from the beats'-bad-business-barriers-beaten-back-by-big-beatdown dept.
Italy fines Amazon, Apple $230M over reseller collusion – TechCrunch:
Amazon and Apple have been hit with almost $230 million (€203M) in total fines by Italy’s antitrust authority — following an investigation into reselling of Apple and (Apple-owned) Beats kit on Amazon’s Italian ecommerce marketplace.
The authority says the alleged collusion decreased the level of discounts available to consumers buying Apple and Beats products on the Amazon Italy marketplace.
It has also ordered the tech giants to end the restrictions on resellers.
The AGCM announced the sanction today, saying its probe identified a restrictive agreement between the pair to block some “legitimate” resellers of Beats products on Amazon.it.
The fine breaks down into €134.5M (~$151M) for Amazon — and €68.7M (~$77.3M) for Apple.
The agreement in question was signed between the pair back in October 2018.
Per the AGCM’s press release, it found the agreement contained a number of contractual clauses which prohibited official and unofficial resellers of Apple and Beats products from using Amazon.it — with the restriction limiting the sale of Apple and Beats products on Amazon.it to Amazon itself and a number of resellers the authority says were “chosen individually and in a discriminatory way” — in violation of Art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Related Stories
Italian regulator fines Amazon $1.28 billion for abusing its market dominance:
Italy's antitrust authority (AGCM) has fined Amazon €1.13 billion ($1.28 billion) for "abuse of dominant position," the second penalty it has imposed on Amazon over the last month. Amazon holds a position of "absolute dominance" in the Italian brokerage services market, "which has allowed it to promote its own logistics service, called Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA)," the authority wrote in a (Google translated) press release.
According to the AGCM, companies must use Amazon's FBA service if they want access to key benefits like the Prime label, which in turn allows them to participate in Black Friday sales and other key events. "Amazon has thus prevented third-party sellers from associating the Prime label with offers not managed with FBA," it said.
The authority said access to those functions are "crucial" for seller success. It also noted that third-party sellers using FBA are not subject to the same stringent performance requirements as non-FBA sellers. As such, they're less likely to be suspended from the platform if they fail to meet certain goals. Finally, it noted that sellers using Amazon's logistics services are discouraged from offering their products on other online platforms, at least to the same extent they do on Amazon.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26 2021, @08:57AM
Who cares?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26 2021, @09:20AM (1 child)
You don't fuck around with an Italians fashion brands. You just don't do it
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26 2021, @09:50AM
I thought Italian fashion brands were exclusively worn for fucking around?
(Score: 5, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 26 2021, @10:48AM
Probably not. Instead of restraining Evil Corp, the US looks to Evil Corp for graft money.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26 2021, @03:29PM (11 children)
That fine is big, but will not stop the price fixing and collusion.
You want to get their attention permanently...
1) Consumers keeps the product.
2) All payment systems are to immediately refund to consumer the cost for the item: purchase price, taxes, fees, shipping - everything. IE: Company's punishment is it gives the product away for free. Company still responsible for all taxes and costs as if sold it.
3) The fine ($230M in this case) is paid PERSONALLY BY (no company indemnification) 1/4 by the BOARD, 1/2 by CEO, the rest paid by 2/3 by each manager going down company tree. So a VP pays the 2/3 of last 1/4. The manager below him, pays 2/3 of the 1/3 of the 1/4. And so on.
If payments systems do not want to play in this... Then they are co-conspirators. Equally liable for the action. Maybe criminally for C level managers and board,
The only possible reduction - is suppling and helping convict the management team that set the scheme in the first place.
Whistle-Blowers that inform BEFORE also get part of the fine (1/3), else they are part of of it.
Makes everyone know that if you cheat - you all lose.
Yes, tough love.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26 2021, @04:44PM (6 children)
Congratulations! You just created a regime in which people are held personally responsible for things of which they had no knowledge and in which they had no part! You've turned the role of CEO into the role of scapegoat! You've removed the logic behind a limited liability company!
Which would be groovy and all, but as it happens that's a problem for accountability, civil liberties, rule of law and of course the structures that we use to mobilise capital in the common interest.
So why not just come right out and say: Henceforth all businesses shall be sole proprietorships, and transfer of capital for investment shall be prohibited, because otherwise somewhere someone might do some shady stuff and we can't possibly handle that. Why so extreme? Because you're proposing to hold directors (and others) personally and directly responsible for things that they might never have seen, known about or, had they known about them, approved. Would the CEO have fired the people responsible at the first whiff - doesn't matter, CEO still gets it in the shorts! Would the board have crucified any company officer responsible, had they any inkling of what was up? Doesn't matter, they still get it in the shorts!
So, either you're deliberately proposing the destruction of the foundation of post-renaissance western wealth (and for that matter, post-feudal wealth worldwide), or the law of unintended consequences would like a word with you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 26 2021, @05:58PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26 2021, @09:25PM (4 children)
Not true. CEO and BOARD can be whistle blower.s. Lack of them blowing the whistle, the are liable. It is do your damn job and manage!! Right now it is suck all the money. So they are part of the problem. This forces them to be part if solution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26 2021, @10:03PM (3 children)
You can't have it both ways.
If they didn't know, why are they liable? You're basically hanging a target on the back of anyone even thinking of being a director or company officer or manage.
"Sorry, Bob, we know you just started your position as director last week, but this internet rando says that because somebody blew a whistle, you now owe millions upon millions of dollars regardless of your ability to do a damn thing about it. Sucks to be you."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26 2021, @11:15PM (2 children)
It is the job to know. If they do not then they are failing their roles.
Not knowing is. Like not knowing a law. Is no defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 27 2021, @12:31AM (1 child)
Right, because you get appointed director and immediately know what random middle manager arranged in a different country with a supplier you've never met. It's mystical. It's psychic!
It's a recipe for never having anybody become director for anything ever again. "What, I become criminally liable for things I don't know and can't control? Fuck a long-stemmed bunch of that shit, I'll go binge-watch Jersey Shore instead." And, ta-daa! Company governance becomes impossible because everybody knows that it's a one-way ticket to reamingtown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 27 2021, @04:31AM
Military does it
Any org can.
You sound risk adverse. Do not take the job until full review of actions. You are signing off on it. Same action iwth "cooking" the books and CEO are forsed to sign off on something they do not follow. SOX and JSOX. I live with that daily.
Then again criminal action is something CEO need to weed out. Whistle-blow on old CEO. Make some dough. Audit the company before taking the role. Do you really trust to seonds? Do you really trust the other managers on down. You a betting your ass. But the pay off is big.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 28 2021, @08:16AM
I recognize the fact that the fine is not big enough. Cost of doing business.
But I also gave thought on this, and I always try to compare to what happens to regular folks when they commit a crime. We need something as a "life sentence", "three strikes", "pretrial detention" for companies.
Could be simple things for publicly traded companies: hit them in the stocks: block all stocks/trades till the ruling is out, that also gives them an incentive not to drag out the case for ages. Fines could also be paid by issueing new stock for the fine value + selloff as this impacts shareholders. (and C-levels as they usually get bonus based on stocks)
And yes, I would open board of directors and VP-level open to more liability similar to accessories in regular ppl cases. But only those "responsible" for the area of the fine.
But as already mentioned, your idea will string up quite some innocent people.
I've been team leader, Quality Lead and Product manager. In all of those functions there are many illegal ways to screw consumers completely out of my control.
When the companies would get punished significantly that it's no longer cost of doing business; all employees will get their impact anyway.
In any case, with the revolving doors I don't expect either idea to make it very far...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 28 2021, @07:53PM (2 children)
That could destroy a potentially useful organization.
Just put those responsible for the actual deeds in prison.
You may say the big fish will get away. But if you start threatening the small fish with prison don't be surprised if soon more and more small fish "suddenly" are able provide evidence that the bigger fish were really responsible.
If you don't do that, the organization pays the fine, there's no need for the small fish to do anything, in fact if the organization makes a net profit they might be encouraged to more similar stuff.
Why punish thousands of employees ( who are likely to not get paid and/or lose their jobs if the company goes out of business), when you can just punish the ones responsible.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29 2021, @04:14AM (1 child)
Right Amazon and Apple will shutdown. LOL
No what will happen Boozo will lose personal wealth. Board will get real C level management in place. The rest keeps going.
Key is get people in place that actaul run a company... nor a MAFIA, Sweat Shop, or Ponzy Scheme.
Collusion is criminal act, period. Price fixing a thief from the consumers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29 2021, @06:41AM