Amazon thumbs its nose at French ban on free shipping of books.

[TCSimpson]

So the French banned Amazon from doing free shipping of book orders. They passed a law for it. What has Amazon responded with? Charging one cent across the board for shipping that includes book orders.
http://time.com/2976723/amazon-france-free-shipping/

[DiapDealer]

Seems like a rather obvious response, no?

If you tell someone who WANTS to ship books for $0 that they can no longer—by law—do so (but didn't included any minimum book-shipping charges in the new law) what do you think they're going to start charging?

Did they think they were going to suddenly start charging whole-dollar/euro amounts or something?

What's next? Amend the amendment to the 1981 law to mandate a minimum percentage of the book-portion of the total order amount to be charged as a shipping fee?

I understand the desire to preserve the physical book-store culture--I really do. But what idiot thought new, easily-thwarted legislation like this was going to help them in that regard?

[rkomar]

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.

[TCSimpson]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Seems like a rather obvious response, no?

If you tell someone who WANTS to ship books for $0 that they can no longer—by law—do so (but didn't included any minimum book-shipping charges in the new law) what do you think they're going to start charging?

Did they think they were going to suddenly start charging whole-dollar/euro amounts or something?

What's next? Amend the amendment to the 1981 law to mandate a minimum percentage of the book-portion of the total order amount to be charged as a shipping fee?

I understand the desire to preserve the physical book-store culture--I really do. But what idiot thought new, easily-thwarted legislation like this was going to help them in that regard?

They obviously DID NOT think it through ...

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rkomar

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.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rkomar

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.

There are so many good examples of the literal law vs the spirit of the law where the literal law wins out...

The problem with the "spirit of the law" idea is that there is no law that says you have to obey the spirit of the law. So whenever the two end up going head to head, the spirit learns about evolution...

But you can always complain about their actions. I'm sure they and every other company (i.e. most/all of the big ones) that routinely does end runs around the law care sooooo much.

If lawmakers make stupid meaningless laws, people will take advantage of it. What is their incentive not to?

[rkomar]

In my totally amateur opinion, if you're consistently offering items below cost to capture the market, then you're not abiding by the rules. Being more efficient is one thing, but driving prices below costs because you think you have deeper pockets and can outlast the competition is not fair game. I'm guessing the law was meant to address this. So, if I was a business, I'd want to be able to show that I wasn't operating at a loss to be sure I was behaving according to the intent of the laws.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

There are so many good examples of the literal law vs the spirit of the law where the literal law wins out...

The problem with the "spirit of the law" idea is that there is no law that says you have to obey the spirit of the law. So whenever the two end up going head to head, the spirit learns about evolution...

But you can always complain about their actions. I'm sure they and every other company (i.e. most/all of the big ones) that routinely does end runs around the law care sooooo much.

If lawmakers make stupid meaningless laws, people will take advantage of it. What is their incentive not to?

It seems it wasn't an unexpected response. Alan Spade posted on the Passive Voice with an interesting link (in French, of course) in which Amazon promised penny shipping if the law passed...and this promise was made eighteen months ago.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rkomar

In my totally amateur opinion, if you're consistently offering items below cost to capture the market, then you're not abiding by the rules. Being more efficient is one thing, but driving prices below costs because you think you have deeper pockets and can outlast the competition is not fair game. I'm guessing the law was meant to address this. So, if I was a business, I'd want to be able to show that I wasn't operating at a loss to be sure I was behaving according to the intent of the laws.

There is no proof that Amazon is driving prices below costs (across the board, anyway). We're back to basket pricing: a few things at a loss to get them "in the door," but overall, making a profit when all is said and done.

But I'm not even arguing FOR Amazon--or any huge corporation for that matter. I'm arguing AGAINST people being allowed to be surprised/shocked/outraged/discouraged when the response to passing a law which bans the free shipping of books is to start charging $0.01. And against the passing of laws which require businesses to GUESS what shipping price won't get them in trouble

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There is no proof that Amazon is driving prices below costs (across the board, anyway). We're back to basket pricing: a few things at a loss to get them "in the door," but overall, making a profit when all is said and done.

But I'm not even arguing FOR Amazon--or any huge corporation for that matter. I'm arguing AGAINST people being allowed to be surprised/shocked/outraged/discouraged when the response to passing a law which bans the free shipping of books is to start charging $0.01. And against the passing of laws which require businesses to GUESS what shipping price won't get them in trouble

Offering free or 1 cent shipping to all as a matter of course is not the same thing as offering a few things at a loss to "get them in the door". I'm sure that the courts know how to tell the difference. I don't think it's all as mysterious as you're making out. The line is where you start losing money. If you're deliberately running at a loss to drive out the competition, you should be in trouble with the law. It shouldn't take guesswork to figure out whether you're operating at a loss or not.

[eschwartz]

But ultimately, the question is: what law is Amazon actually breaking? There is no law requiring one to follow the intent or spirit of the law. The courts can recognize what Amazon is doing all they want. Unfortunately, it isn't actually against the law... so they can't do anything... other than make a law to deal with such cases.

"Law" is: making rules about what people can and cannot do.
Not: deciding that someone is being "unfair".

If the courts could just wave their magic gavel and say

OK, Amazon is "driving prices below costs because you think you have deeper pockets and can outlast the competition is not fair game" and we don't like that. Because we made a law against Amazon doing free shipping, and even though they are obeying our new law they are doing it in an offensive manner -- this isn't what we meant to happen at all.

So let's just punish Amazon for being anti-competitive anyway.

That would be a Kangaroo Court. Perhaps by way of being a dictatorship... I believe dictators are allowed to come up with new laws whenever they want and apply them retroactively...

Unless perhaps there is a French law banning companies from legally thumbing their nose at the law?

Originally Posted by rkomar

If you're deliberately running at a loss to drive out the competition, you should be in trouble with the law. It shouldn't take guesswork to figure out whether you're operating at a loss or not.

...isn't illegal... at least not currently. Who knows? Perhaps a law will be passed prohibiting such actions. If so, any further such behavior from Amazon will definitely be illegal -- if it can be proven that that is indeed what they are doing.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by rkomar

If you're deliberately running at a loss to drive out the competition, you should be in trouble with the law. It shouldn't take guesswork to figure out whether you're operating at a loss or not.

And the U.S. Department of Justice as determined that Amazon is *not* operating at a loss. Apple and the Big 5 tried to accuse Amazon of that during their trial and it was shot down.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Offering free or 1 cent shipping to all as a matter of course is not the same thing as offering a few things at a loss to "get them in the door". I'm sure that the courts know how to tell the difference. I don't think it's all as mysterious as you're making out. The line is where you start losing money. If you're deliberately running at a loss to drive out the competition, you should be in trouble with the law. It shouldn't take guesswork to figure out whether you're operating at a loss or not.

Earlier you mentioned "items" and here you refer to "things." The law and the amendment were specifically about books. I got the impression you thought otherwise. If the law says "no discounts more than 5% on books" and the amendment prohibits piggybacking free shipping with the 5% discount, I would think it would be fairly easy to identify selling at a loss. I wouldn't think it's possible to run a loss with a product that can't be discounted more than 5%, is it?

http://m.france24.com/en/20140711-am...1-cent-charge/

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And the U.S. Department of Justice as determined that Amazon is *not* operating at a loss. Apple and the Big 5 tried to accuse Amazon of that during their trial and it was shot down.

Sure, but the current kerfuffle is in France. Amazon will have to prove it to them, as well.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by TimW

Earlier you mentioned "items" and here you refer to "things." The law and the amendment were specifically about books. I got the impression you thought otherwise. If the law says "no discounts more than 5% on books" and the amendment prohibits piggybacking free shipping with the 5% discount, I would think it would be fairly easy to identify selling at a loss. I wouldn't think it's possible to run a loss with a product that can't be discounted more than 5%, is it?

http://m.france24.com/en/20140711-am...1-cent-charge/

I'm no lawyer, or anything related to the courts, so please don't read anything special into my use of "items" and "things" in different places. I meant them to mean the same thing.

You have a good point about my argument about selling at a loss being inconsistent with the stance of the French government. If you have enough profit from not being able to discount the books much, you can put that towards reducing the shipping costs by my arguments. Okay, I won't speak for the French government anymore, since I don't seem to be able to articulate their stance properly.