View Single Post
Old 07-13-2014, 06:34 PM   #5
DiapDealer
Grand Sorcerer
DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DiapDealer's Avatar
 
Posts: 28,708
Karma: 205039118
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkomar View Post
I'm no lawyer, but it seems that the intent of a law is as important as any technicality like charging one cent instead of being free. The intent is that shipping costs should not be used in an anticompetitive manner. So, I wouldn't be so sure that this will end up being a successful end run around the law.
Well, I understand that we don't have the exact wording of the law, but if it doesn't state what price-point/percentage/whathaveyou actually constitutes anti-competitive (non)use of shipping costs, what number were they supposed to come up with? Were they suppose to voluntarily negate their entire pricing advantage over B&M book stores by adding shipping costs? Or maybe just a goodly amount of it? A smattering? My point is, you can't leave it up up to a business to decide what is or isn't anti-competitive shipping behavior. Unless you clearly define it for them, they're going to do the minimum the law requires.
DiapDealer is online now   Reply With Quote