Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts

Arizona Accuses Amazon of Unfair, Deceptive Business Practices (courthousenews.com) 12

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed two lawsuits Wednesday against the international online retail giant Amazon.com, accusing it of deceptive and unfair business practices. Courthouse News Service: The two lawsuits, filed in state court, say Amazon's Prime cancellation process and the algorithm that decides whether a product is offered through a "buy now" or "add to cart" option violate the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Uniform State Antitrust Act. Mayes, a Democrat, accuses Amazon of artificially inflating prices and boxing our third-party retailers that rely on the site for business. "Amazon must be held accountable for these violations of our state laws," Mayes said in a statement. "No matter how big and powerful, all businesses must play by the same rules and follow the same laws as everyone else."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arizona Accuses Amazon of Unfair, Deceptive Business Practices

Comments Filter:
  • by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2024 @08:12PM (#64475631) Homepage Journal

    Also I am not familiar with Arizona state laws, nor with any of the relevant evidence in this case.

    That, however, will not stop me from pronouncing Amazon guilty and recommending high fines that recur daily until the violations are resolved.

    • Fair statement though.

      Use of various big corp websites is a gummy mess.. easy to get in, hard to get out... Feel free to go elsewhere.. that's exactly the same. Every company puts their finger on the scale. I wouldn't be surprised if the bad behavior is spelled out in the Terms of Service, in dense legal terminology (like Apple) or maybe just in yo face, we're telling you we're doing it, try to stop us (like Google). Amazon isn't?.... said nobody.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      Straight from the rsilvergun school of political science!

  • " boxing our third-party retailers that rely on the site"

    Maybe "our" should be "out"?

    Can't hire any more editors having fired all the mods who could write English?

    You go, MsMash and BeauHD and the other illiterate people approving every post despite it having been covered two days previously.

    I would quit you, but it's so much fun pointing out how badly you suck.
    Out. Out. Nothing like Our.

    • No. In this case it means 'boxed in'; third-party sellers have no choice, the only alternative is to not do business through Amazon (which for many sellers means closing shop).

      It is also a quote word for word from the linked article. While we all like to bash the editors, the only sucking here is your post due to bad reading comprehension.
  • The two lawsuits, filed in state court, say Amazon's Prime cancellation process and the algorithm that decides whether a product is offered through a "buy now" or "add to cart" option violate the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Uniform State Antitrust Act.

    This makes me think a law was written somewhere by people that don't understand computers, the Internet, shopping via the Internet, or anything to do with technology.

    I don't much like Amazon, but this one seems downright foolish, if not outright stupid. Maybe our elected officials need to face some form of computer kindergarten when they take office. I'm sure there's some form of training that happens when they are elected. Though, by the way they behave you'd never know it. Just tack on a few days training

    • An algorithm can be made that restricts appearance of purchasing options based on the price relative to other sellers. Like it or not, doing so may be a violation of their anti trust and fair competition laws since the end result is that it favors one seller over another.

      Just because a computer can be made to do something or anything doesn't make it legal regardless of your apparent contempt of government officials.
      • An algorithm can be made that restricts appearance of purchasing options based on the price relative to other sellers. Like it or not, doing so may be a violation of their anti trust and fair competition laws since the end result is that it favors one seller over another. Just because a computer can be made to do something or anything doesn't make it legal regardless of your apparent contempt of government officials.

        I get that, and I agree. But the wording saying specifically that the buy it now button or an add to cart button is a bad thing is complete horseshit, and you know our government bumblers said it.

        I hate Scamazon as much as the next guy. Probably more. They bungled the fuck out of an ad campaign for my books that lost me a ton of cash for absolutely zero sales and then just basically backed away as if it never happened. Not to mention the absolute horseshit they pull with their search results. But "Buy it no

Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899

Working...