That seems like a reasonable policy for Amazon to have. It's pretty normal practice for wholesale/distribution contracts to include clauses prohibiting the manufacturer from undercutting them in other channels after the contract is signed.
replyWhy would Amazon want to bear the cost of people using their store as a free product billboard, or using their warehouses as cheap transient storage space, while trying to push customers to actually make their purchases elsewhere?
I'm not sure how this can be considered 'regulation' of the market, however -- to the contrary, it signifies that Amazon itself is sensitive to price pressure coming from competing distribution channels.
A monopoly store is charging (according to sibling posts) about a 50% tax to its suppliers, and will ban them if they sell their products for a fair price anywhere else. The tax percentage keeps increasing over time, as the monopoly uses this policy to prevent anyone else from competing on price.
replyThat’s clearly in violation of antitrust laws.
50% "tax", or 100% markup, is the typical reseller markup for consumer products across the market, and anti-undercutting clauses are also universal.
replyEvery bit of what you're describing is the way retail distribution works across the industry in general. Amazon isn't doing anything out of the ordinary in any way.
Amazon often have no idea what vendors sell their products for elsewhere. It's often an empty threat that vendors are very happy to ignore. Also, many of those agreements are spurious in international law. Unless there's a bullet proof contract with actual teeth, vendors will sell anywhere they can.
replydeleted
reply