Critic of Amazon's Policies Says Company's Lawyers Are Trying To Ruin Him - Slas...

Posted by msmash

• ›

  by Mhrmnhrm ( 263196 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @03:27PM (#63561963)

  Sounds like you've already got a lawyer of your own, good. Now tell your lawyer that (s)he needs to threaten a SLAPP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) suit against Amazon if they don't bugger off.

  • Re:

    Or figure out what part Amazon's lawyers are doing is in violation of ethics and work on a complaint to file with their local Bar association.

    • Re:

      Discovery is not a violation of ethics. Also, he needs to expect a deposition paid for by himself, so expect 24 hours of legal expenses on top of that + time off from work, etc.

      while SLAPP is a good thing it doesn't protect you from the legal expense burden of answering discovery questions, providing details, copies of documents, etc. It sucks.

      Disclosure: I have 4 patents to my credit although I don't have rights to them anymore but I'm a named inventor. If a patent owner is sued and they need me, I'm stric

      • Re:

        True, but Amazon's lawyers blowing them off by not responding doesn't seem very ethical to me (whether or not that meets any sort of standards for disciplinary action I have no idea).

        • Re: Time for SLAPP

          It sounds like BS, he doesn't need to talk to their lawyers, just the Court.

          • Re:

            exactly. There are tactics that are allowed in all court cases, dragging things out unfortunately is one of those tactics and while in criminal cases the defendant is entitled to a speedy trial, the tempo of civil cases is regulated by the court and the lawyer's pleadings. "Your honor, there are 100,000 pages of documents in discovery, we can't review them on the initially agreed timeline, we'll need another year!"
            "Your honor the defendants in this case have been unresponsive to our requests in discovery, w

            • 1 hidden comment

      • Re:

        Discovery per se is not abusive, but it is possible to *abuse* discovery to create a frivolous burden on the other party.

        But we literally no nothing about this suit. We don't even know what he's been sued for, so we have no idea what would be reasonable or frivolous to demand. We don't know if the lawsuit is being brought in a jurisdiction with anti-SLAPP suits or not.

        The article in question consists of matters of opinion (Amazon is bad for consumers, Amazon causes prices to be high, Amazon has shitty serv

        • Re:

          Well, the other rub in this is that he's pleading his case in the court of public opinion by posting it on Twitter and I'll bet his lawyer is pissed off. My guess is he was hit with a defamation suit and since he's a possible witness for the State of California's case, you bet they'll try and get him found guilty. Moreover, his attorney should be pushing the court to assert what legal documents or questions the plaintiffs require the need to be succinct and not a fishing expedition. The plaintiff's attorney

    • Re:

      I think I'd start with what could sound like a very reasonable request: That they pay for the discovery documents. Basically, any lawyer fees and document costs(like photocopying stuff). Tell the judge "Hey, I'm an individual, not a big corporation, this is threatening my house payment!" or such. Emphasize the free speech part of them attacking.

      Basically, if the first round of documents isn't enough, simply ask for payment for more.

  • Re:

    IANAL, but that sounds like abuse of process.

  • Re:

    I don't think you should be giving legal advice based on such a poorly worded twitter post. They said Amazon served him with a lawsuit. They didn't say they sued him. In fact it sounds like they are going through discovery motions for a different lawsuit and not directly aiming at him. If that's the case SLAPP isn't relevant.

    • Re:

      "Served with a lawsuit" is synonymous with "sued." If you're not sued, you're served with a subpoena, not a lawsuit. They wouldn't be entitled to subpoena his papers without compensation in connection to a lawsuit against someone else. The law compels witness testimony but no other cooperation from witnesses.

      What concerns me is:

      1. He didn't post the lawsuit he was served with, offering his interpretation as substitute. So we can't make any assessment as to Amazon's position on the matter.

      2. His lawyer, if h

  • Re:

    Possibly.

    Also Mr. Hart needs a better lawyer. (IANAL but do with with legal on discovery)

    While the burden of discovery does go to the responding party, the requesting party does not have unlimited rights and can only request existing data specifically held by a 3rd party. Furthermore, my understanding is they cannot request transformative or creative work.

    Emails between dates containing these 3 keywords? Yep. Convert those emails to word documents and highlight keyword-containing paragraphs? nope.

• Walmart, Costco, and many, many other retailers have policies like this. They have had these policies for a long time, decades and decades. If you want to use these retailers as a channel, you have to agree that you won't sell your product cheaper to another supplier - they want to be guaranteed the best price.

  Why should Amazon have to follow a policy Walmart does not?

  • Why should Amazon have to follow a policy Walmart does not?

    Better question: why should Walmart not be taken to task in the same way?

    • 1 hidden comment

    • Re:

      Because this is standard contract law, that is why.

      If two companies can not enter into a contract for their own mutual benefit, then we're all hosed.

      • If two companies can not enter into a contract for their own mutual benefit, then we're all hosed.

        But one company is a monopoly (or with enough market weight/power/penetration to essentially be one) so the contract is going to be woefully lopsided to the monopolist's side - hardly of "mutual benefit".

        • Re:

          None of these companies are anywhere near monopolies.

          If I want to sell online, I can use Amazon, Google, Walmart, Etsy, EBay, or I create my own store with Shopify in 30 seconds. No one *has* to use Amazon.

      • Re:

        With big industry dominating companies, this is considered unfair competion. In basic anti-trust laws, the rules for big companies are NOT the same as for small companies. And yet all these corporations who engage in trusts or who are de-facto monopolies love to whine that they're just doing what mom and pop companies do. And I don't use the word "whine" lightly.

        • Re:

          If you think Amazon is a monopoly, I have a bridge to sell you.

          • Re:

            No, but it is the dominant player in online retail, by far. And if it's working with other companies to maintain higher prices then that's falls under antitrust rules, even if the other companies are being strong-armed into it.

            The snag here is that the supreme court at once point said that the rules don't prohibit all unfair trade practices, but those that are "unreasonable". Which is one reason why small companies can get away with more stuff; such as banding to together to be competitive against the big

            • Technicality

              The Amazon policy doesn't maintain higher prices. It maintains equal prices for the same product sold via different channels. There is nothing stopping any vendor from reducing their pricing equitably across all their selling channels at any time.
              
              This seems like a massive non-issue to me.
              
              It would be different if Amazon demanded that a product be sold for a lower price on Amazon than on other platforms. Clearly unfair, anti-competitive. But they don't. They demand that it be sold at no higher a price. There

          • Re:

            If you don't already see Amazon as a de facto monopoly, you've already got a garage full of bridges you've already bought.

      • to break the law. Full stop. This violates all sorts of anti-trust laws (yes, it does when Walmart & Costco do it too, BTW).

      • Re:

        Because this is standard contract law, that is why.

        If two companies can not enter into a contract for their own mutual benefit, then we're all hosed.

        Well, then you'd better ask that a substantial body of antitrust law be revoked (specifically, those portions relating to horizontal restraints on trade). While most favored nation clauses have generally been viewed favorable under U.S. law, there is other thinking possible here [lexology.com], and Amazon's insistence on such a clause as a condition to using its marketplace

        • Re:

          Amazon is not causing restraints on trade, unless you now think Amazon is a nation-state your assertion is ridiculous. Amazon doesn't even have a monopoly position online let alone in all of retail.

      • Re:

        Ok, now show how an MFC clause benefits both sides. From where I'm sitting it looks like it only benefits the party with monopoly power.

    • Re:

      uh, because a very famous ex-first lady was once on the Walmart board for starters?

      Pricing details and agreements are usually under some form of NDA but price fixing is against the law. The way around it is
      "We want the best pricing for the glorious relationship and sales opportunity we're providing to you. You agree to not sell it for less to other third parties or yourself." That doesn't amount to price fixing but it doesn't alow you to discount directly to a buyer or other third parties.

      • Re:

        "a very famous ex-first lady"

        Which first lady(s) weren't famous?

        • Re:

          I only know of Jacqueline Bouvier, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Melania Trump. Jill Biden is barely mentioned, and I only know of her because she's the current, and not media-famous for anything at all.

          • Re:

            Martha Washington and Abigail Adams are far more famous than anyone on your list.

            • Re:

              No one outside the US remembers them. The ones I listed are famous enough that someone outside the US remembers them.

              • Re:

                I doubt that very much. First there is a name on your list that doesn't ring a bell with me and I'm an American. Ahhh... her name as first lady was really Jackie Kennedy. The only thing your list has going for it is living memory... none of them is likely to rate more than a bare entry in a list of all the Presidents + Spouses in 50 years. A possible exception could be Jackie, her husband is very famous for getting shot but most of the hoopla around them seems drastically overblown so I'm skeptical it long

                • Re:

                  Therefore, they are not famous.

            • Re:

              Are they? Do you really think the average American has a clue who Abigail Adams is? Sure, many will figure it out because they know who John Adams is but I doubt even our second president is as well known today as say, Michele Obama for instance. And honestly I dont know if I would remember George Washington's wife's first name if some one just quizzed me out of nowhere on it. Meanwhile I could have easily raddled off the names the above poster listed.

              • Re:

                "Are they? Do you really think the average American has a clue who Abigail Adams is?"

                Yes. American history is generally a requirement in High School but by that point you've had units on Martha Washington and Abigail Adams every year leading up to that... these are core figures in our history. These are figures who are actually involved in the many stories of the American Revolution and founding of the country... many hours of cumulative coverage in school.

                "I doubt even our second president is as well known

                • Re:

                  Great, you agree. I'm done here.

                  • Re:

                    Right and if you meant popular rather than famous you'd have a point.

  • Re:

    Agreeing not to charge Walmart, Costco etc. more than you charge any other supplier is fine.

    But agreeing that no other supplier can retail your product for less than Walmart, Costco etc. is not fine... it means the retailer can mark up the product however they want and all your other retailers have no choice but to mark it up by the same amount (or more) as well.

  • You solve this through product variation. You only sell one part number to Costco, you sell another part number to Amazon, those products are 'exclusive' to those retailers even though they are the same with a different package or a different thing included. You sell a third variation on your own site, use a plain package, do not include any freebies, sell it for less.

    • 1 hidden comment

    • Re:

      This is *exactly* correct. It's also how you deal with federal government purchases (at least from the USA). I would mod you up, but I'm not sure that's even a thing anymore.

    • Re:

      An interesting idea. I've seen some variations on this:
      1. Walmart version. Cheaper parts, blister packaging.
      2. Amazon version. Maybe cheaper parts*, brown box packaging.
      3. Costco version. Box, but fancy print on the box.
      4. Regular retail store. Blister packaging

      Etc...

      *Have to be careful of amazon reviews though. Or whether you're trying to win the low price game or not.

      • Re:

        I think if you are willing to compromise your product by using inferior parts, then you just license the name or design to Walmart. Walmart has its own supply chain that can do this, no doubt.

  • Re:

    This is not a case of Amazon buying wholesale and selling the product retail, this is selling on consignment. If you decide you want/need $X for each unit sold and so sell it on Amazon for $(X+Y) where Y is Amazon's cut, they will not let you sell it elsewhere for $(X+y) where y is a smaller cut taken by some other consignment seller.

  • Re:

    Amazon does not add a margin or directly charge for better positions in the store. My understanding is that for resellers they take a cut. This is exactly what we did when I worked for a reseller. The cut depending on the level of service we had to provide.

    If Amazon is not allowing sellers to charge more, they are preventing them from adding in the cut Amazon takes. Again, this is what we did when I was a reseller. We sold at suggested retail.

    This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the article

  • Better question

    why should those retailers be allowed to commit an anti-trust violation too?
    
    Remember inflation? It's because we're not enforcing laws designed to prevent it.

• Amazon should be broken up.

• It seems like you're trying to circumvent the legal system in the U.S. You made statements Amazon believes to be untrue. People are starting to believe you, so Amazon sees its business threatened and sues you for libel. In the process of preparing for the court and discovery, they get to ask for papers. If that amounts to unreasonable, then your lawyer can ask a judge to intervene, otherwise put your head down and give them the documents they asked for. You'll then have your day in court where you get to prove that you were right and collect your attorney's fees and your lost time from them. If you can prove that this is a frivolous lawsuit on Amazon's side and the judge buys it, then they'll be off your back.
  • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    The precise legal issue isn't clear from the Twitter thread, but it's worth noting that in the U.S. you typically don't recover attorneys fees when you successfully defend a lawsuit (there are a few specific statutory exceptions to the general rule). For this reason, the threat of discovery can often get a party to pay a settlement even if they know they have done nothing wrong because the legal bills arising out of discovery can sometimes even eclipse the amount in controversy.

  • Re:

    Still a believer in justice being applied equally I see. Amazon has a literal building full of lawyers. They will file endless motions and stall tactics to bankrupt this individual.

    • Still a believer in justice being applied equally I see. Amazon has a literal building full of lawyers. They will file endless motions and stall tactics to bankrupt this individual.

      This is 100% by design. The legal system in the US early on was set up to protect landowners. Landowners had the ability to bog things down in courts by throwing more money at it than accusatory peasants, slaves, indentured servants, etc. Move forward, and the peasants are people without millions of dollars in retainers sitting there waiting to be used. System as designed, big money gets what they want, and it's all 100% legal. Look at the pretty window-dressing of justice.

• I would donate if the case is strong. Breaking up Amazon would be good for the economy, good for consumers and good for the job market.

• "You won't return my calls or e-mails..."

  When you're a party to a lawsuit do not call or e-mail[sic] the other party.
  Have your lawyer contact their lawyer. If that fails, ask the Court to intervene.

  If you don't trust your lawyer, hire another.
  If you don't have a lawyer, file your message/request/question/inquiry with the Court and request a response within a reasonable amount of time.

• You testified in Congress against a company, and then when they asked you for proof of what you said. you claimed you know you have the proof somewhere, but you can't find any. But we should trust you , it exists, and while you can't find it after 16 hours, people should just take your word for it, because you know, it exists, and 16 hours is a really long time already, and you can't be bothered past that.

  Sounds like the legal system is doing exactly what it should be doing. Next time you don't have proof

  • Re:

    So it takes you less than 16 hours to dig through all of your email and other records from four years ago to provide the evidence used to support something you wrote four years ago? Laches comes to mind here. If he were a company, those records would have been long ago destroyed by retention policies.

    • Re:

      16 hours doesn't seem like a lot of time to dig up a random bunch of info from years ago. But the info Amazon wants is something the poster said he testified to Congress about. For info like that, I would think they would have it well preserved, available, cited, and ready to present to others to show what a strong argument they had.

      • Re:

        Or not. He is a private individual who wrote something on his blog then got subpoenaed by Congress. It isn't as if he gots his ducks in a row and sued Amazon for the practices or started an organization to go after them or anything of the sort.

        And once Congress summoned him he is under oath to answer as best he can, not as best he can support with documentation. It is perfectly reasonable to assume Congress and later the legislature of California investigated the matters and would be the ones who would have

      • Re:

        Also who said the information is something he testified about? They could be asking him to produce every best buy receipt with a barcode starting in 4 he has from the last 10 years.

        • Re:

          ... and this is why people who have never dealt with discovery misunderstand.

          First off, discovery has to be relevant. You can object to overly broad discovery and if amazon persists the judge has many ways to penalize them including limiting their discovery which can fuck other parts of their case. I guarantee the broader case is worth more to amazon than using discovery to hammer someone that annoyed them. If they persisted, one could file anti-SLAPP.

          Second, you cannot be required to produce or obtain s

          • Re:

            Now that would be seriously an awesome response. Except that Amazon revoked the binding arbitration bits in mid-2021. But it probably did apply when the testimony occurred, so you could potentially argue that it applies to any disagreement arising out of that time period.:-D

          • Re:

            "First off, discovery has to be relevant. You can object to overly broad discovery and if amazon persists the judge has many ways to penalize them including limiting their discovery which can fuck other parts of their case. I guarantee the broader case is worth more to amazon than using discovery to hammer someone that annoyed them. If they persisted, one could file anti-SLAPP."

            IANAL but I'm a cynic. It is SUPPOSED to be relevant and you can object. That isn't the same thing as being relevant, did object, a

      • Re:

        If he tried to subpoena Amazon, he would likely find that records from more than three years ago no longer exist [irch.com]. IMO, he may be well within his rights to tell Amazon's lawyers to f**k off because the data no longer exists, but only after getting appropriate advice to that effect from counsel.

        If Amazon is actually suing him, that is clearly a SLAPP suit. He needs to talk to the EFF about a lawyer, and he needs to sue them back. Hard. That said, this is probably not actually what's happening. The statut

• I almost said 'let's boycott Amazon!' Then I realized they are too damned big to boycott.

  Thanks again, Al Gore, for inventing this stupid Internet!

  • Re:

    Why blame the Internet when you should blame capitalism?

    • The broken clock strikes

      Al Gore “took the initiative to create the internet” not meaning that he created arpanet or anything like that. He took the initiative to open the internet for commercial traffic creating the internet as people knew it in 1999 as opposed to the internet they probably didn’t know about or have a way to access.

      So he’s actually right even if he thinks he’s joking.

      • Re:

        I'm very well aware of the history. I think it was called the Gore Bill of 1991. I was totally joking.

    • Re:

      I don't blame "capitalism" for such things, though I do blame "poorly regulated capitalism," or "corporatism."

    • Re:

      Although, the joke was more about how the internet made such scale possible.

• This was said by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard and it is true.

• Isn't "can't sell cheaper anywhere else" the clause that US DoJ sued Apple and publishers over?