Lawsuit that claims Apple and Amazon elbowed out resellers will proceed

JP234 said:

This case is mystifying to me. Apple is selling the new 14" M2 MacBook Pro (16GB/512GB) direct for $1,999. AppleCare+ is $299 extra.

I just bought that same computer on Amazon for $1749. And Applecare+ was $279.

How is that a conspiracy or price rigging? Because B&H AND Adorama had it for the same price as Amazon.

I don't get it either.  Amazon's prices on Apple products are often some of the lowest.  How could they be "20% higher than what they would have been otherwise."?  Otherwise where?  Some shifty 3rd party nobody selling grey market on Amazon that doesn't return emails when you need support?  Product meant for Central America and being resold in the US?  I'll take cheapest, fastest deliver and backed by Amazon.

JP234 said:

This case is mystifying to me. Apple is selling the new 14" M2 MacBook Pro (16GB/512GB) direct for $1,999. AppleCare+ is $299 extra.

I just bought that same computer on Amazon for $1749. And Applecare+ was $279.

How is that a conspiracy or price rigging? Because B&H AND Adorama had it for the same price as Amazon.

The lawsuit seems to be focused on refurbished/second hand Macs rather than pristine new in box models.

"The prices were sometimes lower than retail, but the devices were not always in perfect condition."

" Apple's new agreement now limits the sale of their products to authorized resellers or those who purchase $2.5 million worth of refurbished inventory every 90 days."

Just reading the ArsTechnica article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/judge-allows-apple-and-amazon-price-fixing-lawsuit-to-move-forward/

"The original complaint, filed by Seattle law firm Hagens Berman on behalf of Pennsylvania resident Steven Floyd and a wider class, suggests that Apple and Amazon's agreement, originally framed as a way of removing counterfeit or low-quality Apple products from the store, denies customers competitive pricing on iPhones and iPads. The suit claimed that the agreement essentially killed the market for refurbished Apple goods on Amazon while giving Amazon a discount of up to 10 percent on its own sales of Apple goods. The suit notably claimed that there were more than 600 vendors of Apple goods on Amazon in early 2018 but only seven by mid-2019."

Amazon's third party marketplace is a notorious sewer of unscrupulous sellers and there were legitimate reasons for Apple to clean up and limit the third party marketplace for refurbs/used/open box Apple products on Amazon. It was like the wild west in terms of truthful representations of what was being sold. And if a buyer has a bad experience with an Apple product as a result, it creates a brand problem for Apple, not the third party seller. Authorized resellers and/or larger players buying $10 million worth of refurb inventory per year have too much skin in the game to try hoodwinking buyers. Apple could easily deauthorize them or cut off their inventory. But for those who enjoy the thrill of lower prices in that wild west environment, there's always ebay. 

The Reuters article is much clearer.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-amazon-must-face-consumer-lawsuit-over-iphone-ipad-prices-us-judge-2023-06-09/

The complaint is over Apple and Amazon agreeing to limit the number of resellers of Apple products through Amazon. This is anticompetitive and therefore illegal. The claim that it was meant to limit the number of resellers of bogus products is what is being examined. 

fred1 said:

The Reuters article is much clearer.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-amazon-must-face-consumer-lawsuit-over-iphone-ipad-prices-us-judge-2023-06-09/

The complaint is over Apple and Amazon agreeing to limit the number of resellers of Apple products through Amazon. This is anticompetitive and therefore illegal. The claim that it was meant to limit the number of resellers of bogus products is what is being examined. 

If that is what you got from the article, then the article is in no way "clearer". 

The lawsuit (this one anyway) is claiming that consumers that purchased new iPhones and iPads on Amazon, paid a higher price than otherwise, if Apple and Amazon had not conspired to reduce the number of resellers (and thus competition). Amazon reducing the number of resellers (of Apple products) is not "anti-completive", if it can not be proven that their reduction kept the price of new iPhones and iPads higher that otherwise.

The thing one have to remember is the vast majority of resellers that got eliminated because of the higher requirements Amazon placed on them to qualify as an Apple reseller, were not selling new iPhones and iPads. They were selling refurbished Apple products. This lawsuit would have to prove that because there were less resellers on Amazon that were selling used Apple iPhones and iPads, consumers shopping on Amazon were forced pay a higher price for the new ones. In other words, Amazon did not have to discount their new iPhones and iPads as much, because there was less competition from resellers selling refurbished iPhones and iPads, on Amazon. The plaintiffs for this class action lawsuit are consumers that  bought new iPhones and iPads from Amazon (after the Amazon/Apple agreement), not the resellers that were eliminated from selling refurbished Apple products.Here's a much clearer article, that don't leave out some of the important aspects pertaining to this suit. 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/judge-allows-apple-and-amazon-price-fixing-lawsuit-to-move-forward/

Take note from this article .....

>.... (Judge) Coughenour wrote, and the fact that the plaintiffs agree that not all resellers of Apple products were removed from Amazon's marketplace, a "per se" finding of antitrust violation could not be sustained.<