Ethical Virus

Ethical amazon

Amazon.com controversies have attracted criticism from multiple sources, where the ethics of certain business practices and policies have been drawn into question. Amazon has faced numerous allegations of anti-competitive or monopolistic behavior, both in and out of court. This includes documented instances of price differentiation, enforcement of controversial patents against competitors, attempts to prevent discounted direct selling by publishers, and a declared intention to cease working with third-party print on demand services in favor of its own.

Questions have been raised concerning the company's legal compliance. In 2002, Amazon faced a challenge to the legitimacy of their Canadian operations, although that case was subsequently dropped. A 2009 ruling in Japan found that the company, which had tried to avoid paying corporate tax in the country, was in fact liable to pay. Controversy over taxation has arisen on multiple occasions: It was reported in 2012 that Amazon is under investigation in the UK, while in the US the company has attracted criticism for only collecting sales tax from customers in five states. Compounding these problems, there have been reports of poor treatment of workers, with allegations of summary dismissals for health problems and anti-unionization tactics including mass layoffs.

Some controversies have centered on content. The bookstore has carried titles such as The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure and cockfighting magazine The Game Cock, which has attracted condemnation and even legal action from various organizations. Amazon and others have cited freedom of speech as justification for stocking controversial work. However this was brought into question in 2010 when it stopped hosting the Wikileaks website. There have been incidents where purchased content has been remotely deleted from Kindle devices, with neither notification nor permission. Content controversy extends to Amazon's websites, with some voicing doubts over the neutrality of the product review process, and noting the ease with which those affiliated or competing with a product can contribute anonymously.
The company has been controversial for its alleged use of patents as a competitive hindrance. The "1-Click patent"[1] is perhaps the best-known example of this. Amazon's use of the one-click patent against competitor Barnes & Noble's website led the Free Software Foundation to announce a boycott of Amazon in December 1999.[2] The boycott was discontinued in September 2002.[3] On February 22, 2000, the company was granted a patent covering an Internet-based customer referral system, or what is commonly called an "affiliate program". Industry leaders Tim O'Reilly and Charlie Jackson spoke out against the patent,[4] and O'Reilly published an open letter[5] to Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, protesting the 1-click patent and the affiliate program patent, and petitioning him to "avoid any attempts to limit the further development of Internet commerce". O'Reilly collected 10,000 signatures[6] with this petition. Bezos responded with his own open letter.[7] The protest ended with O'Reilly and Bezos visiting Washington, D.C. to lobby for patent reform. On February 25, 2003, the company was granted a patent titled "Method and system for conducting a discussion relating to an item on Internet discussion boards".[8] On May 12, 2006, the USPTO ordered a re-examination of the "One-Click" patent, based on a request filed by actor Peter Calveley, who cited the prior art of an earlier e-commerce patent and the Digicash electronic cash system.[9]

Canadian site Edit
Amazon has a Canadian site in both English and French, but until a ruling in March 2010, was prevented from operating any headquarters, servers, fulfillment centers or call centers in Canada by that country's legal restrictions on foreign-owned booksellers.[10] Instead, Amazon's Canadian site originates in the United States, and Amazon has an agreement with Canada Post to handle distribution within Canada and for the use of the Crown corporation's Mississauga, Ontario shipping facility.[11] The launch of Amazon.ca generated controversy in Canada. In 2002, the Canadian Booksellers Association and Indigo Books and Music sought a court ruling that Amazon's partnership with Canada Post represented an attempt to circumvent Canadian law,[12] but the litigation was dropped in 2004.[13]

In January 2017, doormat products with Indian flag on them went on sale on Amazon Canada website. The use of Indian flag in this way is considered offensive to Indian community and in violation of the Flag code of India.[14] The Minister of External Affairs of India Sushma Swaraj threatened visa embargo for Amazon officials if Amazon doesn't tender an unconditional apology and withdraw all such products.[15][16]

In January 2017, Amazon.ca was required by the Competition Bureau to pay a $1M penalty, plus $100,000 in costs, over pricing practices for failing to provide "truth in advertising" according to Josephine Palumbo, the deputy commissioner for deceptive marketing practices. This fine was levied because some products on Amazon.ca were shown with an artificially high "list price", making the lower selling price appear to be very attractive, producing an unfair competitive edge over other retailers. This is a frequent practice among some retailers and the fine was intended to "send a clear message [to the industry] that unsubstantiated savings claims will not be tolerated".[17] The Bureau also indicated that the company has made changes to ensure that regular prices are more accurately listed.[18]

BookSurge Edit
In March 2008, sales representatives of Amazon's BookSurge division started contacting publishers of print on demand titles to inform them that for Amazon to continue selling their POD-produced books, they were required to sign agreements with Amazon's own BookSurge POD company. Publishers were told that eventually, the only POD titles that Amazon would be selling would be those printed by their own company, BookSurge. Some publishers felt that this ultimatum amounted to monopoly abuse, and questioned the ethics of the move and its legality under anti-trust law.[19]

Direct selling Edit
In 2008, Amazon UK came under criticism for attempting to prevent publishers from direct selling at discount from their own websites. Amazon's argument was that they should be able to pay the publishers based on the lower prices offered on their websites, rather than on the full recommended retail price (RRP).[20][21]

Also in 2008, Amazon UK drew criticism in the British publishing community following their withdrawal from sale of key titles published by Hachette Livre UK. The withdrawal was possibly intended to put pressure on Hachette to provide levels of discount described by the trade as unreasonable. Curtis Brown's managing director Jonathan Lloyd opined that "publishers, authors and agents are 100% behind [Hachette]. Someone has to draw a line in the sand. Publishers have given 1% a year away to retailers, so where does it stop? Using authors as a financial football is disgraceful."[22][23]

In August 2013, Amazon agreed to end its price parity policy for marketplace sellers in the European Union, in response to investigations by the UK Office of Fair Trade and Germany's Federal Cartel Office .[24] It is not yet clear if this ruling applies to direct selling by publishers.

Japan Edit
In Japan, Amazon's business activities are conducted by several subsidiary companies. The items sold by Amazon are formally sold by Amazon.com Int'l Sales, Inc., a company registered in the State of Washington, USA. Because of this, Amazon tried to avoid paying corporate tax (法人税? hōjinzei), but in July 2009, the Tokyo National Tax Agency (東京国税局? Tōkyō Kokuzeikyoku) ruled that Amazon still had to pay 14 billion yen ($119 million) in back taxes.[25]

Removal of competitors' products Edit
On October 1, 2015, Amazon announced that Google Chromecast and Apple TV products were banned from sale on Amazon.com by all merchants, with no new listings allowed effective immediately, and all existing listings removed effective October 29, 2015. Amazon argued that this was to prevent "customer confusion", as these devices do not "interact well" with the Amazon Video ecosystem. This move was criticized, as commentators believed that it was meant primarily to suppress the sale of products deemed as competition to Amazon Fire TV products, given that Amazon itself had deliberately refused to offer software for its own streaming services on these devices, and the action contradicted the implication that Amazon.com was a general online retailer.[26][27][28]

In May 2017, it was reported that Apple and Amazon were nearing an agreement to offer Amazon Video on Apple TV, and allow the product to return to the retailer.[29]