Antitrust Lawsuit Says Apple and Amazon Colluded To Raise iPhone, iPad Prices -...
source link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/22/11/09/1833205/antitrust-lawsuit-says-apple-and-amazon-colluded-to-raise-iphone-ipad-prices
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Antitrust Lawsuit Says Apple and Amazon Colluded To Raise iPhone, iPad Prices
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! or check out the new Slashdot job board to browse remote jobs or jobs in your area.
The lawsuit says the parties' illegal agreement brought the number of third-party sellers of Apple products on Amazon Marketplace from roughly 600 to just seven sellers -- a loss of 98%, and by doing so, Amazon, which was formerly a marginal seller of Apple products, became the dominant seller of Apple products on Amazon Marketplace. The consumer-rights law firm behind the filing has bested Apple in multiple antitrust lawsuits, including a $400 million settlement related to price-fixing of e-books and a $100 million settlement on behalf of iOS developers harmed by App Store policies. Hagens Berman has also brought multiple pending antitrust cases against both defendants.
-
-
Yes they have a "minimum advertised price" to avoid resellers being able to offer discounts to clear stock. They also engage in price skimming and decoy pricing [medium.com].
-
-
›
Again, I hate Apple as much as the next nerd, but what difference does it make how much a company charges for their product? If they want to charge $20,000 for a phone so be it. Having the government control prices for a non necessity is a load of crap.
-
by Narcocide ( 102829 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2022 @04:00PM (#63039391) Homepage
This has to do with them illegally setting minimums for what 3rd party resellers can charge. By your very own logic, if you want to buy something worth $20,000 and then resell it at a loss for $1 you should be and are in fact legally allowed to do so. If you bully 3rd party resellers into charging what you tell them to, that's illegal and just as morally wrong as the tangentially related strawman scenario you propose.
-
> if you want to buy something worth $20,000 and then resell it at a loss for $1 you should be and are in fact legally allowed to do so.
1. True, you should be able to set your own profit level, by charging whatever you want above cost.
2. However, you shouldn't be able to *consistently* charge less than cost because that gets into predatory pricing territory which has it's own consequences.-
Only if you're already a monopoly or very close to becoming one. In a healthy market with lots of smaller players on relatively equal footing it's just basic competition.
-
Now that I say that though, I realize Amazon and Apple could both be very close to being monopolies so this situation could be a bit messy, legally.
-
-
Predatory pricing is part of anti-trust legislation and is not illegal in the slightest unless you have sufficient market power to use it to sway competitors. In fact many businesses sell many products at a loss as part of the normal operation, making up for the loss in other ways (service, other products, etc).
It only becomes predatory if you have incredible market power and use this pricing scheme to block out your competition. i.e. Not the Amazon retailers in question.
-
-
While resellers might have an issue with Amazon, one the claims of this lawsuit is that Apple colluded with Amazon to limit the number of resellers via an agreement the plaintiff calls the "Unlawful Boycott Agreement". However, suit was filed from a consumer seeking class action status. The harm that the plaintiff claims is that he and others had to pay more for Apple products via Amazon.
I have not read this agreement but I get a sense this suit is more cash grab than meritorious. Part of the problem is tha
-
-
"Free market" only works (sometimes) if there's an actual free market. Apple colluding with sellers to raise prices is the opposite of a free market. hth.
-
It matters when market options are limited and you work with partners/competition to ensure there is no price war (which would be to the benefit of the consumer).
If you sell bottled water and want to charge $20/L, go for it. You may sell a few to hipsters thinking there's something special about it but Company B is simply going to sell it for $17.99/L. Company C comes in at $15... and so on until all serious players in the market have their cost set at around the same level which is probably 10% above c
-
-
I feel that Amazon raised the prices by batteries by kicking a major vendor off its platform. Who knows how many other products have been similarly effected by vendor attrition.
The challenge will be intent. Weâ(TM)re these vendors removed in an effort to raise prices to consumers, or were these vendors fraudulent in some way and prices rose because legitimate vendors do not sell below cost.
-
Kicking the vendors off isn't the issue. The issue is the collusion between Apple and Amazon to do that in order to raise prices.
-
number of third-party sellers of Apple products on Amazon Marketplace from roughly 600 to just seven sellers -- a loss of 98%, and by doing so
Suppose 49 people set up in a large mall parking lot. They buy a few things everyday so they are customers. They sells NIB iPad $50-100 under what the Apple Store does. There are actually two Apple stores in my area that are in large malls like this, like a half square mile each. So it is a valid scenario.
The mall colludes with Apple to get rid of these vendors.
-
There was collusion to punish vendors for the prices they charge. That is illegal price fixing under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Sherman Act - Vertical Price Fixing [thebusinessprofessor.com]
-
Collusion is 'illegal or secret agreement to cheat or deceive others'. Your 'the reasons stated are legal' doesn't matter. You absolutely should win.
-
-
Maybe not in this case but since Amazon is now also in the business of selling generic version of common products, they can benefit greatly by kicking competitors off the platform.
-
-
-
-
It's also not a sentence.
A fragment only. (He said, knowing what he as done...)
-
-
-
Because the only way you can use *effected* is in relation to passing legislation. Very obviously wrong, in this context.
-
-
Given that's it's Apple, shouldn't it be "iFfected"?
-
-
-
Amazon used to be flooded with counterfeit Apple products. That was when Amazon wasn't the authorized retailer for Apple products. It's so much better now for the consumers that they can order without wondering they'll get counterfeit items.
-
I'm glad you're happy, but Amazon doesn't give a flying fuck about counterfeit products, and are in fact one of the largest counterfeiters of products themselves, aggressively copying products of anyone not big enough to sue or file trademarks.
If you wanted certainty you could just go to www.apple.com. Worrying about counterfeit products is not remotely the issue or reason behind this move here.
-
Amazon becomes worried about counterfeits when major companies threatened to take them to court over it. How would you suggest Amazon should prevent and a third-party sellers selling counterfeit Apple products?
-
-
-
is that raises awareness about these companies, encourages more investigation, and encourages companies to be more competitive in the market. Theres simply no other reason than greed to behave like this. All people have to do is look at thd true value of what they are buying and say no.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK