Many other comments here in addition to yours fail to grasp that one doesn't have to have a literal 100% monopoly to show monopolistic behavior that leaves the customers as a whole worse off.

Like this article says, prices are increased across the board because of how Amazon acts.

Don't paint amazon subscribers as victims here. I am entirely satisfied of the time saved and the cost of Amazon products I buy.

The yelling comes from the Amazon sellers side, not from the customers.

There is plenty of competition for me to shop around, and if there are none, I'd rather buy from Amazon as I trust that they reduce the costs , fees and taxes effectively.

I would argue that the government should do less and not more. If they really want competition to grow, they could stop charging capital gains on every item a seller flip.

For example, when I was selling on Ebay, after the platform fees, the shipping fees, and the government taxes, it's just not worth it to enter the sector as a small guy.

You're kinda proving the point here. If it weren't for Amazon's behavior, you could have gotten a better/cheaper service. But you can't, as the prices are raised across the board. And the true cost is hidden from you.

I don't we are there yet. I buy plenty on eBay because it is cheaper than amazon.

> Don't paint amazon subscribers as victims here.

The point of the lawsuit and detailed in the analysis is that ALL online purchases end up being influenced (controlled?) as a result. This creates prices that are 30-45% higher across all retailers for a given item.

That would include Amazon Prime subscribers and random internet guy buying the same thing from a different site.

If Amazon controls their own storefronts, that's one thing. When they can exert control over competitors' storefronts - or worse, all competitors' storefronts - that's a different matter.

I was a eRetailer and I often lowered my prices accordingly to be more competitive than what was proposed by Amazon.

I ended making the sale because someone did not buy at Amazon.

Nobody forced me to raise prices at all. Amazon had no control at all on my prices. The market price is what is offered and what the customer is willing to pay.

If it's too expensive, nobody buys there.

I think we both get the point, except we think in different terms about the solution. I'd rather let the market works, have a transition towards competition which will eventually come down the line (5 to 10 years) than have big government try to solve the problem by making everything worse off.

There is a subtle tipping point of negotiating leverage where an agent has the ability to influence or dictate prices for the entire ecosystem. The formal term is "market power" [0].

Say you're a vendor producing widgets for $10 each, costing $9 each to produce. 80% of your buyers prefer the buying and service experience of Amazon, for all the reasons you describe. They have no brand loyalty to you: they go to Amazon, type "widget" in the search box, and buy the first result with 4+ stars costing roughly $10.

Amazon decides out of the blue that they want $1 per sale, and what's more, they will drop you from their platform if you offer a different price on Amazon and other storefronts (be it another giant like Walmart, or your own low-traffic e-commerce website). Because this $1 is the entirety of your profit margin, your only way to stay in business is to raise the price to $11, and because your widget competitors have been given the same deal, all widgets now cost $11, and when consumers are price-shopping, they're now conditioned to see $11 as the normal price for a widget. You could opt out of Amazon entirely, but that would limit you to 20% of revenue, which is also a dealbreaker. (You theoretically get a higher cut from that 20% at the new price-point, but you also suffer the deadweight loss from buyers who can't/won't transact at that price point.)

The standard libertarian retort would be that the seller consented to their contract with Amazon, while no citizen or market actor ever signed some imaginary "social contract" with state regulators, and it's a legitimate point. But saying that a vendor whose livelihood is dependent on a presence on Amazon.com (whose revenue rivals the GDP of many nations [1]) "chose" that relationship is like saying that each citizen "chooses" the laws of the nation-state they live in, because they could have moved elsewhere. Yes, technically there is an exit clause; but in both cases the table is tilted such that exiting is deeply against the interests of each actor, thus each actor is incentivized to perpetuate the asymmetry in negotiating power.

Market competition is a great thing when it works, and many times it does. But oft it's forgot that the whole point of a competition is to win. And whether we're talking political power or economic power, concentrations of power tend to snowball and entrench.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power

[1] https://www.axios.com/big-techs-power-in-4-numbers-de8a5bc3-...

I clearly see a path forward where competition will work.

I truly see an horrible path if government starts to put its big fingers everywhere and start causing all kinds of secondary market effects. When you look in hitory, it ALWAYS ends up being worse.

Nobody speaks about Walmart only sellers, that don't want to work with Amazon (as they are crazy with sellers).

Nobody speaks about Ebay sellers, nobody speaks about shopify only sellers. Nobody speaks about LOCAL sellers.

Those are all competitors than Amazon has no control over it.

Yes Amazon has a large distribution network, and competitor are starting to catch up from what I can see.

But anyway, what can I do other than expressing my disagreement ? I very well know we are going towards a gov intervention. I can only laugh in my corner, alone...

> I truly see an horrible path if government starts to put its big fingers everywhere and start causing all kinds of secondary market effects. When you look in hitory, it ALWAYS ends up being worse.

Source? It worked out well for the browser wars. It worked when it blocked (several) telco merger(s). And many more.

And that's just anticompetitive protections. What about the FDA and OSHA putting its fingers into the food industry so there aren't literal fingers in my food?

If you are a client and have really bad service, you don't come back.

Are you a client and subscriber of Amazon ?

If you're happy, all power to you, not everyone else is. Amazon is essentially doing the same thing credit card companies did in the past. To hide their cost they are increasing everyone else's cost. Their approach primarily hurts people that DO NOT want to shop at Amazon.

Thank you for toally missing the point

They are a monopoly and are being accused of being so because their mandatory policies forbid the merchants from selling that product anywhere else cheaper than Amazon.

This means that if I buy the product from say Walmart or Target, then I am paying 25 to 35% more for it. This is because the merchant cannot list it anywhere else cheaper than they list it on Amazon.

That is a clear violation of monopoly laws and I applaud that AG for his efforts to abolish these "most favored nation" status agreements.

Nothing stops walmart to enter the market and cut the price off 25% to 35%.

And the buyers will move towards it.

You were already told that that is literally not true and exactly what the lawsuit is about.

A putting a clause into a contract they enter into with B that B may not sell to C (competitor to A) is obviously anti-competitive. Think of the whole Intel "you can't buy AMD" clauses with OEMs.

Ive def noticed Amazon becoming more and more of rip off. I cant even find things for less than $10 anymore. There are numerous items I’ve looked into buying from them, but it’s priced at $12 on Amazon, where i could walk into a target or Wally World and get it for $5...

I haven’t found any sites where I can get cheaper small items anymore. I’m up for suggestions for other online retailers.

> Ive def noticed Amazon becoming more and more of rip off.

Yes, and more and more counterfeit goods.

They must feel really confident with their market position (ie, monopoly), because they just don't seem concerned about counterfeit products.

I wonder how long the momentum will run on this working. There’s still a lot of earned assumption that Amazon is a competitive price.

I’ll usually let a slight increase in price slide for the convenience, but I’m always looking for a reason not to use Amazon if I can - and a rip off price is a good trigger for me to be patient and get the product next week with a smaller shop.

I think this is Amazon's goal, where you're expending energy not to buy from them. You need a reason not to and then it only lasts for a short time period.

They're banking on being people's default retailer which lets them get away with this behavior.

Yes, I've also noticed that the cost of small items has gone up significantly. Amazon passing shipping costs and fees onto sellers explains this finally.

> That's just far from being a monopoly.

Correct, but besides the point. The relevant laws are not just about monopolies.

>but if you look around, there is plenty of competition.

Also correct, but again not really relevant.

I guess it is relevant to the "Amazon is an evil and monopolistic organisation" theme.

Maybe not relevant for the lawsuit specified in the report, they are certainly entitled to sue for any reason. But the classic theme still show its nose.

On an other note, if amazon has 128 million prime subscribers and they like the service, it is something politicians need to be aware if they still want to be elected.