They're not your lawyer. They're allowed to have a conflict of interest. Especially one that you are fully aware of going into the relationship.

I just don't get it. Do you think someone selling a generic product that only differentiates on price has some unalienable right to make money on Amazon.com? Or that some wholesaler buying branded products has an inalienable right to somehow not get squeezed out when the only value they provide is placing POs with a vendor?

We're discussing anti-competitive behavior, and it seems this is a clear exhibition of that.

It's not about what intrinsic value any particular seller can bring - it's whether or not Amazon has become a defacto monopoly and/or practices anti-competitive behaviors.

> We're discussing anti-competitive behavior, and it seems this is a clear exhibition of that.

It's not anti-competitive behavior, it's just ordinary competitive behavior. Sometimes Amazon decides to compete with the sellers on its platform, and woe betide them when it happens because Amazon is an extremely competitive business.

Anti-competitive behavior is when you interfere in someone else's ability to compete with you. No amount of outcompeting competitors can make a business anti-competitive. It's almost a tautology.

Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly. They sell less than Walmart. You can take your products elsewhere. Your problem is with Amazon doing on their platform what every brick and mortar does in their own stores.