`re won or lost is another matter, but you just disagree with the ruling. And your whole argument about double standard is also flawed. A smaller company cannot engage in the same acts, BECAUSE it`s not in a dominant market position to do so. Now, regarding your bias, I quote you : "Ireland's tax structure wasn't confiscatory enough", therefore tax=confiscation in your opinion and that says something about where you stand. It`s true I may have jumped to some over the top conclusions to simplify the meaning, but trying to paint me as a commie to prove your point is dire. The reason I don`t cry like you over multi-billion dollars companies in dominant market position, such as your beloved Apple or Amazon is because they always tent to construct monopoly schemes. And that is the death of capitalism, when there is no competition, not the other way around. I`m not sure what that says about you. I recall you cheering when AMD made a comeback against "evil" Intel, but when Amazon , Apple, Facebook, Google take advantage of companies you don`t know about, you`re the guy to get their back. So you only like competition when it fits you and that`s double standard btw. And look, are you an attorney specialized in commercial litigation and European law? No. So when you cry "not fair" is purely subjective. I doubt you want to talk about when Huawei was not only fined, but completely shut down by US courts over shady and much unproven allegations. But if it is within the legal boundaries of American law, then it is "fair". Because every civilized country/union will protect its citizens first.