News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on California sues Amazon for preventing 3rd-party sellers being cheaper elsewhere. Parent comment

Re:California sues Amazon for preventing 3rd-party sellers b... by wbsss4412 on Friday September 16, 2022 @01:28PM (#32869327)
To add, both parties usually get additional value out of an exclusivity deal, which is why they voluntarily enter into an arrangement.

In the case of Amazon though (and I caveat this with the fact that I’m not aware of the full details) this is about being able to sell on Amazon at all, there are no extra perks involved for the sellers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California sues Amazon for preventing 3rd-party sellers b... by legitster on Friday September 16, 2022 @03:36PM (#32870973)
Based on the details of the suit and the anecdotes here though, it doesn't sound like Amazon actually drops the product. They withhold it from One Click or reduce its listing.

The analogy in a retail setting might be losing your signage or being yanked from a good location.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California sues Amazon for preventing 3rd-party sellers b... by tarakat on Friday September 16, 2022 @03:44PM (#32871066)
> being yanked from a good location

"Reducing the listing" can potentially mean being pushed to page 23 of search results. In retail, that would be equivalent to never leaving the warehouse, available only upon specific request by a customer.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California sues Amazon for preventing 3rd-party sellers b... by insane_dreamer on Friday September 16, 2022 @03:35PM (#32870962)
Absolutely -- usually the value for the seller is a guaranteed (depending on exact terms) minimum volume of sales through a successful channel.
[ Parent | on HN ]