|
In Common Law jurisdictions, there's a "plain meaning" rule of interpretation that effectively says you read a contract or piece of legislation in its everyday, plain meaning, and don't go beyond that, as long as the words are unambiguous and that interpretation doesn't lead to an absurd result. It's essentially the idea that if the legislature had meant something else, they would have said it.
So in a Common Law jurisdiction, there would be a strong argument that Amazon is complying with the law as written (assuming it unambiguously only restricts no-cost shipping). That said, case law in the UK and Canada is full of situations where courts have gone outside of the plain meaning of the text, even where the text seems unambiguous. There's also the fact that France uses weirdo civil law, which probably has its own particular kinks.
I can't help but smile at this a little though; I'm not a fan of laws that do nothing but try and protect incumbent industries from innovators. Another example of laws like this are the laws that some U.S. states have that require that cars be sold from a dealership (barring direct, online sales), or that only gas attendants be permitted to pump gas.
|