"Now, Amazon has committed to stop doing less of that."
It may appear to simply be a typo resulting in a double negative, but I'll bet my left gonad that Spamazon will do PRECISELY that - keep doing what it's doing.
Amazon and Meta have agreed to not use data collected from their marketplaces to unfairly benefit themselves, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority announced on Friday. The monopoly watchdog launched separate investigations into both internet giants' business practices, and accused the Big Tech duo of not only gathering …
...to not use data collected from their marketplaces to unfairly benefit themselves
"Agreed". Have they...
And exactly how will this "Agreement" be enforced? Because I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that this "independent trustee" will be neither independent nor trustworthy, and that's before we get to the point of what exactly happens should said "trustee" decide they're not actually complying.
"Ooops, yes, look like we still were profiling to our advantage. Terribly sorry. Total accident. Someone... uh... made a mistake in the config. Yeah. That's what happened."
I can see two way they could break this instead of doing it themselves some "3rd party" does it and "sells" the data back to them or some "rogue engineer" who will "accidently" collate the data!
I do wonder what the punishment will be if they do break this agreement.
"I do wonder what the punishment will be if they do break this agreement."
The same as the punishment for their misbehaviour in the first place, which is nothing other than promising not to do it again.
If found guilty of the practice (a "Chapter II Prohibition of the Competition Act 1998) then Amazon could have been fined up to 10% of worldwide turnover, the fact that the CMA have actually imposed no penalty suggests that they have failed to find sufficient evidence to create a watertight legal case. And that in turn suggests that either Amazon didn't do it, or were extremely good at covering their tracks and hiding the evidence. I know which of those I'd conclude to be the reality.
"I can see two way they could break this instead of doing it themselves some "3rd party" does it and "sells" the data back to them or some "rogue engineer" who will "accidently" collate the data!"
No, here's what happens: some 3rd party does it and they put the data on a laptop. On the way home they stop off at their church for some reason or another and the laptop, which was just sitting on the front passenger seat, is stolen by a miscreant that smashes the window and runs off with it. (the car is parked in one of only two places there's no CCTV coverage. Since this is the UK, the only two parking places in the entire country not covered by a CCTV camera). The data gets put up for sale on the Dark Web and somebody downloads it, puts it on a thumb drive and mails it to Amazon to prove they have it and the ransom should be paid to some BTC account. Amazon can now say they had no hand in generating that data. It was part of an internal investigation into data theft/hacking/bad people/one of the Kim's.
I'll write up a comprehensive treatment of the story and any producers out there can buy it at a really good price.
Amazon and Meta have agreed to not use data collected from their marketplaces to unfairly benefit themselves, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority announced on Friday.
It's like Police saying that thieves agreed not so steal in the UK. It's a farce.
If this country was serious, for something like that the execs would have been in prison and company assets would have been seized.
CMA is again making fools of themselves. What is the point of this organisation leeching on the tax payer?
1. If CMA did not suspect any laws were broken, they wouldn't have called Amazon and Meta in for a friendly chat.
2. If Amazon / Meta really were not breaking any laws, they would have told CMA to fuck off.
Since 1. happened and 2. did not, it's reasonable to infer laws were likely broken. You can always use another paragon of worldly virtue to look up which laws would apply.
What they're doing is leveraging a dominant position in one market (selling adverts) to forge dominance in another (selling products)
This is why there's a warning that "Capitalism is a fragile beast and an unnatural state of affars - it must be carefully supervised at all times, otherwise it will turn into the Saturnian monsters of Monopolism, Corporatism or Mercantilism and start eating its own children"
If you look a little more closely at the definitions of those 3 monsters, you'll see that what is described as "Capitalism" in one part of the world, isn't - and that explains why they're so toxic
I once worked for a company that had this issue. IIRC, they got around it by virtue of their products being highly customisable. The products sold on their own website were "different model(s)" than the ones on Amazon. The pricing scheme was so amazingly specific to the model / size / colour / extras on any particular product that it was effectively impossible for Amazon (or other 3rd party sellers) to prove otherwise.
Not a solution that would work for everyone, unfortunately.
Wow. The standards of legal action really have gone down since I was a kid.
Once upon a time, Big Oil was broken up to stop the monopoly.
Once upon a time, Ma Bell was shredded into multiple Baby Bells to stop monopoly.
(okay, the fact that, in the end, it didn't make much of a difference is irrelevant - the monopolies were carved into pieces, we can do that again)
Today, Justice is apparently content with a pinky promise to not do it so much in the future.
No wonder CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies think they own the country. They do.
"Once upon a time, Big Oil was broken up to stop the monopoly.
Once upon a time, Ma Bell was shredded into multiple Baby Bells to stop monopoly."
Ask Cory Doctorow and he'll tell you that anti-trust laws in the US haven't been used in the last 40 years.
Big oil companies are buying each other out.
AT&T owns a large portion of telecommunications once again (except where it's not very profitable).
Live Nation/Ticket Master controls nearly all of the event venues over a certain size in the US.
Clear Channel owns the vast majority of radio stations in major US markets.
Elon is saying that he wants to build X into the first international mega-corp that controls an exceptionally large part of everybody's lives.
The list goes on and on.
"Ask Cory Doctorow and he'll tell you that anti-trust laws in the US haven't been used in the last 40 years."
Which is when the corporatists gained power and control in USA federal government. Reagan was their puppet and was already doing their bidding in California as Governer - which is why the Social Contract of the New Deal was torn up in the late 60s/early 70s, culminating in Prop 13
If you don't like it, start a company and compete with them
Ah yes. The everlasting cry of the unrepentent capitalist. Utterly ignoring that the entrenched monopoly will do everything (legal and illegal) to prevent competition. How do you think thet they got to be a monopoly anyway?
After all, it's not like someone with £50k of savings can compete against a big company where each of their low-level lawyers get paid that a month.
If you HAVE a company in an established market and the monopolists show up you stand zero chance of survival
As an example the ISP market was destroyed and _thousands_ of companies bankrupted when telcos said "That's a nice market you've created for us. Thanks"
Fines and prosecutions after the fact don't recreate dead companies, nor do they compensate those bankrupted by anticompetitive acts (such as no call charges for the Telco's new ISP, whilst imposing per minute charges for calling any other one, or the monopoly abuse that went on with DSL rollouts)
"Once upon a time, Big Oil was broken up to stop the monopoly."
Which resulted in the Gettys making more money than every before
"Once upon a time, Ma Bell was shredded into multiple Baby Bells to stop monopoly."
Which has resulted in AT&T reforming into a single monopoly formed in w
ays the FTC can't touch (two companies, one east and one west of the Mississippi) without the burden of that pesky "Universal Service" obligation imposed on it in the antitrust settlements of the 1930s
"Today, Justice is apparently content with a pinky promise to not do it so much in the future."
Which is exactly what it was content with prior to the FTC enforcement actions in the 1880s and 1930s
"No wonder CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies think they own the country. They do."
This isn't new either. What you're seeing in the USA now is a direct result of a multidecade dampaign to destroy the New Deal, defang the government and return to socio-economic conditions prevailing in 1905 (the Gilded Era), waged by USA Captains of industry tag-teaming with evangelists as part of an agreement forged in late 1940
The parties responsible gained the upper hand in March 1980 when they suceeded in outlawing the Air Traffic Controllers Union and have been increasing in strength ever since. The New Deal was trashed a while back
Recommended reading: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030/
Amazon UK board meeting ..
We got caught again.
How much is the fine this time?
Nothing, we just promise not to do it again.
LOL, so business as usual, tell the accountants to order the new new Mercs for senior management and pass me the 50 year old Scotch and £100 cigars rolled on Cuban virgin thighs.