Amazon was sued for preventing sellers from selling products at low prices on other platforms!

Amazon was sued for preventing sellers from selling products at low prices on other platforms!

According to foreign media reports, Washington, DC recently filed a lawsuit against Amazon for preventing sellers from selling products at low prices on other platforms. Washington, DC claims that Amazon controls 70% of online sales in the United States, causing consumers to pay higher prices for goods.

 

It is understood that the lawsuit was filed by Karl Racine, Attorney General of the District of Columbia , who accused Amazon of charging third-party sellers up to 40% of the product price, preventing sellers from offering products at lower prices on other platforms.

 

"Instead of enabling consumers to get the best products at the lowest prices, Amazon has caused prices to be raised across the entire online retail market, including not only products sold on Amazon's online retail platform, but also products sold on its competitors' online retail platforms," ​​he said.

 

An Amazon spokesperson responded : “The D.C. attorney general’s assertion is completely contrary to the facts because sellers set their own prices for the products they offer on the platform.”

 

It is reported that the lawsuit aims to prevent Amazon from using "antitrust" practices and seeks compensation and some remedies. However, Amazon said that the relief sought will force higher prices to customers, which runs counter to the core goals of antitrust law.

 

In addition, according to foreign media reports, in November last year, the European Commission discovered that Amazon used data from third-party sellers to promote sales of its own brand products. Now the retail giant has been accused of abusing competition rules by the European Commission.

 

Amazon insists that its private-label products are not anti-competitive but rather beneficial to consumers by providing them with more choice.

 

“No company has cared more about small businesses, or done more to support them over the past 20 years than Amazon,” Amazon said at the time .

 

It is understood that the lawsuit has been accepted by the court and the trial process will be announced in the near future. However, from this lawsuit, it can be seen that sellers on the platform have no say of their own and can only obey Amazon unconditionally. It is time for sellers to seek new ways out. Putting all eggs in one basket is too risky ...


Amazon

Seller

Low-priced products

Prosecution

<<:  Infringement warning! Amazon salon ranking NO.1, 4000+ reviews left, artifact sued

>>:  Nordstrom's net loss in the first quarter reached $166 million, and its losses exceeded expectations

Recommend

Prime Day hot-selling products in various countries are released!

The frenzy of Prime Day has come to an end. Some ...

Amazon employee is angry after being fired for taking bereavement leave!

In the past, we occasionally saw news like this i...

German e-commerce sales in the first quarter exceeded 21 billion euros

According to a report by bevh, the German trade a...

Nearly 2/3 of Google searches in 2020 were “zero-click”

According to a research data recently released by...

What is AliExpress Direct? AliExpress Direct Review, Features

The Oil Program (AliExpress Direct) is AliExpress...

Pets At Home takes pet market by storm with £85m in profits

Pets At Home said it expects full-year underlying...

What is loyolight? loyolight Review, Features

Loyolight is located in the UK, the world's la...

What is LinkJoint? LinkJoint Review, Features

LinkJoint is a technology-driven global digital m...

Embracing multiculturalism, Ulta Beauty plans to expand into the black market

Ulta Beauty, a well-known American cosmetics and ...

Be careful! These Halloween products may be a big pitfall

The year-end shopping season is not only a carniv...

69% of Austrians shop online between 6pm and 11pm

According to a recent study by KPMG, half of Aust...

UPS and union talks break down! Strike closer

As the expiration date of the contract between UP...