[HN Gopher] Amazon lied about using seller data, lawmakers say, ... ___________________________________________________________________ Amazon lied about using seller data, lawmakers say, urging DOJ investigation Author : ProAm Score : 236 points Date : 2022-03-09 17:57 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com) (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com) | xutopia wrote: | And they'll get a small fine that's the cost of business for | them. | saberworks wrote: | Somewhat related: any time a business/person has access to data | about a customer or their business, they're in a position of | power and are able to use that data against the customer. | | When you apply to rent a house, you're required to provide pay | stubs and salary information. The landlord can (does?) use this | to know how much they can jack up your rent next lease term (my | landlord raised our rent $800/month in January). | | Same with insurance salespeople, car salespeople, etc. Everyone | who gets access to your financial data can use it against you. | | There should be a 3rd party involved -- they take your | documentation and then report to the landlord/salesperson/etc. a | simple "is the person qualified?" Yes or No. And then permanently | destroy said documentation. | [deleted] | mabbo wrote: | > "Amazon lied through a senior executive's sworn testimony that | Amazon did not use any of the troves of data it had collected on | its third-party sellers to compete with them," | | It's time to set an example. This sworn testimony was knowingly | false. So charge this Senior executive with lying to Congress and | lay down the likelihood of prison time. Watch them flip on their | other execs. | mataug wrote: | Agreed, amazon's executives are exteremly entitled, this is | just one in series of examples where they think of themselves | as untouchable. The executives need to be proved wrong about | their untouchability. | jjoonathan wrote: | Agreed. | | Everyone suspected they were lying, but suspicion isn't proof. | If proof has emerged, it's imperative to go hard enough to make | up for the many times where conservative standards of proof let | obvious lies slip through. | [deleted] | besus wrote: | A quick bit of browsing the Amazon Basics line of products would | certainly lead one to assume they had totally knocked off the 3rd | party products they thought they could without getting major | brand pushback. | symlinkk wrote: | I bought an Amazon basics monitor stand and it even had the | branding of another company (Ergotron) printed on it. | shampto3 wrote: | I'm not sure about all Amazon Basics, but a few of the ones | that I checked out were just third-party products that Amazon | made deals with to slap their name on. Similar to how Costco's | Kirkland brand is often the same as a popular brand but with a | different label. | | For example, the Amazon Basics guitar pedals are created by Nux | pedals (the PCBs even have Nux on them). | | So from what I can tell a lot of these are not ripoffs, just | rebranded products. Amazon doesn't need to waste resources on | manufacturing products that are already being sold on their | site, but they can make deals with people that are already | manufacturing those products. | kodah wrote: | > Yet as today's letter points out, subsequent investigations by | The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and The Markup revealed that | not only did Amazon employees working on private-label items have | access to third-party data, but they routinely used it, even | discussing it openly in meetings. "Amazon employees regularly | violated the policy--and senior officials knew it." | | That's pretty incredible. I'm curious what kind of data this is; | knowing the nature of the data would help us understand how | platform operators can abuse their position. | victor106 wrote: | Not by any means defending Amazon here, genuinely curious. | | How does this differ from say Walmart/Target/CVS etc., | launching their own private branded labels? | | Even they have access to all the data on the best selling | products. | mjamesaustin wrote: | The difference is that Target is a retail store, not a | marketplace. Target has already bought your products from you | when _Target_ sells them to customers, and aggregates data | about _its own_ sales of your products. | | Amazon is a marketplace, and pays nothing to buy your | products when they're offered for sale on its virtual | shelves. It purports to provide an open and equal common area | for companies (including itself) to sell products, yet only | Amazon has access to the treasure trove of data about the | behavior of consumers on its site. | c0nkflict5uxway wrote: | Target is an online marketplace for 3rd-party products. | They don't go out of their way to advertise it, but they | call the program Target+. You can find online-only 3rd- | party items by searching their website. They ship the items | to you, and you can return them in-store if there's a | problem. Most people never notice the middleman supplier. | | Walmart does this too. Newegg made the switch several years | ago. Large retail outlets which do not have a "marketplace" | online option are the exception rather than the rule. | | Different companies do different levels of vetting, but the | retail ecosystem is vastly more accessible to small-timers | than it was in the 2000s. | granzymes wrote: | > Target has already bought your products from you when | Target sells them to customers | | This is not true for all products. Some are sold under a | pay-per-scan model, where the product is owned by the | supplier up until the barcode is scanned at checkout, | whereupon it is immediately purchased by the store and sold | to the consumer. | | For other products, suppliers may also be required to | accept unsold goods for a full refund of the store's | purchase price. | | Stores are marketplaces too, and shelf space - particularly | the valuable shelf space like end caps - is not free. | dahfizz wrote: | The most salient difference, in my opinion, is that Amazon | stood in front of Congress and lied about it. | | If they instead told Congress that this is a long established | retail practice, I would be more sympathetic to that | argument. | jeromegv wrote: | Beside the fact that they lied to Congress about.. I guess | there is an expectation. | | If you put your products on Amazon marketplace, you are | expected to join a marketplace. You don't necessarily expect | for Amazon to also join the marketplace by using your data to | compete against you. | | Also you can use Amazon services and warehouses even for | products that you do not wish to sell on Amazon website. | Essentially using Amazon as a 3PL service. Again, you might | not expect Amazon to use your data for their own products. | | If you sell your products to Target, this isn't exactly a | marketplace. This is a retail outlet. You know they can | measure your sales, measure your competitor sales, etc. And | you know they won't lie to you about doing it. | kornhole wrote: | If you still have an Amazon account, ask for your data download | from Amazon.com. You will probably be astounded to see that | they retain just about every interaction you have ever had on | their platform and products. I was a light user and received 88 | zip files containing many files within them containing IP | addresses, devices, and the most minute details. Now imagine | how much they collect about sellers and products. You can | assume it is everything they can collect. | jka wrote: | It's been a long time since some of the congressional hearings | about anti-competitive practices in the software industry, and | I'm afraid I'm too tired to look up the details at the moment, | but one of the items I remember from the discussion was that | Amazon sales employees were allowed by company policy to look | at aggregated figures (per-market, per-industry, etc) for | merchants on their platform. | | That's fine as-is -- nothing wrong with that in principle -- | but what I seem to recall employees began doing (and I can | totally imagine how this would become an underground "sneaky | trick" that employees would begin to learn and share with each | other) was to create so-called aggregate groups that only | contained a very small number of merchant businesses. | | That way they could claim (and perhaps keep a straight face | when saying) that they were only looking at aggregate group- | level figures, but the statistical reality of the situation | would have been that they were looking at information about a | few -- or perhaps even only one -- business. | orev wrote: | It's data on what products are selling well, which they use to | create clones and then sell under "Amazon Basics" and other | brands. | | It's a problem because the small sellers take the financial | risk trying to sell a new product, then when Amazon sees it's | doing well they make the clone and get the profits. | mabbo wrote: | Consider: you are on the Amazon Basics product development | team. If you do well, you will be promoted, given bonuses, and | greatly financially rewarded. If you do poorly, well, Amazon | let's go of 6% of employees in every org every year[0]. | | There are policies in place saying that you definitely can't | look at the data around which third party sellers are doing | well, selling lots of stuff. But also there's no auditing in | place to see if you check it or not. It's all a big data | warehouse and you have access to it. | | And hey, you've heard everyone else is looking at this data. | You're just taking a quick look to get ideas do you don't get | fired. What's the harm? You'll help the company do well and | won't have to polish your resume. | | [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-performance- | review-6-... | MegaButts wrote: | Consider: not working for an unethical company. | | PMs at Amazon, even people who need visa sponsorships, have | options (and probably better options). Don't defend their | poor choices. Engineers at Amazon have even more options. | kittiepryde wrote: | Capitalism (Society?) rewards unethical behaviors, as long | as it's even just a little obfuscated. It's a competition | for resources. | nickff wrote: | There are always rewards for unethical behaviors, which | is why people engage in them. This is true whether the | framework is communism, capitalism, or marriage. | jjoonathan wrote: | Competition encourages the unethical behaviors and | punishes the ethical behaviors. Set the competition knob | to 0, everyone slacks, crank it to 11, and everyone | cheats. | | Despite the fact that managing this balance is | fundamental to a capitalist society, it's extremely | typical for the latter half of this balance to be | ignored, for competition to be framed as an unmitigated | positive, and for the Goodhart's Law side of it to be | completely swept under the rug. | | Culpability should be attributed both to the individual | _and to the system_. Otherwise it 's easy to construct | systems that bypass responsibility. Like we see here. | nickff wrote: | Every communist state has been rife with communism. | Centralization is what increases the reward to | corruption. | jjoonathan wrote: | If you don't follow the perverse incentive du jour in a | decentralized system, you'll get rolled. | | We're drifting off topic, though. If Amazon heavily | incentivizes bad behavior, should they be allowed to reap | the rewards and discharge the blame? Absolutely not. | They're culpable. | [deleted] | loeg wrote: | Shareholders don't seem too worried about this. | nebula8804 wrote: | So I am a bit confused. How does this differ from in store brands | like Bowl & Basket (Shoprite) or Good & Gather(Target)? Haven't | those in-store brands been going on for years and years selling | clones and commodities? | philistine wrote: | The difference is Amazon knowingly lied to Congress. Shoprite | and Target did not. | jcranberry wrote: | That seems like it would be incredibly stupid and have little | upside. | megaman821 wrote: | It seems more likely that Amazon would just purchase this data | from Nielsen or IRI. The data would be nearly as good for the | Amazon Brand teams, without the moral hazard of looking at | private seller data. It may seem weird to purchase data on your | own storefront, but it protects you from situations like this. | arrosenberg wrote: | Yeah, the third-party sellers know that. That's what they've been | screaming about for a decade while being squeezed out of the | market. Now let's see if we're willing to prosecute white collar | crime against regular people for once. | quxpar wrote: | Why would this case be the exception? | f1refly wrote: | Considering this is an indictment in america against a | monopolistic company: Nothing will happen, amazon will continue | printing money and the small guys can whine all they want. | Animats wrote: | When will Amazon executives be arrested? | | The way to deal with this is to arrest a whole group of Amazon | execs, and offer the usual deal - the first one to make a full | confession and implicate others gets off, the others get | prosecuted. This is official DOJ policy.[1] | | [1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/sometimes-confession-is- | go... | chagaif wrote: | Aren't they more afraid of violence and threats from the other | execs? I would think that some violent threats are not off the | table when there's so much on the line (jail time) and so much | money involved. | 88840-8855 wrote: | I agree. | nathanyz wrote: | Agreed, nothing sort of holding executives accountable with | actual threat of prison time fixes this. Fines don't matter | once you are the winner in the market. Have to set an example | and stop individuals from feeling safe when lying for | companies. | nickff wrote: | Fines against individuals, with a prohibition on further | compensation/employment by the company/organization would | likely be sufficient to discourage this behavior. There is | widespread disagreement as to whether prison should be used | as a punitive tool, and it would serve no other purpose in a | case like this. | | Corporate fines seem ineffective and almost useless , | especially because these sorts of actions will often benefit | the individuals undertaking them (principal agent problem). I | suspect the motivation behind corporate fines is that they | can be large monetary amounts, and look good for the | investigator/agent/attorney. | onemoresoop wrote: | They could game that and take turns when they want to | retire. Fines are not enough. Prison time would make a | better deterrent. | nickff wrote: | Paying a huge fine will likely disrupt a retirement plan. | [deleted] | trillic wrote: | Not if the company pays it. | nickff wrote: | > _" Not if the company pays it. "_ | | That's why I included the "... prohibition on further | compensation/employment by the company/organization...". | [deleted] | onion2k wrote: | I can think of something that would work. If Amazon is found | guilty of abusing it's the data it's trusted witb, for | anything, the entire company should be banned from doing | business with the government. No government purchases of | goods, no services hosted on AWS, no logistics provided by | Amazon's last mile services, etc. If Amazon are shown to be | abusing data then they shouldn't be allowed to have any | public data. | | Maybe even extend that to all government suppliers... | deutschew wrote: | Not when there are political ramifications to the beneficiaries | of Amazon's generous "donations" | encryptluks2 wrote: | Isn't that considered illegal as well, to arrest people without | enough evidence and then demand they admit guilt to be | released? I can see how this would hurt a case more than it | would help one. Imagine if there is a jury trial and it comes | out that people were forced to make confessions under duress. | ruined wrote: | you only need evidence at trial. cops and prosecutors coerce | people into pleading guilty without any evidence every day. | [deleted] | dragonwriter wrote: | > you only need evidence at trial. | | False. | | > before then, cops and the prosecutor only need "probable | cause" which is typically understood to allow that evidence | may be gathered later. | | No, it isn't; probable cause must be based in evidence. For | cases requiring indictment, this evidence is presented to a | grand jury before charges can formally be filed; for cases | where the conditions allowing warrantless arrest do not | apply, it occurs in the presentation of evidence to support | an arrest warrant; for other cases the evaluation (by | hearing or otherwise) happens generally within 48 hours of | arrest, and delay to gather evidence has specifically been | ruled unconstitutional. | ruined wrote: | ah, you sniped my edit. | | there are a _lot_ of details that vary state by state, | but i 'll say that not all charges require a grand jury, | and 48 hours is clearly "later" | Animats wrote: | It's not hard to show probable cause. The issue in most | corporate crime is not "did it happen", but "who knew | about it" and "who authorized it". Prosecutors, to get an | indictment, only have to show it happened, and that the | people being prosecuted probably knew what was going on, | or should have known. Sorting out exactly who said and | did what when when comes out later. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-09 23:01 UTC)