Germany Wants Amazon To Loosen Its Third-Party Seller Restrictions

Written by Evan Schuman
February 25th, 2013

German anti-trust officials are investigating the non-price-compete contract clauses at Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), which require third-party sellers to not sell anywhere else for less.

If the agency finds against Amazon—the Associated Press quoted the agency head as saying there was “considerable” evidence that Amazon is indeed breaching cartel rules—and if the ruling spurs other agencies in other countries (including the U.S.) to act, then this has the potential to be very disruptive to Amazon. Those third-party sellers are crucial to Amazon’s seemingly infinite inventory, and the ability to offer the lowest price is critical to Amazon’s strategy.

“Amazon’s price parity clause, under which sellers are deprived of their freedom to sell a product offered through Amazon cheaper on another Internet sales channel, could violate the general ban on cartels,” said Andreas Mundt, the head of Germany’s federal antitrust office (the Bundeskartellamt), on February 20. “This applies in particular if the restriction of the sellers’ freedom to determine prices also restricts competition between the different Internet marketplaces. Such a restraint of competition seems likely as, under normal circumstances, sellers have an interest in offering their products on several Internet marketplaces.”

Mundt said what might seem to be a reasonable requirement for Amazon contracts could domino into unfair trade restrictions, ultimately controlling prices.

“In order to become active on an Internet marketplace, sellers must pay the operators of the marketplace (Amazon, eBay, Rakuten) various fees, e.g., a specific percentage of the sales prices they achieve. As the sellers cannot allow any favorable conditions to translate into a more favorable price payable by end consumers, it can be difficult for other Internet marketplaces that compete with Amazon, especially new platforms entering the market, to reach a large number of customers,” Mundt said. “There is the threat of Amazon enforcing high seller fees which could result in a generally higher price level without producing sufficient benefits, to the detriment of consumers.”

Mundt’s agency is not, at this time, even threatening fines or other legal penalties. The worst-case scenario would simply be that Amazon would be required to redo all of its German contracts. “If the investigations were to confirm the suspicion, Amazon could be required to delete the price parity clause from its terms and conditions,” Mundt said. From Amazon’s perspective, it would most likely much prefer fines.


One Comment | Read Germany Wants Amazon To Loosen Its Third-Party Seller Restrictions

  1. AmazonGenius Says:

    It’s disheartening to hear Amazon is taking advantage of sellers in Germany.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.