Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Amazon Referred To DOJ for Potential Criminal Obstruction of Congress (cnbc.com) 40

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
A House Committee is urging the Department of Justice to investigate Amazon over what lawmakers contend is potentially criminal obstruction of Congress. From a report: In a letter sent Wednesday and addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland, a bipartisan group of lawmakers alleged that Amazon repeatedly misled the House Judiciary Committee throughout a 16-month probe into the competitive practices of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook. In particular, lawmakers have zeroed in on Amazon's private-label practices and its collection of third-party seller data. Lawmakers claim Amazon has made false and misleading statements to the House Committee about its practices, then refused to turn over evidence that would "either corroborate its claims or correct the record," according to the 24-page letter. "It appears to have done so to conceal the truth about its use of third-party sellers' data to advantage its private-label business and its preferencing of private-label products in search results -- subjects of the Committee's investigation," according to the letter, which was signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., House Antitrust Subcommittee chair David Cicilline, D-R.I., and committee members Reps. Ken Buck, R-Colo., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Referred To DOJ for Potential Criminal Obstruction of Congress More

Amazon Referred To DOJ for Potential Criminal Obstruction of Congress

Comments Filter:

  • Guess Amazon hasn't been keeping up it's bribe/lobby efforts.
    A little tweaking to the amounts should fix this.

    • Microsoft didn't used to lobby much, but after the anti-trust probes, they greatly ramped up lobbying and campaign donations.

      • I'll admit I don't understand exactly the powers of congress to bring people in or subpoena, them for non-criminal investigations...

        But shy of going to jail...why would anyone voluntarily go before congress and say a damned thing?

        I mean sure, you testify there and won't go to jail, but things you say can be used from record to prosecute you on a criminal case or lawsuit, etc.

        I mean, with the Feds, its better to not say anything than to lie to them, ie. Martha Stewart going to jail.

        If it is best to just

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          > why would anyone voluntarily go before congress and say a damned thing?

          Because if they ignore Congress's request to testify, they look more guilty and it's politically easier for congress to pass laws against them. If you act like a snake, then fewer feel guilty or complain when you get stepped on.

    • > Guess Amazon hasn't been keeping up it's bribe/lobby efforts.

      In a genius move, Bezos bought WashPo for only $4B. Now if DoJ does anything, the people who do will suddenly find themselves under scrutiny by the rag.

      It's way cheaper than lobbying and ensures that contracts keep flowing to AWS and BlueOrigin while misdeeds get overlooked.

      It's totally not blackmail if it's a newspaper, okay?

    • Guess Amazon hasn't been keeping up it's bribe/lobby efforts.
      A little tweaking to the amounts should fix this.

      They did, but DOJ became suspicious when the money arrived in an excessively large box.

  • The problem with these laws is they are so open to interpretation. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on anything, I have alternatives for anything I can get there, multiple ones. So I'm not sure why it's a problem if they do have an advantage, they built the whole fucking thing from scratch and are using it to make money that's kind of the point.

    But you get the right rabble-rousing politicians in there (right or left wing) and they can do whatever they want and just screech about antitrust law.. for something

    • Don't worry. The shrieking politicians aren't actually going to do anything to Amazon other than grandstand and preen while prattling on about the evils of big business. They'll get a little lobby bump in a few weeks and this will all just disappear.

    • Re:The problem with these laws.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Angry Coward ( 6165972 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @01:43PM (#62340845)
      If amazon isn't a monopoly, they shouldn't be punished for that, but anti trust law covers quite a bit more than just monopolies. I think you're correct that amazon isn't a monopoly and isn't even particularly good at what they do. Given they aren't particularly good at it, it doesn't seem a stretch to investigate and see if they are maintaining their dominant market position by unlawful practices. And even if all their business practices are sound and legal, none of this has any bearing on lying under oath. If amazon knowingly made false statements to congress, and hid or attempted to hide evidence proving those statements false, they absolutely should be punished for that.

    • Re:The problem with these laws.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @01:46PM (#62340857)

      The problem with these laws is they are so open to interpretation. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on anything, I have alternatives for anything I can get there, multiple ones.

      We've spent such an incredible amount of effort trying to deny that massive corporations that consume and destroy brands in favor of creating their own, is not-a-monopoly, that I've come to a logical conclusion.

      We don't actually have a fucking clue, what a monopoly is anymore.

      Greed has warped that definition in much the same way Too Big To Fail, has warped the definition of success.

      • I think the confusion you have is that yes, Amazon probably monopolizes their website while pretending they don't. However, you the consumer can easily decide you don't like how they do their business and go to Newegg, Walmart/Jet, Rakuten, Bestbuy, Costco, Google; or you know the website for the brand name you want to by from. It literally just requires the minimal effort of a few different quick finger twitches. Their market share of online retail is about 37%. The market share of their much more profita

        • I think the confusion you have is that yes, Amazon probably monopolizes their website while pretending they don't. However, you the consumer can easily decide you don't like how they do their business and go to Newegg, Walmart/Jet, Rakuten, Bestbuy, Costco, Google; or you know the website for the brand name you want to by from.

          It's quite interesting that you assume their actions are that benign. When Amazon allows a good selling brand on their site, then decides to copy it, and then sell it under their own brand at a loss in order to damn near guarantee the competition goes out of business, the consumer isn't exactly left with "choice".

          They don't just compete with brands. They kill them too.

        • Their market share of online retail is about 37%.

          Just curious; was that before, or after a "two-weeks" global virus shuttered a planet long enough to put a shitload of brick and mortars OUT of business?

          Amazon stock doubled within the last two years. That growth, wasn't all hype and bullshit.

    • Network Effect (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @01:54PM (#62340899) Journal

      Amazon is big largely because of the network effect. They can control more of the supply chain because they are so big, and they are big because they control so much. I sometimes shop on Walmart.com, but they have less choice, and they can't get more choice without getting bigger first, creating a Catch-22. (They'd have to subsidize many products to get more suppliers because they don't have Amazon's volume, making it not worth it to suppliers to work with a 2nd e-store.)

      Our system should reward companies for doing a good job, NOT for mostly relying on the network effect to keep out competition.

      Microsoft sucks bigly yet thrives because one-stop-shopping and inter-compatibility is easier for businesses, and this keeps away competition. You can find help on MS products because gajillion other people are using it, leaving a trail of Youtube videos etc. A startup couldn't have this much free help simply because they don't have enough users: they can't get big until they get big. Amazon and MS play the network effect so well they don't have to make a better mousetrap, merely squelch other mousetrap makers and get "volunteers" to be their free help desk by being big. Their mousetraps only have to be "good enough".

      • Our system should reward companies for doing a good job, NOT for mostly relying on the network effect to keep out competition.

        I agree with this, but how do you achieve it? Amazon doesn't need to do anything illegal for the network effect to work.

        • Amazon doesn't need to do anything illegal for the network effect to work.

          Well sure, if you consider cloning other products under your own internal brand to sell at a loss in order to destroy the competition as nothing more than "spirited capitalism", then yup, all above board. Nothing sinister to see here at all.

          And of course there's no monopoly here. Why that would be silly to ever consider no matter how big they get.**

          (** - By the time they are an obvious monopoly, no one will be able to afford to stop them. Ever.)

          • Well sure, if you consider cloning other products under your own internal brand to sell at a loss in order to destroy the competition as nothing more than "spirited capitalism", then yup, all above board.

            To be fair, I did not say that Amazon is operating legally, or even ethically.

            I was saying that it's hard to figure out how to prevent the network effect from pushing out competitors.

            • Well sure, if you consider cloning other products under your own internal brand to sell at a loss in order to destroy the competition as nothing more than "spirited capitalism", then yup, all above board.

              To be fair, I did not say that Amazon is operating legally, or even ethically.

              Wouldn't matter if they did, and if you're literally not saying they're operating legally or ethically, then my point has been confirmed. No one will stop them, because no one IS stopping them.

              I was saying that it's hard to figure out how to prevent the network effect from pushing out competitors.

              I'd say it's a lot harder to find someone to give you a sensible definition of monopoly anymore. Perhaps if we still had that, we wouldn't be worrying about a "network effect" that seems grossly obscene in capitalism. Not unlike arrogant mega-corps lobbying to never be viewed as a monopoly.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          For one, you give their questionable practices a lot more scrutiny.

          And maybe the gov't can help broker e-commerce standards for their competition so that it's easier for smaller manufacturers and distributors to coordinate and share product and inventory info, and maybe even consolidate purchases from diverse stores so that it feels like one-stop-shopping to the consumer. Amazon would be welcome to use the standards also.

          • And maybe the gov't can help broker e-commerce standards for their competition so that it's easier for smaller manufacturers and distributors to coordinate and share product and inventory info

            That's a good idea.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by whitroth ( 9367 )

      You're an idiot.

      It's ok with you if you start a business selling widgits, you're third party through Amazon (you're not going to use them - who are you going to use, just your own website?), they keep track of your sales, and then they have the same thing made in China, and since they're so big, it costs them less than you, and then undersell you.

      But you're ok with that. I guess you don't believe in actual competition.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mspohr ( 589790 )

      The issue here isn't monopoly or even Amazon's use of data.
      The issue is that they lied to Congress.

    • Yeah, tbh I struggle understanding the difference between Amazon and my local grocery store that makes their own cheaper brand of chips/xyz and places it in the premium spaces right next to Lays. I can understand the frustration from the sellers, but I'm not currently seeing why this should be an illegal practice.

      • Yeah, tbh I struggle understanding the difference between Amazon and my local grocery store that makes their own cheaper brand of chips/xyz and places it in the premium spaces right next to Lays.

        I'm gonna talk less about the Amazon-brand being discussed, and more about Amazon being slightly evil.
        In the grocery store example, the store (Amazon) would accept an order for the chips, deliver them to the wrong car waiting at curbside, and bill the seller of the chips.
        They would also penalize the chip maker with less shelf space for being out of stock, even though the trailer has been parked outside the store for weeks.

        They wouldn't allow the chip maker to send enough chips in at a time to build a

  • It's a somewhat different topic, but I notice Amazon is using increasingly more "dark patterns" in their UI to trick users into signing up for more expensive shipping and misc. fee-based addon crap.

    • Or when I try to cancel my year subscription (which has many months left), their wording is that I will immediately lose my prime privileges (free shipping, movies that I never watch). So instead I have to set a calendar reminder to cancel the week before. By the way it is a PAIN to find how to cancel your account.

    • It's a somewhat different topic, but I notice Amazon is using increasingly more "dark patterns" in their UI to trick users into signing up for more expensive shipping and misc. fee-based addon crap.

      I call it Corporate Arrogance. Get used to it. Amazon sure as hell isn't the only mega-corp with this mentality.

      Big companies, might actually still care if they piss you off.

      HUGE companies, no longer give a shit. Don't like us? Fine. Kindly Fuck Off. There's 200 suckers behind you waiting to sign up.

Slashdot Top Deals

If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn

Close