US government and 17 states sue Amazon in landmark monopoly case

By Brian Fung, Sep. 26, 20231/3. Remember Google lost the other day, there is movement anons.

The US government and 17 statesare suing Amazon in a landmark monopoly case reflecting years of allegations that the e-commerce giantabused its economic dominance and harmed fair competition.

The groundbreaking lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and 17 attorneys general marks the government’s sharpest attack yet against Amazon, a company that started off selling books on the internet but has since become known as “the everything store,” expanding into selling a vast range of consumer products, creating a globe-spanning logistics network and becoming a powerhouse in other technologies such as cloud computing.

The 172-page complaint alleges Amazon unfairly promotes its own platform and services at the expense of third-party sellers who rely on the company’s e-commerce marketplace for distribution.

For example, according to the FTC, Amazon has harmed competition byrequiring sellerson its platformto purchase Amazon’s in-house logistics servicesin order to secure the best seller benefits, referred to as“Prime” eligibility. It also claims the company anticompetitivelyforces sellers to list their productson Amazon at the =lowest prices anywhere== on the web, instead of allowing sellers to offer their products at competing marketplaces for a lower price.

That practice is already the subject of a separate lawsuit targeting Amazon filed by California’s attorney general last year.

Because of Amazon’s dominance in e-commerce,sellers have little optionbut to accept Amazon’s terms, the FTC alleges,resulting in higher pricesfor consumers and a worse consumer experience. Amazon also ranks its own products in marketplace search results higher than those sold by third parties, the FTC said.

Amazon is “squarely focused on preventing anyone else from gaining that same critical mass of customers,” FTC Chair Lina Khan told reporters Tuesday. “This complaint reflects the cutting edge and best thinking on how competition occurs in digital markets and, similarly, thetactics that Amazon has used to suffocate rivals, deprive them of oxygen, and really leave a stunted landscape in its wake.”

The states involved in the case are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, and seeks a court order blocking Amazon from engaging in the allegedly anticompetitive behavior.

The FTC isn’t ruling out a possible breakup of Amazon— nor the potential for individual executives to be named== in a landmark antitrust case against the e-commerce giant, according to Khan.

Speaking Tuesday just hours after the lawsuit was filed, Khan declined to say that the FTC would specifically seek a breakup as a remedy to Amazon’s allegedly illegal monopoly.

“At this stage, the complaint is reallyfocused on the issue of liability,” Khan said at the event hosted by Bloomberg News in Washington.

But the agency’s complaint, filed in Seattle federal court, suggests that any court order to address the issuecould include “structural relief,” a legal term referring to a potential breakup of Amazon.

Asked about that request, Khan said the FTC is broadly interested in any relief that can effectively stop Amazon’s allegedly anticompetitive behavior.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/tech/ftc-sues-amazon-antitrust-monopoly-case/index.html

>>20076076

2/3

“Ultimately, you will want to make sure that any remedy ishalting the illegal conduct, preventing a recurrence and ensuring that Amazon is not able to profit and benefit from its illegal behavior,” Khan said Tuesday afternoon. “When we get to the issue of remedy, those are going to be the principles we’ll be focused on.”

Khan also left open the possibility thatAmazon executivescould be heldpersonally liableif there is sufficient evidence of their responsibility for Amazon’s allegedly illegal conduct.

“We want to make sure that we are bringing cases against the right defendants,” Khan said in response to a question from CNN about whether the FTC considered naming specific executives in Tuesday’s case. “If we think that there is a basis for doing so, we won’t hesitate to do that.”

The suitmakes Amazon the third tech giant after Google and Metato be hit with sweeping US government allegations thatthe company spent years violating federal antitrust laws, reflecting policymakers’ growing worldwide hostility toward Big Tech that intensified after 2016. The litigation could take years to play out. But just as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his spectacular wealth have inspired critics to draw comparisons to America’s Gilded Age, so may the FTC lawsuit come to symbolize a modern repeat of the antitrust crackdown of the early 20th century.

In a release, Khanaccused Amazon of using “punitive and coercive tactics” to preserve an illegal monopoly.

“Amazon is now exploiting its monopoly power to enrich itselfwhile raising prices and degrading servicefor the tens of millions of American families who shop on its platform and the hundreds of thousands of businesses that rely on Amazon to reach them,” Khan said. “Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition.”

Amazon rejects Khan’s logic

“Today’s suit makes clear the FTC’s focus has radically departed from its mission of protecting consumers and competition,”saidDavid Zapolsky, Amazon’s senior vice presidentof global public policy and general counsel (Mouthpiece if the NWO). He said Amazon’s practices have helped spur competition, innovation and selection across the retail industry. He argued that Amazon has fostered lower prices, faster delivery and helped small businesses sell their goods.

“If the FTC gets its way, the result would be fewer products to choose from, higher prices, slower deliveries for consumers, and reduced options for small businesses — the opposite of what antitrust law is designed to do,” he said. “The lawsuit filed by the FTC today is wrong on the facts and the law, and we look forward to making that case in court.” (That sounds like PANiC, but I get the sense the Bidan regime is doing a shake down on Amazon for money.)

In a subsequent blog post, Zapolsky warned that the FTC suit could not only force Amazon to list products at a higher price point than on rival marketplaces, but also that it could raise Amazon’s costs of doing business — costs that may then be passed along to consumers in the form of higher Amazon Prime subscription prices or slower shipping times. (Citizens should boycott Amazon, they have cheated sellers for multiple years.)

“We respect the role the FTC has historically played in protecting consumers and promoting competition,” the blog post said. “Unfortunately, it appears the current FTC is radically departing from that approach, filing a misguided lawsuit against Amazon that would, if successful, force Amazon to engage in practices that actually harm consumers and the many businesses that sell in our store—such as having to feature higher prices, offer slower or less reliable Prime shipping, and make Prime more expensive and less convenient.” (Fear porn!)

For years, Amazon’s critics including US lawmakers, European regulators, third-party sellers, consumer advocacy groups and more have accused the company of everything from mistreating its workers to forcing its third-party sellers to accept anticompetitive terms.Amazon has unfairly used sellers’ own commercial data against them, opponents have said, so it can figure out what products Amazon should sell itself. And the fact that Amazon competes with sellerson the very same marketplace it controlsrepresents a conflict of interest that should be considered illegal, many of Amazon’s critics have said…

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/tech/ftc-sues-amazon-antitrust-monopoly-case/index.html

>>20076083

3/3

But Tuesday’s FTC suit is more narrowly focused, taking aim atAmazon’s behavior in two specific markets: an “online superstore” market, in which its conduct allegedly harmed shoppers; and an “online marketplace services” market serving independent sellers.Amazon’s deliberate self-preferencing of its own productsin search results is an outgrowth of the underlying anticompetitive behavior at issue in the case, said John Newman, deputy director of the FTC’s competition bureau.

A defining moment for Lina Khan

The lawsuit represents a watershed moment in Khan’s career.She is widely credited with kickstarting antitrust scrutiny of Amazon in the United States with a seminal law paper in 2017. She later helpedlead a congressional investigationinto the tech industry’s alleged competition abuses, detailing in a 450-page report how Amazon — as well as Apple, Google and Meta —enjoy “monopoly power”and that there is “significant evidence” to show that the companies’ anticompetitive conduct has hindered innovation, reduced consumer choice and weakened democracy.

The investigation led to a raft of legislative proposals aimed at reining in the companies, but themost significant ones have stalled under a barrage of industry lobbying and decisions by congressional leadersnot to bring the bills up for a final vote.

Lawmakers’ inactionhas left it to antitrust enforcers to police the tech industry’s alleged harms to competition. In 2021, President Joe Biden stunned many in Washington when he tapped Khan not only to serve on the FTC but to lead the agency, sending a signal that he supported tough antitrust oversight.

Since then Khan has taken an aggressive enforcement posture, particularly toward the tech industry.Under her watch, the FTC has suedto block numerous tech acquisitions, most notably Microsoft’s $69 billion deal to acquire video game publisher Activision Blizzard. It has moved to restrict how companies may collect and use consumers’ personal information, and warned them of the risks of generative artificial intelligence.

Mounting monopoly scrutiny

Throughout, the FTC has scrutinized Amazon — suing the company in June for allegedly tricking millions of consumers into signing up for Amazon Prime and reaching multimillion-dollar settlements in May with the company over alleged privacy violations linked to Amazon’s smart home devices.

But thelatest suit against Amazon may rank as the most significant of all, because it drives at the heart of Amazon’s e-commerce business and focuses on some of the most persistent criticisms of the company.

In one heavily redacted portion of theFTC lawsuit, agency attorneys cryptically described Project Nessie, an “algorithm” and “pricing system” that has allegedly “extracted” an undisclosed amount of value “from American households.” It is unclear what Project Nessie is or how it works, but the FTC alleges in the complaint that the company’s program “belies its public claim that it ‘seek[s] to be Earth’s most customer-centric company.’” Amazon didn’t immediately respond to CNN’s questions about Project Nessie.

In a sign of how threatening Amazon perceived Khan’s ascent to be, the company in 2021 called for her recusal from all cases involving the tech giant.

Khan has resisted those calls. And in remarks to reporters this week, Khan deflected questions about her past work on Amazon, praising the efforts of FTC staff in completing the agency’s investigation. On Tuesday, the FTC said it held a unanimous 3-0 vote authorizing the lawsuit; Khan was among those voting to proceed.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/tech/ftc-sues-amazon-antitrust-monopoly-case/index.html

(The Government, DOJ and agencies like these have ignored anticompetitive companies since the early 70s, they grew and grew and its blown up. The Congress is at ultimate blame because of allowing Lobbyists to steal their souls for money to be re-elected. Banning Foreign NGOs, billionaires and industry lobbyists would get them back on track.Congress is a personality cult now, not legislators.)

>>20075327 Could This Supreme Court Case End Government Overreach By Three-Letter Agencies?PN

Could This Supreme Court Case End Government Overreach By Three-Letter Agencies?1/2TYLER DURDEN. WED, DEC 13, 2023 - 06:40 PM

SUBMITTED BY GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA,

WHAT DO FISHING, THREE LETTER AGENCIES, AND GUN RIGHTS ALL HAVE IN COMMON?

Well, thanks to alittle-known case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, commercial fishing and gun rights are intrinsically tied together. The outcome of this case could change the legal landscape of the entire country when it comes to the ability of three-letter agencies such as ATF to make regulations.

To understand the scope and effect of the Raimondo case, we'll need to first look attwo different thingsThe first is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The second is alegal principle called Chevron Deference.

Let's start with the Fishery Act, as that's the basis for this case: In 1976, Congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act into law. The law provides for the management of marine fisheries in US waters.

The MSA =was enacted to assert control over foreign fisheries that were operating within 200 miles of the US coast. However, a provision of the law is that the National Marine Fisheries Service may require private fishing boats to carry federal monitors on board== to enforce the agency's regulations.

This is where the problems start.

In the years since the passage of the MSA, the budget for the National Marine Fisheries Service started to fall, but the need for monitor coverage was growing. The Fisheries service was put in a bind. They couldn't afford to pay for the increased coverage needed to maintain their surveys and studies.

Well, to fix the problem, they did what all Government agencies seem to do these days:administrative rulemaking.

In doing so, they identified an area in the law that did not explicitly say thatthe government couldn't make the private companies pay the salaries of the federal monitors.

So, inFebruary 2020, the National Marine Fisheries Service published its final rule establishing a standardized process thatwould require industry-funded monitoring.

In response, Loper Bright Enterprises, a family-owned herring fishing company, sued the National Marine Fisheries Service in the United States District Court for the District of Colombia.

Loper Bright's argument was that the Magnuson-Stevens Act=did not authorize the Fisheries Service to force private companiesto pay federal monitors.

You'd think that the Court would see this and agree with Loper Bright. Well, you'd be wrong.The Court sided with the National Marine Fisheries Service by using a legal doctrine called Chevron Deference.

So, what's the Chevron Deference?

The Chevron in Chevron Deference refers to a landmark 1984 decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council Inc.

Chevron is considered to be one of the most important decisions in US administrative law. It has been cited in thousands of cases since the decision.

But how does it work?

If a law is ambiguous,Chevron's doctrinerequires the court to evaluate if the agency's interpretation of the law is reasonable or permissible.If the agency's interpretation is deemed to be reasonable or permissible, the court must accept the agency's interpretation of the law.

In practice, administrative agencies like ATF can essentially govern as lawmakers. They create "rules" and "regulations" based on existing law, then use Chevron to affirm their rule change as "reasonable."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/could-supreme-court-case-end-government-overreach-three-letter-agencies

>>20076264

>>20075327 Could This Supreme Court Case End Government Overreach By Three-Letter Agencies?PN

2/2

Administrative agencies face fewer steps in rulemaking, sometimes only involving those inside the current administration. In the case of bump stocks—which is an attachment for a rifle—the reversal of agency policy was not the result of any new factual findings or thoughtful re-examination of the statute, but instead was ordered by one person—President Trump.

Even when agencies don't apply Chevronto their argument,sometimes Judges will do it anyway, because it allows them to defer to an authority instead of making a decision, taking the easy way out of complex cases.

But it goes deeper. Chevron has seriously distorted how the political branches operate.Thanks to Chevron, Congress does less, and the executive branch does more, as Congress can count on the executive branch to tackle controversial issues via executive orders without the need for compromise.

This creates a dynamic where the "law" on important and divisive issues radically changes with every presidential administration.

For example, the Chevron doctrine is what "allows" the ATF to claim that pistol braces are legal for years, then, on a dime, suddenly change course and change the legal status of 40 million pistols overnight.

There's a reason that GOA has submitted an amicus curiae supporting Loper Bright.

So, back to the case at hand. By using Chevron, the lower court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo determined that the Fisheries Service "reasonably interpreted the law" as there was no clear language about the cost of at sea monitoring in the law.

On Nov. 10, 2022, Loper Bright petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case. In the petition,Loper Bright asked two questions.

The first asked the court to rule on whether the lower court properly applied Chevron when granting the Fisheries Service the power to force private enterprises to pay for monitors.

Secondly,they asked the court to rule on whether Chevron should be overruled outright or limited in scope.

The Supreme Court granted the petitionbut limited it to only the Second question.

Seems like the Supreme Court may have an issue with Chevron.

This is evidenced in 2022 whenJustice Neil Gorsuch wrote, "Chevron deserves a tombstone no one can miss.". Justice Clarance Thomas has said similar things as well. In 2015, Thomas wrote thatChevron "wrestles from courts the ultimate interpretive authority to 'say what law is' and hands it over to the executive branch."

Interestingly, Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson heard the case at the circuit level right before being nominated to replace Justice Steven Breyer on the Supreme Court. She has recused herself from the case accordingly.

We'll have to wait and see what happens with the oral arguments, but it looks like theSupreme Court might actually be ready to put Chevron to bed.

What do fishing, Three This case is important not just for gun owners but anyone who's been a victim of federal overreach. We'll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/could-supreme-court-case-end-government-overreach-three-letter-agencies

(I remember Gorsuch’s conformation hearings and he discussed how bad the Chevron Deference sucked multiple times!)

Video attachedWatch: What do fishing, Three Letter Agencies, and gun rights all have in common?

>>20076278

That is the kindest comment I’ve ever heard here. You made my day and night, if that was for anon. Regardless it was kind

>>20076278

Ignore the spelling Nazis!

14 Dec, 2023

Kiev sends its soldiers to die – Putin

Ukraine is “mindlessly” forcing its servicemen to hold a tiny foothold on the Russian-controlled bank of the Dnieper River, the president has said

TheUkrainian leadership has grown desperatein the wake of its major summer counteroffensive failure, Russian President Vladimir Putin told a major press conference on Thursday. The Russian leader revealed some details about an ongoing operation, whichhas seen Kiev sending its troops on a “one way trip”to a tiny beachhead on the Russian-controlled bank of theDnieper Riverin the Kherson region.

The Ukrainian media have been claiming over the past months that Kiev’s troops had managed to secure a beachhead on the left bank of the Dnieper River near the village of Krynki and have been “expanding” their presence in the area, while supposedly forcing the Russian troops to retreat.

The Russian president commented on the situation on Thursday by saying thatKiev’s actions essentially amounted to sending its troops to be “exterminated.”The Russian leader called it Ukraine’s "last attempt” to stage an attack after it “had failed to achieve anything anywhere” in its much-touted summer counteroffensive.

“I don't even know why they do that,”the president said, adding that the Ukrainian soldiers themselves call the operations in the area a “one way trip.” According to Putin, the Ukrainian Armed Forces deliver reinforcements and supplies to the beachhead from the opposite river bank with boats that are under the constant fire of the Russian artillery.

Russia’s lossesin the areahave been relatively smalland mostly amounted to soldiers suffering non-lethal injuries, the president said, adding thatUkraine was losing its troops “by the dozens”at the same time. Moscow’s troops turned the Ukrainian beachhead into the “killing ground,” Putin said, calling the developments a “tragedy” for Ukraine. Yet, Kiev continues to just sacrifice its troops in the area for political reasons, he added.

A Ukrainian soldier fighting near Krynki described the situation in the area as “hell” and recalled how boats full of Ukrainian soldiers had been blown out of the water in attempts to reach the beachhead. He also spoke about thefeeling of abandonment by Kiev’s military commanders.

“Those are not just regular Ukrainian soldiers, those are the elite assault teams that are relatively few,” the president said, adding that the losses near the Krynki village must be quite “sensitive” for Kiev.

Earlier, the Ukrainian media claimed that the Russian troops were “unable” to push the Ukrainian troops out of the area. According to Putin,Moscow just does not want to do that. “I would say it plainly: it is advantageous for us that they [the Ukrainian Armed Forces] are just mindlessly throwing their personnel in there,”. he said, adding that he told the Russian General Staff chief, Valery Gerasimov, not to launch any counteroffensives in the area.

Kiev launched its major counteroffensive in early June. In late November, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky publicly acknowledged that the much-hyped operation had ended without success. The Ukrainian attacks had largely failed to bring about any major changes to the frontlines over almost six months of the offensive.

According to Russian Defense Ministry estimates, Ukraine has lost over 125,000 troops and 16,000 pieces of heavy equipment in failed attempts to move forward over the past half a year.

https://www.rt.com/russia/589097-kiev-send-soldiers-die-putin/

14 Dec, 2023

Putin reveals what he would advise his younger self

The Russian president said he would have warned himself against trusting the West

Russian President Vladimir Putin has admitted thathe should not have put so much trust in Washington and its allies during his first presidential terms, calling it “naive.” He should have placed his trust squarely in the Russian people, he told a major press conference on Thursday.

Asked by a journalist what he would have advised his younger self from more than 20 years ago, Putin said that he would first have cautioned himself against “excessive gullibility”in relations with “our so-called partners” – a term he has repeatedly used when describing the collective West.

The president said thatone “must believe in the great Russian people, for this belief is a basis for success in Russia’s renewal… and development.”

Putin also gave a positive assessment of his political trajectory from 20 years ago, saying that he would have generally told his younger self: “You’re on the right path, comrade,”citing a popular aphorism commonly attributed to the Russian revolutionary and first Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin.

During the first years of his presidency, Putin, who came to power in 2000, tried to maintain good relations with the West.He warned then-US President George W. Bush about an impending terrorist attack several days before 9/11,according to a 2019 book by former senior CIA analyst George Beebee.

Putin was also the first leader to phone Bush after the attack to express his condolences. However, the following years saw Washington unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty – a major arms control treaty that limited systems used to intercept nuclear-capable missiles. The agreement had been regarded as a way to reduce the pressure to build more nuclear weapons in order to maintain mutual deterrence. The US left it in 2001 in a move that Moscow considered to be a major hit, not only to its own security but to the security of the world.

Since exiting the treaty, Washington has expanded its missile defense systems into Eastern Europe. Moscow has repeatedly warned that Tomahawk missiles could be used to attack Russia or its allies.

In 2004, NATO greatly expanded to the east by incorporating most Central and Eastern European nations that were previously parties to the Warsaw Pact, as well as three Baltic states that were former Soviet republics.

Moscow has repeatedly stated that it sees the bloc’s advancement towards its borders as a threat. It also repeatedly pointed to the fact that Western officials promised the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, that the US-led bloc would not be expanded further east. Those promises were subsequently breached, Putin has said on multiple occasions.

In 2007, the Russian president made headlines with his famous Munich Speech, where he announced major changes to Russia’s foreign policy, blasting the unipolar world controlled by Washington as “unacceptable” and warning about international law being increasingly neglected by the US and its allies.

(He’s right, you know)

https://www.rt.com/russia/589094-putin-advise-his-younger-self/

14 Dec, 2023

(Deranged) EU leader worried ‘division’ in bloc sends wrong message to US – FT

European states have to show that they are sticking to supporting Kiev if they want Washington to do so as well, the Swedish PM has said*

The results of the European Council meeting on December 14-15 may cause concerns as the bloc shows “signs of division” over further support for Ukraine and its membership talks, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told the Financial Times on Wednesday.

Kristersson said that it was unclear how the European Union (EU) summit in Brussels would unfold and what message its outcome would send to the US, where Republicans are opposing a new military aid package for Kiev.

The EU has so far failed to reach a consensus on €50 billion in aid to Ukraine and on starting the bloc’s accession negotiations with the state. “The fact that Europe shows signs of division, it’s a sign to the US,” he noted, adding that “if we want the US to stick to supporting Ukraine, Europe has to show the American people that we are sticking to supporting Ukraine.” (You people are kidding yourselves, the US has sent 100% more funding to Ukraine than all of you, Ukraine has already lost 6 months ago, and you are deluding yourselves. American citizens are saying not one more dime. Go chuck in money to the lost cause, the US will not join you!)

The Swedish PM also said that the EU summit would “either give reason for that concern or show that we are still united.” (That’s the problem you are not united, just like the US states are not united. You guys have to grow up and take care of your own countries!)

Some EU members – such as Hungary, Slovakia, and Austria – do not support Ukraine’s rapid accession to the bloc. In late October, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, who has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, blocked a €50 billion EU aid package for Kiev, declaring the bloc’s strategy on the conflict had “failed.”

Christersson’s comments on concerns about other Western allies’ continued support for Ukraine came after a Nordic-Ukrainian summit in Oslo on Wednesday. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky arrived in the Norwegian capital to meet with the heads of the five Nordic governments and seek additional financial aid for Kiev.

A few days earlier, he visited the US in an attempt to secure a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine that was recently blocked by Republicans.Zelensky failed to persuade them to approve the package, but US President Joe Biden promised him $200 million in emergency military aid.

(It’s pretty telling the EU Council is ok if Washington takes rights from citizens to fund Ukraine, which means these politicians do the same to their countries & citizens. Why would anyone want to impress Washington Republicans? They really don’t understand Americans. *Is he saying that Washington Republicans follows the EU? Unlikely, and a bit arrogant. It’s actually the people putting their foot down. The EU sending money means nothing. Biden has sent 100% more than all of the EU, including the UK.)

https://www.rt.com/news/589085-sweden-concerns-ukraine-support-eu/