Allegations ‘Baseless’ That Amazon Forces Online Sellers to Boycott Others
The California Office of the Attorney General “has not validly alleged the existence of any per se unlawful price fixing agreements or agreements tampering with price structures” at Amazon, said Amazon’s Feb. 21 reply brief (docket CGC-22-601826) in support of…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
its demurrer to the OAG’s complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court. The challenged policies “bear none of the forbidden traits that render those practices per se illegal, and do not resemble the conduct at issue in the cases cited” in the OAG’s opposition, it said. A marketplace announcing to its third-party sellers that it prohibits price gouging, price-fixing and other kinds of customer abuse “directly encourages open competition among third party sellers and thereby makes the marketplace more competitive against myriad other retail competitors,” said Amazon. The OAG’s argument that Amazon requires third-party sellers to boycott other retailers is “baseless,” it said. It cites allegations that it says show some third-party retailers withheld their products from competing online retailers, or supplied them conditioned on adherence to minimum advertised/resale prices, it said: “But none of the cited paragraphs identifies any conduct of Amazon that forces or requires sellers to take any such actions, or that these sellers have agreed to cease doing business with anyone.” A hearing on Amazon’s Dec. 6 demurrer to the OAG complaint is set for March 7 (see 2212160020). A demurrer under California law argues a complaint should be dismissed because it fails to assert facts sufficient to support a cause of action.