A business that sells on Amazon has sent a 62-page letter to lawmakers with extensive data showing how Amazon compels sellers to use its shipping service — at significantly higher cost & worse performance.
Damning story by @spencersoper @business
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Damning story by @spencersoper @business
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
@spencersoper @business Amazon shipped 120k orders for this merchant in 3 months this year. 25% arrived within 2 days. More than 50% arrived in 3 days. 15% arrived in 4 days. Despite the slow delivery, Amazon’s fees were 35% higher than other rapid shipping options.
@spencersoper @business This merchant’s data adds detailed evidence to the piece we published in @ProMarket_org this week about how Amazon manipulates the Buy Box algorithm to force sellers to use its fulfillment — even though it’s a worse & more expensive option.
promarket.org/how-amazon-rig…
promarket.org/how-amazon-rig…
@spencersoper @business @ProMarket_org This has the makings of a serious antitrust suit, but the merchant can’t bring one because "he agreed to binding arbitration when he began selling products on Amazon.”
Binding arbitration is baked in to Amazon’s boilerplate seller contract.
Binding arbitration is baked in to Amazon’s boilerplate seller contract.
@spencersoper @business @ProMarket_org So here’s hoping 1) the @FTC takes action and brings a suit and 2) we end forced arbitration in contracts.
