Comment by themagician | Hacker News Reader

Comment by themagician | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's a great example. Sued many times in many regions. Unable to operate in some countries where they aren't able to pay off politicians and government bodies. Founders have faced criminal charges in several countries and had assets seized. Fraud, price-fixing, false claims, tax evasion, racketeering, and the list goes on.

It's a great example because there is just so much about it. It's not some obscure company that has never been sued or never been found guilty. It's a company run by people who commit fraud and get away with it because they are just so wealthy.

It is a criminal organization. They have even pled guilty to criminal charges in the past. But somehow they just get to pay a fine and keep on going.

The whole point of my comment wasn't to focus on Amway but just to point out how ineffective the FTC is. Even when the activity is criminal and/or flagrant they are powerless to actually do anything to stop it. At best you get some modified legal jargon.

Idealistically, I don't disagree. I just meant they're not a great example of something I'd expect the FTC to knock down with a new stance here.

They don't break (current) US laws in terms of being a pyramid--not going to get into their history of fraud, racketeering, etc, which isn't an FTC concern.

Anyway, I know you're basically making a "this cause is more important than that cause " argument, but of course a stricter stance specifically re: being anti-competitive wouldn't touch them at all. They don't lead a market in anything anymore.

What I realistically would expect this to bring down, if anything, is the walled gardens, where they exist on devices that have become so central to our lives that this amounts to broadly restricting what goods or services you're able to consume. The wording of what they released seems very specifically crafted to highlight walled gardens and similar concepts, at least where there's arbitrary action in the name of rent taking happening as well.

I suspect this--along with the anti-competitive payment system decision from the Epic case--is the shot across the bow for Apple and Google to either loosen up on iOS and Android (and very specifically, App Store and Play Store) or be targeted.

That'd be good enough for me, for now. I don't like MLMs either, and this may be a first world problem, but it's a daily one I face.

They don't break the laws because they pay off politicians to write them in their favor. A few years ago they tried to make it explicit and get it written into law that they would be exempt from investigation over the whole "pyramid thing" permanently. They failed then, but give it another few years and they will succeed.

The whole walled garden thing is mostly trivial nonsense. At worst Apple and Google will pay a small fine and a few thousand people will be able to more easily sideload some stuff. Maybe. Probably not though. If it gets to this these companies will simply modify the law so that it doesn't apply to them.

Unfair competition is an American virtue these days. Fair competition is seen as "being weak".

Even this policy statement wasn't approved 4-0. It was 3-1. You've got government bodies that are so politically divided that you literally can't even get FOUR people—WHO RUN THE FTC—to agree that on a simply policy statement that basically says, "Unfair Methods of Competition bad." The dissenting commissioner wrote a 20 page book why she doesn't support this.

And you know what? I mostly agree with the dissenting commissioner. Not wholly because of her views, but because in practice this will be used to harass small(er) business. It will have no material impact on Google, Facebook, Amazon, or Apple.

Your last point is a really good one. We saw that kind of captive behavior with the FCC too, particularly during the last administration with that one yahoo that was running it for awhile.

I too don't see how an anticompetitive rules can be used to thwart MLMs (like Amway).

But IANAL, so I'd need an ELI5.

Either way, I support overreaching rulesets against gig economy biz models with onerous penalties. eg Repeated radical cashectomies.

Scams like Uber, where Labor has to supply their own Capital to participate, receive no benefits, have no collective bargaining, get shunted into arbitration, and are excluded from profit sharing.

That's just wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com