Critic of Amazon's Policies Says Company's Lawyers Are Trying To Ruin Him 100
Entrepreneur Molson Hart, writing in a Twitter thread: I criticized Amazon's policies in a blogpost. Now, their lawyers are trying to ruin me. Four years ago, I wrote an article. It had a simple message:
1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon.
2. If they do, Amazon hides their products.
3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers.
This is a big deal. Vox's Land of the Giants podcast interviewed me because of it. And I even got to testify before Congress. But nothing happened until November 2022 when the state of California filed a complaint against Amazon. They cited me and made me a witness. And in response, Amazon served me with a lawsuit. I said Amazon's policy raises prices for consumers. That's evidence in this lawsuit. So Amazon's lawyers want to show that I'm lying or wrong. That's why they've requested all these documents. They want to find the ones which make me look bad.
The problem with providing the documents is that it creates endless legal work. I can't afford to pay these legal bills through August 2026! The other problem is that no amount of documents is ever good enough for Amazon's attorneys. After I provided the first set of documents, they said that wasn't good enough. They requested more. And after I agreed to TWO DAYS of depositions, they said that wasn't good enough, either. They wanted more. If Amazon cannot show I'm lying or wrong, they'll lose. If they lose, they could be broken up for being a monopoly. But, I don't believe they should be. Amazon's attorneys aren't right when they called me a "critic of Amazon." I am a critic of Amazon's policies, NOT Amazon.
Amazon, I've spent over 16 hours this past weekend gathering documents for your attorneys. You won't return my calls or e-mails. Your lawyers want to ruin me, but if you continue along this path, this lawsuit will not ruin me. It will ruin Amazon.
1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon.
2. If they do, Amazon hides their products.
3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers.
This is a big deal. Vox's Land of the Giants podcast interviewed me because of it. And I even got to testify before Congress. But nothing happened until November 2022 when the state of California filed a complaint against Amazon. They cited me and made me a witness. And in response, Amazon served me with a lawsuit. I said Amazon's policy raises prices for consumers. That's evidence in this lawsuit. So Amazon's lawyers want to show that I'm lying or wrong. That's why they've requested all these documents. They want to find the ones which make me look bad.
The problem with providing the documents is that it creates endless legal work. I can't afford to pay these legal bills through August 2026! The other problem is that no amount of documents is ever good enough for Amazon's attorneys. After I provided the first set of documents, they said that wasn't good enough. They requested more. And after I agreed to TWO DAYS of depositions, they said that wasn't good enough, either. They wanted more. If Amazon cannot show I'm lying or wrong, they'll lose. If they lose, they could be broken up for being a monopoly. But, I don't believe they should be. Amazon's attorneys aren't right when they called me a "critic of Amazon." I am a critic of Amazon's policies, NOT Amazon.
Amazon, I've spent over 16 hours this past weekend gathering documents for your attorneys. You won't return my calls or e-mails. Your lawyers want to ruin me, but if you continue along this path, this lawsuit will not ruin me. It will ruin Amazon.
Time for SLAPP (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like you've already got a lawyer of your own, good. Now tell your lawyer that (s)he needs to threaten a SLAPP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) suit against Amazon if they don't bugger off.
Re: (Score:3)
Now tell your lawyer that (s)he needs to threaten a SLAPP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) suit against Amazon if they don't bugger off.
Or figure out what part Amazon's lawyers are doing is in violation of ethics and work on a complaint to file with their local Bar association.
Re:Time for SLAPP (Score:4, Informative)
Discovery is not a violation of ethics. Also, he needs to expect a deposition paid for by himself, so expect 24 hours of legal expenses on top of that + time off from work, etc.
while SLAPP is a good thing it doesn't protect you from the legal expense burden of answering discovery questions, providing details, copies of documents, etc. It sucks.
Disclosure: I have 4 patents to my credit although I don't have rights to them anymore but I'm a named inventor. If a patent owner is sued and they need me, I'm strictly time and materials and they provide the lawyer and any travel expenses.
Re: (Score:3)
Discovery is not a violation of ethics.
True, but Amazon's lawyers blowing them off by not responding doesn't seem very ethical to me (whether or not that meets any sort of standards for disciplinary action I have no idea).
Re: Time for SLAPP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. There are tactics that are allowed in all court cases, dragging things out unfortunately is one of those tactics and while in criminal cases the defendant is entitled to a speedy trial, the tempo of civil cases is regulated by the court and the lawyer's pleadings. "Your honor, there are 100,000 pages of documents in discovery, we can't review them on the initially agreed timeline, we'll need another year!"
"Your honor the defendants in this case have been unresponsive to our requests in discovery, w
Re:Time for SLAPP (Score:4, Insightful)
Discovery per se is not abusive, but it is possible to *abuse* discovery to create a frivolous burden on the other party.
But we literally no nothing about this suit. We don't even know what he's been sued for, so we have no idea what would be reasonable or frivolous to demand. We don't know if the lawsuit is being brought in a jurisdiction with anti-SLAPP suits or not.
The article in question consists of matters of opinion (Amazon is bad for consumers, Amazon causes prices to be high, Amazon has shitty service for vendors), general knowledge about how Amazon works, data quoted from third parties, and analytics from his own product sales. It also ironically reproduces the non-disclosure clause from the seller agreement in which he agreed not to make public statements about being an Amazon seller. It's hard to imagine that if he is being sued for this that article that there'd be much he'd have to produce for Amazon's case, but it surely depends on what Amazon's complaint is.
But don't even know that he's being sued *for the article*. He only asserted that the lawsuit was some kind of a response to the California filing an anti-trust suit *in proximity* to his telling us about the article, inviting us to draw a connection without actually telling us there was one.
The ability of parties with deep pockets to coerce other parties with threats of ruinous litigation costs is surely one of the biggest flaws in the US legal system, so my inclination is to sympathize with this guy, but I'm not going to get worked up about this until I have at least some basic information.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the other rub in this is that he's pleading his case in the court of public opinion by posting it on Twitter and I'll bet his lawyer is pissed off. My guess is he was hit with a defamation suit and since he's a possible witness for the State of California's case, you bet they'll try and get him found guilty. Moreover, his attorney should be pushing the court to assert what legal documents or questions the plaintiffs require the need to be succinct and not a fishing expedition. The plaintiff's attorney
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'd start with what could sound like a very reasonable request: That they pay for the discovery documents. Basically, any lawyer fees and document costs(like photocopying stuff). Tell the judge "Hey, I'm an individual, not a big corporation, this is threatening my house payment!" or such. Emphasize the free speech part of them attacking.
Basically, if the first round of documents isn't enough, simply ask for payment for more.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you've already got a lawyer of your own, good. Now tell your lawyer that (s)he needs to threaten a SLAPP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) suit against Amazon if they don't bugger off.
IANAL, but that sounds like abuse of process.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think you should be giving legal advice based on such a poorly worded twitter post. They said Amazon served him with a lawsuit. They didn't say they sued him. In fact it sounds like they are going through discovery motions for a different lawsuit and not directly aiming at him. If that's the case SLAPP isn't relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
"Served with a lawsuit" is synonymous with "sued." If you're not sued, you're served with a subpoena, not a lawsuit. They wouldn't be entitled to subpoena his papers without compensation in connection to a lawsuit against someone else. The law compels witness testimony but no other cooperation from witnesses.
What concerns me is:
1. He didn't post the lawsuit he was served with, offering his interpretation as substitute. So we can't make any assessment as to Amazon's position on the matter.
2. His lawyer, if h
Re: (Score:1)
"Served with a lawsuit" is synonymous with "sued."
And yet what he's actually describing is not the process of being sued either which is the confusing part. The entire post reads like a fan fic of the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly.
Also Mr. Hart needs a better lawyer. (IANAL but do with with legal on discovery)
While the burden of discovery does go to the responding party, the requesting party does not have unlimited rights and can only request existing data specifically held by a 3rd party. Furthermore, my understanding is they cannot request transformative or creative work.
Emails between dates containing these 3 keywords? Yep. Convert those emails to word documents and highlight keyword-containing paragraphs? nope.
"I d
Re: (Score:2)
So, thats more fees on lawyers to prepare that?
Maybe he should have some gofundme thing going to fund his lawyers.
Standard Policy (Score:4, Interesting)
Walmart, Costco, and many, many other retailers have policies like this. They have had these policies for a long time, decades and decades. If you want to use these retailers as a channel, you have to agree that you won't sell your product cheaper to another supplier - they want to be guaranteed the best price.
Why should Amazon have to follow a policy Walmart does not?
Re:Standard Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should Amazon have to follow a policy Walmart does not?
Better question: why should Walmart not be taken to task in the same way?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because this is standard contract law, that is why.
If two companies can not enter into a contract for their own mutual benefit, then we're all hosed.
Re:Standard Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
If two companies can not enter into a contract for their own mutual benefit, then we're all hosed.
But one company is a monopoly (or with enough market weight/power/penetration to essentially be one) so the contract is going to be woefully lopsided to the monopolist's side - hardly of "mutual benefit".
Re: (Score:1)
None of these companies are anywhere near monopolies.
If I want to sell online, I can use Amazon, Google, Walmart, Etsy, EBay, or I create my own store with Shopify in 30 seconds. No one *has* to use Amazon.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue is not whether a company meets the dictionary definition of monopoly. That isn't actually at all relevant for anti-trust regulations. The issue is whether a company is sufficiently large to have undue market influence. There's no arguing Amazon very much has influence over your life as a seller, even if you can open a store on Shopify in 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
With big industry dominating companies, this is considered unfair competion. In basic anti-trust laws, the rules for big companies are NOT the same as for small companies. And yet all these corporations who engage in trusts or who are de-facto monopolies love to whine that they're just doing what mom and pop companies do. And I don't use the word "whine" lightly.
Re: (Score:1)
If you think Amazon is a monopoly, I have a bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it is the dominant player in online retail, by far. And if it's working with other companies to maintain higher prices then that's falls under antitrust rules, even if the other companies are being strong-armed into it.
The snag here is that the supreme court at once point said that the rules don't prohibit all unfair trade practices, but those that are "unreasonable". Which is one reason why small companies can get away with more stuff; such as banding to together to be competitive against the big
Technicality (Score:2)
This seems like a massive non-issue to me.
It would be different if Amazon demanded that a product be sold for a lower price on Amazon than on other platforms. Clearly unfair, anti-competitive. But they don't. They demand that it be sold at no higher a price. There
Re: Technicality (Score:2)
Re:Standard Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think Amazon is a monopoly, I have a bridge to sell you.
If you don't already see Amazon as a de facto monopoly, you've already got a garage full of bridges you've already bought.
Two companies can't enter into a contract (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then you'd better ask that a substantial body of antitrust law be revoked (specifically, those portions relating to horizontal restraints on trade). While most favored nation clauses have generally been viewed favorable under U.S. law, there is other thinking possible here [lexology.com], and Amazon's insistence on such a clause as a condition to using its marketplace
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is not causing restraints on trade, unless you now think Amazon is a nation-state your assertion is ridiculous. Amazon doesn't even have a monopoly position online let alone in all of retail.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, now show how an MFC clause benefits both sides. From where I'm sitting it looks like it only benefits the party with monopoly power.
Re: (Score:2)
uh, because a very famous ex-first lady was once on the Walmart board for starters?
Pricing details and agreements are usually under some form of NDA but price fixing is against the law. The way around it is
"We want the best pricing for the glorious relationship and sales opportunity we're providing to you. You agree to not sell it for less to other third parties or yourself." That doesn't amount to price fixing but it doesn't alow you to discount directly to a buyer or other third parties.
Re: (Score:2)
"a very famous ex-first lady"
Which first lady(s) weren't famous?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Martha Washington and Abigail Adams are far more famous than anyone on your list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that very much. First there is a name on your list that doesn't ring a bell with me and I'm an American. Ahhh... her name as first lady was really Jackie Kennedy. The only thing your list has going for it is living memory... none of them is likely to rate more than a bare entry in a list of all the Presidents + Spouses in 50 years. A possible exception could be Jackie, her husband is very famous for getting shot but most of the hoopla around them seems drastically overblown so I'm skeptical it long
Re: (Score:2)
as long as anyone studies American History.
Therefore, they are not famous.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone in the United States studies American history in school... and if the empire should ever fall it ranks right up there with Rome on the global significance scale. I dare say people will be studying American history for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they? Do you really think the average American has a clue who Abigail Adams is? Sure, many will figure it out because they know who John Adams is but I doubt even our second president is as well known today as say, Michele Obama for instance. And honestly I dont know if I would remember George Washington's wife's first name if some one just quizzed me out of nowhere on it. Meanwhile I could have easily raddled off the names the above poster listed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Are they? Do you really think the average American has a clue who Abigail Adams is?"
Yes. American history is generally a requirement in High School but by that point you've had units on Martha Washington and Abigail Adams every year leading up to that... these are core figures in our history. These are figures who are actually involved in the many stories of the American Revolution and founding of the country... many hours of cumulative coverage in school.
"I doubt even our second president is as well known
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah TODAY but...
Great, you agree. I'm done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Right and if you meant popular rather than famous you'd have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
Famous
adjective
famous f-ms
Synonyms of famous
1
a
: widely known
No, if famous had your own fictional definition then you'd have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
No, if you didn't selectively cherrypick the definition that suits your purpose and ignore the others I'd have a point.
1
b
: honored for achievement
a famous explorer
2
: EXCELLENT, FIRST-RATE
famous weather for a walk
As opposed to popular
4
: commonly liked or approved
a very popular girl, such as Michele Obama
Re: (Score:2)
No, if you didn't selectively cherrypick the definition that suits your purpose and ignore the others I'd have a point.
Hahaha, what? All i needed was that first definition to show ""Right and if you meant popular rather than famous you'd have a point."" was incorrect. The rest werent relevant so I left them out. If "Widely known" is the top and therefore most significant definition (that's how dictionaries are ordered) then I had a point.
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed I didn't have a point and think you get to cherrypick a definition for a word as *I* used it?
Look, your claim that Michele Obama is more widely known than Martha Washington or Abigail Adams isn't established either. I simply haven't bothered to argue because there is no way to know. EVERY American knows who these two historical ladies are because unlike Michele Obama they actually have accomplishments. Whereas Michele Obama is not widely known for any accomplishments especially with regard to sh
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... honestly I'm not even going to read your lengthy post here. You're correct, people most Americans probably cant even name are more famous than people they probably can. I dont care anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Kennedy was (and is) the youngest ever elected president. That is notable.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, he wasn't the youngest President but he was the youngest to be elected. But that doesn't exactly put him up there with the founders or someone really instrumental in our national history like Lincoln and yet Lincoln's wife Mary wouldn't make my list.
Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt... these women were significant figures in the history of United States in their own right. I suppose Melania Trump may someday be noted as the most attractive first lady and Hillary could rate inf
Re: Standard Policy (Score:2)
Speaking as a non-American who has never lived in America...
Kennedy is, if not the most well known, then at least in the top 3 or top 5 of well known American presidents world wide.
With Washington, Lincoln, and umm? Eisenhower? I think you had a couple of Roosevelt's right? Oh! Truman! Yes yes we all remember Clinton and Bush and Obama, but we foreigners will be educated about Washington and Lincoln and Kennedy for decades to come. Clinton? Meh.
Why?
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the ot
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good one. I forgot about Kennedy and the space race. That is indeed something that will get coverage for the foreseeable future. I'm still not sure it translates to his spouse though.
Otherwise your list sounds about right for a more global history. Washington is #1 for obvious reasons and it would be odd not to mention Martha Washington alongside him but it would surprise me if there is any standard coverage of the American Revolution outside the US which goes much beyond that. For us in the States we'd
Re: (Score:2)
Agreeing not to charge Walmart, Costco etc. more than you charge any other supplier is fine.
But agreeing that no other supplier can retail your product for less than Walmart, Costco etc. is not fine... it means the retailer can mark up the product however they want and all your other retailers have no choice but to mark it up by the same amount (or more) as well.
Re:Standard Policy (Score:5, Interesting)
You solve this through product variation. You only sell one part number to Costco, you sell another part number to Amazon, those products are 'exclusive' to those retailers even though they are the same with a different package or a different thing included. You sell a third variation on your own site, use a plain package, do not include any freebies, sell it for less.
Re: (Score:1)
You solve this through product variation. You only sell one part number to Costco, you sell another part number to Amazon, those products are 'exclusive' to those retailers even though they are the same with a different package or a different thing included.
This is *exactly* correct. It's also how you deal with federal government purchases (at least from the USA). I would mod you up, but I'm not sure that's even a thing anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting idea. I've seen some variations on this:
1. Walmart version. Cheaper parts, blister packaging.
2. Amazon version. Maybe cheaper parts*, brown box packaging.
3. Costco version. Box, but fancy print on the box.
4. Regular retail store. Blister packaging
Etc...
*Have to be careful of amazon reviews though. Or whether you're trying to win the low price game or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you are willing to compromise your product by using inferior parts, then you just license the name or design to Walmart. Walmart has its own supply chain that can do this, no doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Just call the product the "Walmart Edition" or "Amazon Edition" and give different terms of warranty and service.
So people will know these "Exclusive Editions" can be crap and it's up to you if you want to risk it.
Re: (Score:2)
You solve this through product variation. You only sell one part number to Costco, you sell another part number to Amazon, those products are 'exclusive' to those retailers even though they are the same with a different package or a different thing included. You sell a third variation on your own site, use a plain package, do not include any freebies, sell it for less.
IIRC, that was the way stereo stores void price matching super discounters by having a different model number for the same device. Interestingly, price matching tends to keep prices higher and get buyers to buy because tehy are "price protected." Competitors know if one lowers the price, the others will match, resulting in a price war and less revenue for all; so it is in no one's best interest to lower prices because all it will do is result in less money and shoppers buying at competitors who offer "Pri
Re: (Score:3)
This is not a case of Amazon buying wholesale and selling the product retail, this is selling on consignment. If you decide you want/need $X for each unit sold and so sell it on Amazon for $(X+Y) where Y is Amazon's cut, they will not let you sell it elsewhere for $(X+y) where y is a smaller cut taken by some other consignment seller.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing sounds exactly like the same sort of deal that Apple had with eBook sellers back in the day that got them in trouble. It was the combination of an agency model (i.e. Apple just gets an X% cut of whatever price the seller sets) + most favored nation clause (i.e. you can't sell cheaper elsewhere, a.k.a. MFN) that the courts found created a conspiracy to raise prices. Apple settled to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars after the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
If
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon has a little of each. The suit in question is coming from sellers involved in the agency/MFN agreement. You can recognize those on their site where it will say e.g. "Sold by ABC corp, shipped by Amazon" vs. things sold on the wholesale model where it says "shipped and sold by Amazon".
Agreed, they aren't likely to win here. They must realize it as well since they're trying to pound one of the witnesses into the ground before the big trial.
Re: (Score:2)
If Amazon is not allowing sellers to charge more, they are preventing them from adding in the cut Amazon takes. Again, this is what we did when I was a reseller. We sold at suggested retail.
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the article
Better question (Score:3)
Remember inflation? It's because we're not enforcing laws designed to prevent it.
Disagree (Score:2)
Amazon should be broken up.
Look, I hate Amazon, but ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The precise legal issue isn't clear from the Twitter thread, but it's worth noting that in the U.S. you typically don't recover attorneys fees when you successfully defend a lawsuit (there are a few specific statutory exceptions to the general rule). For this reason, the threat of discovery can often get a party to pay a settlement even if they know they have done nothing wrong because the legal bills arising out of discovery can sometimes even eclipse the amount in controversy.
Re: (Score:3)
Still a believer in justice being applied equally I see. Amazon has a literal building full of lawyers. They will file endless motions and stall tactics to bankrupt this individual.
Re:Look, I hate Amazon, but ... (Score:4, Informative)
Still a believer in justice being applied equally I see. Amazon has a literal building full of lawyers. They will file endless motions and stall tactics to bankrupt this individual.
This is 100% by design. The legal system in the US early on was set up to protect landowners. Landowners had the ability to bog things down in courts by throwing more money at it than accusatory peasants, slaves, indentured servants, etc. Move forward, and the peasants are people without millions of dollars in retainers sitting there waiting to be used. System as designed, big money gets what they want, and it's all 100% legal. Look at the pretty window-dressing of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary Amazon's lawyers don't return calls or emails either.
So if you have to spend even more time (and resources) cos they are not responding in a timely manner (if at all), that seems to be doing it on purpose to increase his stress / legal bills.
Time to start a gofundme (Score:2)
Use your lawyer (Score:2)
"You won't return my calls or e-mails..."
When you're a party to a lawsuit do not call or e-mail[sic] the other party.
Have your lawyer contact their lawyer. If that fails, ask the Court to intervene.
If you don't trust your lawyer, hire another.
If you don't have a lawyer, file your message/request/question/inquiry with the Court and request a response within a reasonable amount of time.
E
Isn't that how it's supposed to work? (Score:2)
You testified in Congress against a company, and then when they asked you for proof of what you said. you claimed you know you have the proof somewhere, but you can't find any. But we should trust you , it exists, and while you can't find it after 16 hours, people should just take your word for it, because you know, it exists, and 16 hours is a really long time already, and you can't be bothered past that.
Sounds like the legal system is doing exactly what it should be doing. Next time you don't have proof
Re: (Score:2)
You testified in Congress against a company, and then when they asked you for proof of what you said. you claimed you know you have the proof somewhere, but you can't find any. But we should trust you , it exists, and while you can't find it after 16 hours, people should just take your word for it, because you know, it exists, and 16 hours is a really long time already, and you can't be bothered past that.
Sounds like the legal system is doing exactly what it should be doing. Next time you don't have proof, don't testify in front of Congress.
So it takes you less than 16 hours to dig through all of your email and other records from four years ago to provide the evidence used to support something you wrote four years ago? Laches comes to mind here. If he were a company, those records would have been long ago destroyed by retention policies.
Re: (Score:2)
16 hours doesn't seem like a lot of time to dig up a random bunch of info from years ago. But the info Amazon wants is something the poster said he testified to Congress about. For info like that, I would think they would have it well preserved, available, cited, and ready to present to others to show what a strong argument they had.
Re: (Score:2)
Or not. He is a private individual who wrote something on his blog then got subpoenaed by Congress. It isn't as if he gots his ducks in a row and sued Amazon for the practices or started an organization to go after them or anything of the sort.
And once Congress summoned him he is under oath to answer as best he can, not as best he can support with documentation. It is perfectly reasonable to assume Congress and later the legislature of California investigated the matters and would be the ones who would have
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think anyone who is going to testify before Congress shows up unprepared? And wouldn't that preparation include gathering relevant information related to that inquiry? And do you think after the testimony is given, that person would just chuck all that info into a dumpster?
Sure, someone could get subpoenaed by Congress and just show up and answer questions willy nilly. But do you realistically believe this guy did that?
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you think anyone who is going to testify before Congress shows up unprepared?"
Yes. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fbi-john-durham-report/2023/05/24/id/1121024/
"And do you think after the testimony is given, that person would just chuck all that info into a dumpster?"
I would. Most people don't keep the notes after the test when they don't need them anymore.
"Sure, someone could get subpoenaed by Congress and just show up and answer questions willy nilly. But do you realistically believe this guy did th
Re: (Score:2)
Also who said the information is something he testified about? They could be asking him to produce every best buy receipt with a barcode starting in 4 he has from the last 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Also who said the information is something he testified about? They could be asking him to produce every best buy receipt with a barcode starting in 4 he has from the last 10 years.
... and this is why people who have never dealt with discovery misunderstand.
First off, discovery has to be relevant. You can object to overly broad discovery and if amazon persists the judge has many ways to penalize them including limiting their discovery which can fuck other parts of their case. I guarantee the broader case is worth more to amazon than using discovery to hammer someone that annoyed them. If they persisted, one could file anti-SLAPP.
Second, you cannot be required to produce or obtain s
Re: (Score:2)
TBH this sounds like someone who's never dealt with any kind of lawsuit and has really shitty legal advice. I kind of wonder if you could leverage the Amazon TOS (i.e. mandatory binding arbitration) to have you disjoined from the lawsuit and force any complaints over there. Probably not but it would be an amusing way to give them the finger.
Now that would be seriously an awesome response. Except that Amazon revoked the binding arbitration bits in mid-2021. But it probably did apply when the testimony occurred, so you could potentially argue that it applies to any disagreement arising out of that time period. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
"First off, discovery has to be relevant. You can object to overly broad discovery and if amazon persists the judge has many ways to penalize them including limiting their discovery which can fuck other parts of their case. I guarantee the broader case is worth more to amazon than using discovery to hammer someone that annoyed them. If they persisted, one could file anti-SLAPP."
IANAL but I'm a cynic. It is SUPPOSED to be relevant and you can object. That isn't the same thing as being relevant, did object, a
Re: (Score:2)
16 hours doesn't seem like a lot of time to dig up a random bunch of info from years ago. But the info Amazon wants is something the poster said he testified to Congress about. For info like that, I would think they would have it well preserved, available, cited, and ready to present to others to show what a strong argument they had.
If he tried to subpoena Amazon, he would likely find that records from more than three years ago no longer exist [irch.com]. IMO, he may be well within his rights to tell Amazon's lawyers to f**k off because the data no longer exists, but only after getting appropriate advice to that effect from counsel.
If Amazon is actually suing him, that is clearly a SLAPP suit. He needs to talk to the EFF about a lawyer, and he needs to sue them back. Hard. That said, this is probably not actually what's happening. The statut
Let's boyc... (Score:1)
I almost said 'let's boycott Amazon!' Then I realized they are too damned big to boycott.
Thanks again, Al Gore, for inventing this stupid Internet!
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks again, Al Gore, for inventing this stupid Internet!
Why blame the Internet when you should blame capitalism?
The broken clock strikes (Score:2)
Al Gore “took the initiative to create the internet” not meaning that he created arpanet or anything like that. He took the initiative to open the internet for commercial traffic creating the internet as people knew it in 1999 as opposed to the internet they probably didn’t know about or have a way to access.
So he’s actually right even if he thinks he’s joking.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm very well aware of the history. I think it was called the Gore Bill of 1991. I was totally joking.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry I was using you to tease the other poster.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't blame "capitalism" for such things, though I do blame "poorly regulated capitalism," or "corporatism."
The law can easily be used to harrass anyone. (Score:1)
Apple eBook case? (Score:2)
Isn't "can't sell cheaper anywhere else" the clause that US DoJ sued Apple and publishers over?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't "can't sell cheaper anywhere else" the clause that US DoJ sued Apple and publishers over?
No, Apple met with publishers to discuss pricing and come up with the model, which is a concerted action between two or more independent agencies. Amazon doesn't attempt to se prices, just has a clause, not uncommon, to get the lowest price that the retailer sells the item for elsewhere. There is no price fixing since the retailer decides what to charge on Amazon and others can do the same independently. Even the person in the lawsuit stated that price competition on Amazon was intense. Price clauses, how
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
Papers? What Papers? (Score:1)
Your own fault for keeping so many "papers"...