1. Amazon is suing this person on the basis of contracts which did not forbid this behavior
2. the DOJ is presumably involved because this looks like criminal kickbacks
3. This person is just arguing against (1)
I would guess the DOJ approached Amazon first, and this is part of Amazon trying to cover their ass and avoid deeper scrutiny into the company’s role of enabling and agreeing to alleged kickbacks
> I would guess the DOJ approached Amazon first
No, this is clear retaliation against a competitor. Amazon has contacts at the DOJ (and other government agencies). I bet it was the other way around. Aggressive stupidity in the face of the facts is easier to understand when you realize it's either a favor or a bribe.
Obviously you couldn't be in good faith talking of the company front-running land purchases and reselling the same land a day later for 20% profit as a "competitor" of Amazon.
So, again: who is the competitor you have in mind, and what business do you think they're in?
> Obviously you couldn't be
Don't do this. It's a clear sign you're not interested in a good faith discussion.