from the undercutting-the-competition's-throats dept.
Amazon reportedly used merchant data, despite telling Congress it doesn't:
Amazon accounts for about a third of all US Internet retail sales, but it didn't get there entirely on its own. It did so, in part, with the assistance of hundreds of thousands of smaller vendors who signed up to sell their goods on Amazon's third-party merchant marketplace, which accounts for more than half the company's retail sales. In theory, those agreements were beneficial for all involved: shoppers could easily one-stop-shop for products, merchants could rely on Amazon's front and back-end infrastructure instead of building out their own, and Amazon could get a nice consistent cut flowing in.
The calculus of who benefits most from these arrangements, however, has changed over time. Amazon now offers a wide array of its own in-house brands, making it a direct competitor to many of the merchants who rely on its platform to reach consumers. That would be challenge enough, but the behemoth also captures sales data from those third-party vendors, then uses it to launch its own product lines and undercut the smaller firms, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The WSJ reviewed internal company documents showing Amazon executives requesting and accessing data from specific marketplace vendors, despite corporate policies against doing so. More than 20 former employees told the paper the practice of flouting those rules was commonplace. "We knew we shouldn't," one former employee said of accessing that data. "But at the same time, we are making Amazon branded products, and we want them to sell."
The paper cites a car-trunk organizer as one such example. Amazon employees accessed documents relating to that vendor's total sales, what the vendor paid Amazon for marketing and shipping, and the amount Amazon made on each sale of the organizer before the company then unveiled its own similar product.
[...] Congress, too, specifically asked Amazon for information about its use of marketplace vendor data as part of its massive ongoing antitrust probe into potentially unlawful anticompetitive behaviors by Amazon and other Big Tech firms. At a hearing last July, a witness for Amazon explicitly told Congress that Amazon "doesn't use individual seller data directly to compete" with its marketplace vendors.
Antitrust subcommittee chair Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) had sharp words for Amazon over the apparent contradiction revealed by the new report.
"This is yet another example of the sworn testimony of Amazon's witness being directly contradicted by investigative reporting," Cicilline said in a written statement. "At best, Amazon's witness appears to have misrepresented key aspects of Amazon's business practices while omitting important details in response to pointed questioning. At worst, the witness Amazon sent to speak on its behalf may have lied to Congress."
Also at: Amazon allegedly used sellers' data to make competing products
Related Stories
House panel calls Bezos to testify over Amazon allegedly misleading Congress:
Jeff Bezos is being called to appear before the House Judiciary Committee about his company potentially having made misleading statements about its business practices. At issue is a report from April 23 that detailed how Amazon would use data from third-party sellers to develop and sell its own products.
The committee's request, sent out in a letter on Friday, builds on its current investigation into Amazon's "role in the digital marketplace." While it expects Bezos to agree to appear on his own, the group reserves "the right to resort to compulsory process if necessary."
[...] Amazon didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the House committee's Friday letter to Bezos.
Previously:
Amazon Reportedly Used Merchant Data, Despite Telling Congress It Doesn't
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2020, @12:28PM (1 child)
You don't want a fox minding your henhouse. What is most curious is that the article suggests that Congress knows how to recognize a lie, which blows their "plausible deniability" defense for all of the Congress-critters own crimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2020, @06:03PM
aka "dance with the devil and get a barbed tail in your ass"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 28 2020, @12:42PM
If Congress is investigating Amazon and Big Tech, it means those haven't been keeping up with their protection payments. At most, it means Congress is re-negotiating the rates.
Nothing real will happen to Bezos because he is rich, powerful, and owns a major publication he can use to pillory politicians all day and night if they displease him.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Fnord666 on Tuesday April 28 2020, @01:14PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 28 2020, @02:16PM (4 children)
We need to police Facebook, we call Zuck to come in to explain what needs policing.
We need to police Microsoft, we call Gates, Ballmer, whoever in to explain what needs to be done.
Time to police Amazon, we'll just ask Amazon what we need to do, and have them explain what they are and are not doing.
It makes perfect sense to hire the foxes to guard the henhouse, right?
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2020, @02:51PM
Sure - we chose a swamp monster to drain the swamp so why not?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday April 28 2020, @03:14PM (2 children)
Yeah, when are we gonna police congress?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 28 2020, @03:27PM (1 child)
I thought we were supposed to throw them out regularly, like, every 4 or 6 years. Why DO we keep them long past their expiration dates?
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 28 2020, @04:33PM
How to protect incumbents, in 3 steps:
1. Make campaigns as expensive as possible and privately funded. That gives a large advantage to sitting office-holders who can immediately deliver preferred policy changes in exchange for bribes^Hcampaign contributions, as opposed to challengers who *might* be able to deliver policy changes in the future.
2. Have political parties ruthlessly punish any primary challengers. For example, attempt to end careers or shut down the businesses of any campaign staff or vendors that work for a challenger.
3. Have gerrymandered districts that pretty much guarantee the outcome of the general election before it's even started.
4 (bonus). If for some reason the above 3 aren't guaranteeing your re-election, cheat. There are lots of legal methods to prevent backers of your opponents from voting, and if you use illegal methods you probably won't get punished for it, especially if your party ends up in charge as a result of the cheating.
And yes, whatever major party you vote for most often is a full participant in this game. If you back a minor party or independent candidate instead, know that they would likely do exactly the same thing if they had the power to do so.
You should vote anyways, because that will shift the electorate in ways that will force adjustments to the gerrymandering map, and occasionally an incumbent will get caught off guard, but don't expect miracles.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 28 2020, @04:06PM
Barring well-enforced laws and regulations that prevent it:
1. If data passes through an organization's systems, it WILL be collected and stored.
2. If data is stored on an organization's systems, it WILL be used by that organization for data mining.
3. If data is stored on an organization's systems, it WILL be leaked in a security breach.
Ignore all protestations to the contrary about how those other organizations would do those things, but WE would never dream of it, no sirree! Because no matter how sincere those statements are when they're made (and they're usually not), eventually some MBA will come along and start changing things to collect and mine the data passing through their systems, and eventually another MBA will skimp on security protections and let that trove of data go.
And what do I mean by "well-enforced laws and regulations"? I mean fines handed out that are much larger than the perceived potential profits, and/or people going to jail, on a regular basis until these practices are stopped.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.