Five U.S. lawmakers accuse Amazon of possibly lying to Congress
reuters.com
reuters.com
They all check what sells the most, then they create their own brands, and then they promote and prioritize those brands over their shelved vendors.
Show me one retailer that doesn’t do this.
This strategy is the very reason why the direct to consumer model exists. Brands realized that they couldn’t compete fairly through product aggregators and their real survival and path to success was to do what retailers were already doing: to verticalize.
They lied, that's the problem. If they had said yes, we do indeed analyze what is happening in our marketplace to decide which products to launch, they wouldn't have gotten this letter.
No. They're "quibbling" over whether Amazon executives perjured themselves. Perjury doesn't have a "but, like, is it really a big deal" test.
This is rubbish. There is a litany of recent, memorable cases. But they rarely met the legal threshold of contempt of Congress, and in the cases that did, there was seldom political will to prioritise its prosecution.
Congress, by design, is a political creature. We don't want the President (DoJ) rounding up people who speak to a co-equal branch of government because he--unilaterally--thinks they might have lied.
> Bezos said the company prohibits its employees from using data on individual sellers to benefit its own private-label product lines.
I could see someone hearing that and not realizing that per-SKU aggregation, or even clustered similar products, wouldn't break this rule.
It's not necessarily true, by the way, that they wouldn't have gotten flack from Congress if they'd initially testified that they use sales and product data only they possess to find out which third-party products are both profitable and vulnerable to lower-cost competition, use it again to design competing house brands that are identical to the third party products down to the smallest detail, and follow that up by using their website to promote the knockoff products as preferable to the third party products they've ripped off. This is not a standard industry practice and would likely not be defensible as "It's just a house brand, like Safeway Soup. What's the big deal?"
Basically it's sketchy behaviour across the board and Amazon has just proven themselves to be better, more efficient, and more willing at it.
It's an argument worth having IMO. One side will cite consumer benefit and the other will point out that it has long term effects that reduce choice and innovation (and thus consumer benefit).
Amazon would do just fine with a level playing field.
Even if you can’t distinguish Amazon’s conduct and a grocery store selling private label cereals side by side, the article really isn’t about that anyway but the fact that Amazon went before congress and was asked about prioritizing their private label products in search results over other sellers and Amazon representative lied under oath by denying they do that. I’m not aware of Target going before Congress and lying under oath about selling private label products, one would think if Amazon’s conduct was on the up and up they wouldn’t lie under oath to cover it up.
Target (#3)had $93b in revenue in FY2020. Amazon e-commerce had $120b.
https://corporate.target.com/annual-reports/2020
https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1218313/amazon-revenue-de...
And especially online, it's not like you're limited geographically where say your only store that has what you want is a big Walmart, you have access to hundreds of online retailer to choose from.
https://www.target.com/c/same-day-delivery/-/N-bswkz?tab=how...
It appears they are already doing exactly this.
> Can you really not distinguish Amazon, it’s market position, and their acts from brick and mortar retailers that carry private label items?
Who do you think had the dominant market position before Amazon was a thing? Again, this play is older than Amazon itself.
My argument was just a rhetorical statement reflecting on the government's ineffectiveness and contradictory behavior when defining what harms customers or competition. It's only now they care, because it's only now that they seem to see the political benefits from pursuing what's a rampant decades-long behavior.
Believe me, my comment is not trying to defend Amazon, is simply trying to showcase how politicians are opportunistic demagogues.
It’s why Amazon never makes the argument about private label brands in grocery stores/brick and mortar retailers. If it were that easy, they wouldn’t be testifying before Congress much less lying under oath about prioritizing their own products, they would have just said “of course we use data to copy the best selling 3rd party products on our site and then prioritize our own products to win the market just like everyone else.”
The whole states couldn’t mandate internet retailers to collect sales taxes in states they didn’t operate in was setup by the federal government (who regulate interstate commerce) and didn’t apply to just Amazon. The taxes were still owed by consumers, but the burden of collection not being ar the retail level meant that they were mostly not paying.
What brick and mortar doesn’t charge sales tax and leaves it to the consumer to pay to the government directly?
You are making the very same bs argument Amazon made in multiple courts and lost, of course Amazon has to collect the sales tax, businesses get sales tax numbers from governments a consumer can’t exactly pay sales tax directly to governments, despite what Amazon tried to argue that’s not how sales tax works, all sales tax is reported/collected/paid based on a business sales tax account.
"Collecting sales tax on on behalf of the consumer for the government" should give you a good clue to what they are doing with that money. Consumers always paying the sales tax, not the businesses who collect them. They are still responsible for paying sales tax even when the business isn't collecting them (e.g. when I go to Portland and buy a MacBook Pro from the Apple store, I am supposed to myself pay sales tax to Washington state).
> What brick and mortar doesn’t charge sales tax and leaves it to the consumer to pay to the government directly?
The federal government created this scenario during the Bill Clinton Administration. It wasn't something Amazon decided on its own. And again, brick and mortar stores don't always collect sales tax (see Portland Apple store above, which gets way more business than is expected for the Portland area).
> You are making the very same bs argument Amazon made in multiple courts and lost, of course Amazon has to collect the sales tax, businesses get sales tax numbers from governments a consumer can’t exactly pay sales tax directly to governments, despite what Amazon tried to argue that’s not how sales tax works, all sales tax is reported/collected/paid based on a business sales tax account.
Again, Amazon didn't make that decision. It wasn't their decision to make. If you want to go after someone, go after the Clinton Administration, the congress that was installed at the time, and the Supreme Court.
That isn’t how sales tax works at all.
Good luck going to apple and trying to buy a MacBook and telling them not to charge sales tax because you are going to pay it yourself.
Paying sales tax as an individual to a state isn’t a real concept, businesses collect it because they have to by law the business is liable for the sales tax based on their receipts plus penalties, states don’t go after consumers. If businesses weren’t liable, then none of them would charge it/collect it/account for it/pay it to the state, because it’s extra work. They do it because they are liable for it.
But please I’d love for you to share your proof/receipts that you have successfully bought a MacBook without apple charging you sales tax and your proof that you paid it directly to state.
Imagine I owned a shopping mall, and every time a business renting from me was successful I would hike up their rent and open a copycat shop in the stall next door... I think that's a closer analogy than the Target one.
> Unlike Amazon and Walmart Marketplace, however, Target Marketplace is an invitation-only platform.
That seems like a salient difference.
What difference does it make? They could still mine their data and favor their own white label products? And it's not like Amazon and Walmart and NewEgg (ya they're a marketplace too now) don't have a vetting process when someone asks to become a seller.
My bet is Target is just starting to scale up and they're simply not ready for opening it up fully yet. Though its possible that they are also hoping to differentiate themselves with having a more curated set of 3rd party sellers.
But bottom line, they've been a marketplace since 2019, so it's incorrect to say they aren't.
> Target is the epitome of pushing you white label brands down your throat from the minute you step into own of their stores. And this is essentially what every retailer does.
But Amazon isn't a simple retailer. Isn't the issue that they do this and operate a third party marketplace? IIRC, Target is a traditional retailer that doesn't operate a marketplace for other retailers to compete in.
Amazon on the other hand doesn't work like a retail store. You aren't leasing a finite amount of space within the Amazon website. You are beholden to the search algorithm run by amazon which is a black box compared to an agreement made for shelf space in a retail store, you don't pay less for worse placement and you can't pay more for better placement, and Amazon continually tries to poach your business with low cost knockoffs and their search engines are uncannily tailored to prefer these results.
You spammed that quote a couple times in the thread, but never provided a source. I found it (https://thriveagency.com/target-plus-marketplace/), and your quotation seems a bit selective, the next sentence is:
> Unlike Amazon and Walmart Marketplace, however, Target Marketplace is an invitation-only platform.
That seems like a significant difference. It also goes on to say they only have about a hundred partners, which is another significant difference.
Since your source seems like some kind of weird marketing site, here it is from the horse's mouth, https://plus.target.com/:
> Right now, Target Plus is an invite-only program but we do plan to accept partner applications in the future.
Case in point from Germany. If small supermarket chains treat their suppliers badly, that is their business. If Aldi (very large chain) does, this is potentialky ruinous for many companies, so politics do get involved.
It always is a tradeoff between the possible harm, number of people affected and the desire to not intervene if at all possible.
There are strict rules to limit domination of a few sellers on the platform (limits on percentage of sales by each seller). Neither of the two companies are particularly happy about it so probably it works to some extent.
https://www.livemint.com/industry/retail/ecommerce-companies...
The thing is, Amazon claims they are not a retailer, but rather a neutral marketplace matching buyer and seller. Tat's why they claim they should not be held responsible for false advertising, violations of consumer protection laws, or defective products.
However, when they misuse that marketplace data, they turn around and claim that they are just one retailer among many.
It's getting harder and harder for Amazon to maintain this legal equivocation.
> “What I can tell you is we have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private-label business,” Bezos replied. “But I can’t guarantee you that policy has never been violated.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/29/bezos-t...
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/30/897066231/4-big-tech-ceos-tes...
No, it isn't. This statement falls in the same category as "everyone commits insider trading; I should buy out-of-the-money options." You can recount specific cases because they remain exceptions.
This is playground logic. No enforcement mechanism is perfect. Permitting nullification on the hope of perfect enforcement is a straight line to anarchy.
Congress isn't a court. Its purpose is to legislate [1].
If you lie to a Congress and it impedes the legislative process, you can get boned, provided there is political will to refer you to the DoJ and sufficient evidence for them to pursue and convict you. But it's not analogous to contempt of court. (In particular, there is Constitutional risk around the executive interfering with people talking to Congress. Even at the request of some of its members.)
Straw man argument. It doesn't need to be perfect.
There is a fairly wide difference between perfect and "a rule that is really only ever used to punish people when political will allows Congress to do so, and everyone else can just ignore it completely". Either it should be punishable to lie to Congress or it should not. But, if it is punishable, then it shouldn't be acceptable for high level government officials to do it publicly and overtly, then face no repercussions.
That's a political view. If you feel strongly about it, I guess make it your single issue.
You won't, because nobody would, contempt of Congress is really only something people in Congress care about inasmuch as it thwarts their ability to write legislation. Congressional hearings, while managed in modern politics as public theatre, are technically only for the benefit of the Congress.
Impeachment and Congressional disciplinary procedures are political processes. So contempt of Congress is. It's not statute. It's barely a rule. It's a right the Congress may, at its discretion, exercise. (And even in that it's limited to passing a referral to the Department of Justice for consideration.)
And yes, everyone in Congress is quite into inside trading too (often holding large positions in companies they "scrutinize"). Multimillion dollar fortunes can't be built on $174K/yr otherwise.
With respect to "political affiliation" and related biases, you're ignoring the significant areas of bipartisan agreement with respect to potential (note: not proposed) legislation. (Our political culture goes to shit when legislation is actually proposed.)
Fauci lied to congress about GoF research funding. Nothing happened.
Dorsey lied to congress about censoring Trump. Nothing happened.
Wilbur Ross lied to congress, and a DOJ watchdog even reported it to congress. Nothing happened.
DNI Clapper lied to congress, and was exposed literally one day later, to national headlines. Nothing happened.
Billy Barr lied to congress. Nothing happened.
Congress has to make a criminal referral for anything to happen when they're lied to.
Congress is not really interested in doing so.
Congress is OK with being lied to.
There is a high bar for enforcing contempt of Congress [1]. For good reason. It requires both unlawful behavior to motivate the executive [2], and political animus to motivate the legislature.
Unlike in every one of the cases you mention, there is popular support for skewering Facebook, and, to a lesser degree, Amazon [3][4]. That satisfies the second condition in a way it didn't for your other examples.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
[2] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf
[3] https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/6/22702798/verge-tech-surve...
[4] https://aflcio.org/press/releases/new-poll-77-americans-supp...
That does _not_ sound like "popular support for skewering"! That sounds like "Amazon is one of the most popular, well-liked, and trusted organizations in the world".
Skewering doesn't mean destroying.
Amazon is better liked than Facebook, Twitter or TikTok. The first will be skewered, and the careers of those associated to it will follow a familiar pattern. Twitter and TikTok will probably be fine, though they will suffer some wounds.
Amazon will--in my opinion--also be okay. But they will suffer wounds. The 7% of Americans who think they negatively impact society and 23% neutral are geographically concentrated, and passionate and organized, in a way that gives them political weight. Not enough to decapitate. But enough to enable the Congress to e.g. credibly threaten contempt charges.
Fair enough, point conceded. I should have said political support. There is a well-organized constituency pushing for this, and no organized opposition apart from Amazon itself. (And characterizing that support as being limited to "a small minority of elites" is wearing three pairs of Silicon Valley filter goggles. Yes, the New York Times editorial board seems to hate Amazon. But it's also built a well of badwill in rural America.)
But... it shouldn't. If you get caught lying to Congress, the hammer should come down on you. Period. If you can't answer the question without lying, then just don't answer the question. This selective enforcement should not be allowed, because all it means is that anyone that can cause problems for the members of Congress can lie without any penalty.
Congress is a political creature. What is and isn't a lie is, within its context, a political question. This is--very partly, it's mostly a matter of convenience [1]--why contempt of Congress isn't a charge a Congress brings, while contempt of court is one the court regularly--unilaterally--brings.
Because Congress literally defines what carries legal weight.
(What is going on with Hacker News? What an awful thread this has been. Ignorance parting seas for cynicism.)
Now I ask you, what is that? Do they give Nobel prizes out for "possibly" doing physics??
First of all, the name sounds like a Neal Stephenson character. Then, I'm reading his page and it says things like:
- He got his start as defense counsel for Boss Tweed
- Went on to be a prominent corporate lawyer
- Was a lifelong opponent of feminism
- Was an advocate for American imperialism in the Philippines and elsewhere
- As secretary of war, was the "leading modernizer of the Army"
- Tried but failed to make an alliance between the US and Russia just after their revolution - may have inadvertently caused the rise of the Bolsheviks by allegedly inciting the provisional government to do something stupid
- Supported the amendment to the US Constitution allowing an income tax
- His "mentor" was Joseph Hodges Choate, who made the cover of Vogue in April 1898...This made people fondly recall the disregard for personal safety in pursuit of explosive technology of Alfred Nobel himself, hence the prize, so it is claimed.
Congress isn't a judge, and when they summon someone, they aren't on trial. When you're answering questions before a judge you have to answer honestly.
Not when some elected official from some random state I don't care about decides to posture for CSPAN. Why do they have any right to my time in the first place?
And yes, Congress can effectively put someone on trial (see: impeachment) and the fact finding processes they use before creating legislation is similar to a court proceeding. You are legally bound to respond honestly.
Random citizens are not at the mercy of punishment by congress. That's super protected against in the constitution and by checks & balances.