Amazon's Jeff Bezos Called To Testify Before House Antitrust Panel (nbcnews.com) 24
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: House lawmakers leading an antitrust investigation into Amazon demanded Friday that CEO Jeff Bezos testify about the company's alleged practice of gleaning financial information from third-party sellers to bolster its own private label business. The House Judiciary Committee threatened to subpoena Bezos if he does not voluntarily agree to testify. The letter comes after a Wall Street Journal investigation found that Amazon employees in the company's private label business had routinely used data from third-party sellers to inform its own product strategy -- a practice that the company has consistently denied to Congress.
Amazon's associate general counsel, Nate Sutton, said in a July hearing on the company's practices that "we do not use any seller data to compete with them." He also told Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., chair of the House antitrust subcommittee, in the same hearing that "we do not use their individual data when we're making decisions to launch private brands." Amazon has also submitted numerous written responses to the same effect to the committee. "If the reporting in The Wall Street Journal article is accurate, then statements Amazon made to the Committee about the company's business practices appear to be misleading, and possibly criminally false or perjurious," said the House Judiciary Committee in its letter.
Amazon's associate general counsel, Nate Sutton, said in a July hearing on the company's practices that "we do not use any seller data to compete with them." He also told Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., chair of the House antitrust subcommittee, in the same hearing that "we do not use their individual data when we're making decisions to launch private brands." Amazon has also submitted numerous written responses to the same effect to the committee. "If the reporting in The Wall Street Journal article is accurate, then statements Amazon made to the Committee about the company's business practices appear to be misleading, and possibly criminally false or perjurious," said the House Judiciary Committee in its letter.
Okay, so what? (Score:2)
When's the last time any big company got any sort of serious fine or penalty from the government?
Re: (Score:2)
It's just election year shakedown. Bezos and friends employ the sons and daughters and son in laws and daughter in laws of these Congresspersons in all manner of no show foundation jobs and marketing jobs and law firms, etc., etc. Nothing real will come of it. They just need checks written for their campaigns to fund their other relations and partners in their marketing firms and campaign consultancies.
It's what makes to Western world go 'round.
Re: (Score:2)
Theatre of the Absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
It's merely the house label revolution that has been prevalent for generations in retail sales. [slashdot.org]
All large retailers do it. Your local grocery chain, Walmart, Costco, and yes, even the mighty Amazon... if the margins are such that quality house labeled imitation products can be substituted for known and advertised brands, it will be done.
Retailers abhor ignoring an opportunity for profitable substitution like nature abhors a vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When's the last time any big company got any sort of serious fine or penalty from the government?
Facebook was fined $5B last year.
FTC imposes $5 billion penalty [ftc.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
When's the last time any big company got any sort of serious fine or penalty from the government?
Yeah, but when did the head of any big company look so much like a Bond villain?
Disclaimer: I decided Amazon was a corporate cancer and stopped dealing with the company almost 20 years ago. I was still willing to look skeptically at the free WaPo online, but Jeff is now too greedy to permit that much "communication".
Re: (Score:2)
I should have written "look and act".
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, but when did the head of any big company look so much like a Bond villain?"
Bill Gates. When the USDOJ decided that Microsoft under Gates had abused its monopoly position in just about every anticompetitive way possible, Bush's AG Ashcroft declared that it was not in America's best interest to prosecute.
No, the nerds didn't get revenge (Score:2)
Touche, but Gates looks like the nerdy kind of villain, while Bezos looks and acts much more like the "real" thing.
But the deeper question should be which corporate cancer has done more damage to America and the world, and I think Amazon is the increasingly clear winner. Microsoft's abuse was focused on the computer industry, and though there were enormous impacts on the rest of the economy as the entire economy became more and more computerized, most of the indirect profits were out of Microsoft's scope an
I do not recall (Score:2)
If the United States Attorney General has a bad memory, everybody has one.
Before jumping to conclusions (Score:2)
Before anyone says "This is because Trump hates Bezos", no.
This is the House. The House is controlled by the Democrats.
[disclaimer: I am neither a Republican or a Democrat]
Re: (Score:2)
Before anyone says "This is because Trump hates Bezos", no.
Trump hates Bezos because of WaPo. But as a rule, it is liberals and not conservatives who hate Amazon.
Conservatives tend to believe that the market should determine which companies succeed and Amazon is a clear winner. Liberals tend to believe in government intervention to support non-economic goals such as keeping local bookstores open.
Walmart is another company that is hated by liberals much more than by conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
That's mostly because Walmart abuses its workers.
Re: (Score:3)
That's mostly because Walmart abuses its workers.
Liberals believe that the government should protect workers from abuse.
Conservatives believe that if you don't like your job, you should get a different job.
and if he sends his lawyer to lie for him again? (Score:1)
Demanded? No, not truthful. (Score:1)
Ok....... (Score:2)
Frankly, the Uber Rich are immune. (Score:2)
After all, even when the established mechanisms to keep someone like D.Trump from running amok and thumbing his nose at the law and the constitution failed to function, what hope is there that any other rich people will have to face any real "threat" from the law in general?
give needs to grow a pair (Score:1)
ok (Score:1)