AmazonLaws.com - Amazon Laws Domain Names For Sale

​AmazonAntitrustLawsuit.com
Amazon Antitrust Lawsuit

AmazonEUAntitrust.com
Amazon EU Antitrust

​AmazonBribery.com
​Amazon Bribery

AmazonCorruption.com
​Amazon Corruption

AmazonFalseAdvertising.com
​Amazon False Advertising 

​AmazonClimateJustice.com
​Amazon Climate Justice

AmazonMonopolyPower.com
​Amazon Monopoly Power

​AmazonClimateChange.com
​Amazon Climate Change

​​AmazonConnections.com
​Amazon Connections

​AmazonNotoriousMarkets.com
​Amazon Notorious Markets

​AmazonLaws.com
​Amazon Laws

​AmazonFakeReviews.com
​Amazon Fake Reviews

​AmazonInsiderTrading.com
​Amazon Insider Trading

​AmazonMarketDominance.com
​Amazon Market Dominance

​AmazonSexualHarassment.com
​Amazon Sexual Harassment

​AmazonRetaliation.com
​Amazon Retaliation

​AmazonSexism.com
​Amazon Sexism

​AmazonSocialJustice.com
​Amazon Social Justice

​AmazonRacism.com
​Amazon Racism

​AmazonDiscrimination.com
​Amazon Discrimination

​AmazonRacistGraffiti.com
​Amazon Racist Graffiti

​AmazonUnsafeConditions.com
​Amazon Unsafe Conditions

​AmazonFacialRecognition.com
​Amazon Facial Recognition

​AmazonUnethicalPractices.com
Amazon Unethical Practices

​AmazonAntiCompetitive.com
​Amazon Anti Competitive

​AmazonCounterfeitProducts.com
​Amazon Counterfeit Products

​AmazonDefectiveProducts.com
​Amazon Defective Products

​AmazonInvests.com
​Amazon Invests

​AmazonClimateFoundation.com
​Amazon Climate Foundation

​AmazonPledges.com
​Amazon Pledges

​AmazonEarthPledge.com
​Amazon Earth Pledge

​AmazonClimateAction.com
​Amazon Climate Action

​AmazonClimateFund.com
Amazon Climate Fund

​AmazonEarthFund.com
​Amazon Earth Fund

​AmazonVentureFund.com
​Amazon Venture Fund

​AmazonAerospace.com
Amazon Aerospace

​AmazonSpaceForce.com
​Amazon Space Force

​AmazonPiracy.com
Amazon Piracy

​AmazonPolicies.com
​Amazon Policies

​AmazonPolitics.com
Amazon Politics

​AmazonPredatoryPricing.com
​Amazon Predatory Pricing

​AmazonPrinciples.com
Amazon Principles

​AmazonPriceFixing.com
Amazon Price Fixing

​AmazonShareholders.com
Amazon Shareholders

​AmazonTrademarks.com
​Amazon Trademarks

​AmazonSportsCenter.com
​Amazon Sports Center

​AmazonHockeyCenter.com
Amazon Hockey Center

​BezosMonopoly.com
​Bezos Monopoly

​BezosPhilanthropy.com
Bezos Philanthropy
​

Amazon Notorious Markets - A Company That Facilitates Illegal Counterfeits and Piracy

Did Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon,
lie under oath to the United States Congress? Let’s find out!

Is Amazon a "Criminal Enterprise" disguised as an e-commerce shopping website to take advantage of the general populace by "Price Fixing" for the express purpose of driving the competition out of business so Amazon will then have a true monopoly so huge that they can increase their prices exponentially at will when the consumer has very few other choices of where to purchase their goods?

The United States Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate chastized Jeff Bezos personally, along with Amazon the company, for numerous inappropriate transgressions and potential illegal activities time and time again of which most of the letters sent to them regarding their unethical behavior are contained within this website. It appears that neither Jeff Bezos nor any of the other Amazon executives are able to comprehend the gravity of their misdeeds and how those actions negatively impact their loyal customers and their dedicated employees.

​If this organization can’t get their act together and discontinue their abhorrent behavior then maybe it’s time that Congress creates significant restraints and severely limit their ability to partake in activities that harm others.

Shoppers BEWARE! This website will expose the dirty underbelly of Amazon and its leadership so the entire world will know all of the inappropriate and potential illegal and unsafe actions the company has perpetuated over the years against its employees, consumers and innocent bystanders. No one can escape the long arm of the law, not even Jeff Bezos, and you can not "mislead Congress" and get away with it forever!

Do not purchase Counterfeit or Dangerous products, especially electronic devices and toys, that have not been authenticated by a reputable US Government agency to assure the quality and provenance of every item, your lives and the lives of your children depend on it!

Amazon hit with E.U. antitrust charges over its use of data November 10, 2020

The e-commerce giant faces a possible fine of up to 10 percent of its annual worldwide revenue, which could amount to billions of dollars.

LONDON — European Union regulators have filed antitrust charges against Amazon, accusing the e-commerce giant of using data to gain an unfair advantage over merchants using its platform.

The E.U.'s executive commission, the bloc's top antitrust enforcer, said Tuesday that the charges have been sent to the company.

The commission said it takes issue with Amazon's systematic use of non-public business data to avoid “the normal risks of competition and to leverage its dominance" for e-commerce services in France and Germany, the company's two biggest markets in the E.U.

The E.U. started looking into Amazon in 2018 and has been focusing on its dual role as a marketplace and retailer.

In addition to selling its own products, the U.S. company allows third-party retailers to sell their own goods through its site. Last year, more than half of the items sold on Amazon worldwide were from these outside merchants.

Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, the E.U. commissioner in charge of competition, said it’s not a problem that Amazon is a successful business but “our concern is very specific business conduct which appears to distort genuine competition.”

Vestager also opened a second investigation into Amazon over whether it favours its own products and those from third-party merchants that use its logistics and delivery services.

Listed below are a "Prime" example as to just how "Notorious" Amazon really is! These are but a miniscule few examples of what has been freely promoted for sale by Amazon much to the chagrin of the unsuspecting public, absolutely deplorable.

The Laws governing the American people are derived from the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which includes one of the most important, the First Amendment, allowing Free Speech which means we can all speak our voices without fear of prosecution.

This website is a repository to disseminate and publish important information regarding any potentially illegal or unethical activities by the leadership management of the Amazon (dot com) Inc. organization and will be constantly updated as facts become known and available.

Amazon is Notorious for being involved with intolerable actions within its ranks and the company should be broken up into numerous different and smaller parts or eliminated completely due to them allowing despicable acts to occur and Amazon has been accused by several governmental agencies for deplorable activities such as Anti Competitive Business, Antitrust Concerns, Bribery, Counterfeit Products, Defective Products, Discrimination, Fake Product Reviews, Illegal Insider Stock Trading, Intellectual Property Piracy, Market Dominance, Predatory Pricing, Price Fixing, Price Gouging, Racism, Retaliation, Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Social Injustice, Unethical Practices and Unsafe Working Conditions just to name a few.   

There have been numerous reports that Amazon, the company founded by the richest man in the world Jeff Bezos, has advertised to hire individuals with spying skills that could quite possibly spy on Amazon employees and more, a disturbing fact if true, and copies of those ads are attached.Why would the richest man in the world be so paranoid and deathly afraid of his own employees that he felt compelled to hire people to illegally spy on them?

The United States Senate is so understandably concerned that they felt the need to send Jeff Bezos a formal letter asking him if he is indeed spying on his own employees at Amazon! (letter attached)

The same U.S. Senate sent Jeff Bezos another letter demanding that AmazonBasics discontinue selling products that are fire hazards which have already severely harmed several Amazon customers. (letter attached)

U.S. Senator Brian Schatz, on behalf of himself and Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernard Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand, sent Jeff Bezos a letter on October 15, 2020 and requesting a response to their very direct and specific 18 questions no later than November 1, 2020 stating among other things that Amazon emphatically "misled Congress" which is an extremely hazardous situation to be in to say the least. (letter attached)

Amazon is well known for selling dangerous and defective products to their customers, and when these people are harmed, denying emphatically that Amazon has no responsibility whatsoever to even pay medical bills for their customers who have been physically harmed by their defective products.

Jeff Bezos is unconcerned with the extensive damage inflicted upon the unsuspecting Amazon consumers, but instead is much more interested in increasing his monumentally vast wealth at their expense, regardless of any pain and suffering they endure caused by the defective merchandise delivered by Amazon.

The California Appeals Court ruled recently that Amazon can not escape responsibility for defective products that severely harmed Angela Bolger when a defective laptop battery exploded and burnt her causing enormous pain and suffering however Amazon refused to acknowledge that they were in fact at fault even though they were the legal seller of the hazardous laptop. Just one example of many that indicates the risk one takes when trusting Amazon to do the right thing.c

In another dangerous product situation Amazon has settled a high-stakes battle over its liability for defective merchandise that left a woman blind in one eye, the company's lawyer told a federal judge.

News of the settlement was revealed in papers that were quietly filed late last week. Terms were not disclosed.

The deal brings an end to a closely watched fight over Amazon's legal responsibility for products sold through its online marketplace.

The battle dated to 2016, when Pennsylvania resident Heather Oberdorf alleged she was severely injured by a faulty product she purchased via Amazon's marketplace from the vendor The Furry Gang.

She and her husband sued Amazon in federal court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the company sold a product with a defective design.

Oberdorf alleged that she purchased a dog collar from Amazon's marketplace in December of 2014. Several weeks after Oberdorf began using the collar, her dog lunged while on a walk and broke the collar's ring, causing the retractable leash Oberdorf was holding to recoil. The leash hit her eyeglasses, causing them to shatter into her left eye and permanently blinding her in one eye.

The 3rd Circuit sent the case to Pennsylvania's highest court, which was slated to rule on whether Amazon would be considered a seller under Pennsylvania law.

But Amazon and Oberdorf reached a settlement before that court issued a decision.

It would appear that Amazon rushed to settle the lawsuit quickly so it could not establish a another legal precedent against their being held responsible for defective products again.

Every person who purchases anything from Amazon literally risks his or her own life because of the defective and counterfeit products that freely flow through their warehouses on any given day and there is no way to know in advance which items can cause you severe harm, Amazon does not investigate which products are harmful and apparently they don’t care enough to find out and prevent the sale since Jeff Bezos has become extremely rich through those sales.

In addition, several governments around the world are investigating Amazon such as Canada, the European Union and India for conduct detrimental to their own customers, a sad state of affairs.

Does this sound like an organization everyone should entrust their hard earned money with, NOT!

At the very least Amazon employees in the United States should form a union for their own protection before it becomes too late and then even Congress will be unable to protect them. Worst case scenario would be for all employees to all go on strike indefinitely until Amazon agrees unequivocally to allow them to join a union.

The Department of Justice should do the identical legal maneuvers with Amazon as it just did with Google - File an Antitrust Lawsuit and break the company into many smaller pieces because Jeff Bezos has too much control over the e-commerce industry.

Notorious Markets - The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)  reports on the adequacy and effectiveness of trading partners’ protection of intellectual property rights and the findings of its Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, which highlights online and physical markets that reportedly engage in and facilitate substantial trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy.

“The Trump Administration is committed to holding intellectual property rights violators accountable and to ensuring that American innovators and creators have a full and fair opportunity to use and profit from their work,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

The United States Government has determined that Amazon, the company founded and operated by the richest man in the world Jeff Bezos, facilitates the criminal activity of trademark counterfeiting and piracy of products sales to billions of people around the globe for which Amazon profits enormously through these highly illegal actions.

White House trade and economic adviser Peter Navarro defended the decision to add the Amazon websites to the notorious markets list saying "This is an action clearly justified by the behavior of the worst counterfeit-enabler in the world and the Amazon brain trust would rather fight this out in the media through their swamp-creature spin doctors than clean up their marketplace in the urgent ways necessary to protect the American people from fraud and often physical harm from dangerous counterfeit products."

Various terminology definitions and/or explanations in no particular order:

Laws - Law commonly refers to a system of rules created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a science and the art of justice. State-enforced laws can be made by a group legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes; by the executive through decrees and regulations; or established by judges through precedent, usually in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals may create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that adopt alternative ways of resolving disputes to standard court litigation. The creation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.

The Laws governing the American people are derived from the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which includes one of the most important, the First Amendment, allowing Free Speech which means we can all speak our voices without fear of prosecution, recrimination or retaliation.

Notorious Markets - The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)  reports on the adequacy and effectiveness of trading partners’ protection of intellectual property rights and the findings of its Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, which highlights online and physical markets that reportedly engage in and facilitate substantial trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy.

“The Trump Administration is committed to holding intellectual property rights violators accountable and to ensuring that American innovators and creators have a full and fair opportunity to use and profit from their work,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

The United States Government has determined that Amazon, the company founded and operated by the richest man in the world Jeff Bezos, facilitates the criminal activity of trademark counterfeiting and piracy of products sales to billions of people around the globe for which Amazon profits enormously through these highly illegal actions.

White House trade and economic adviser Peter Navarro defended the decision to add the Amazon websites to the notorious markets list saying "This is an action clearly justified by the behavior of the worst counterfeit-enabler in the world and the Amazon brain trust would rather fight this out in the media through their swamp-creature spin doctors than clean up their marketplace in the urgent ways necessary to protect the American people from fraud and often physical harm from dangerous counterfeit products."

Commercial-scale copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting cause significant financial losses for U.S. right holders and legitimate businesses, undermine critical U.S. comparative advantages in innovation and creativity to the detriment of American workers, and pose significant risks to consumer health and safety. The Notorious Markets List (NML) highlights prominent and illustrative examples of online and physical markets that reportedly engage in or facilitate substantial piracy or counterfeiting. A goal of the NML is to motivate appropriate action by the private sector and governments to reduce piracy and counterfeiting.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) highlights the following markets because they exemplify global counterfeiting and piracy concerns and because the scale of infringing activity in these markets can cause significant harm to U.S. intellectual property (IP) owners, consumers, legitimate online platforms, and the economy. Some of the identified markets reportedly host a combination of legitimate and unauthorized activities. Others openly or reportedly exist solely to engage in or facilitate unauthorized activity.

The NML is not an exhaustive account of all physical and online markets worldwide in which IP infringement may take place. The NML does not make findings of legal violations nor does it reflect the U.S. Government’s analysis of the general IP protection and enforcement climate in the countries connected with the listed markets. A broader analysis of IP protection and enforcement in particular countries or economies is presented in the annual Special 301 Report published at the end of April each year.

USTR developed the NML under the auspices of the annual Special 301 process and solicited comments through a Request for Public Comments published in the Federal Register (https://www.regulations.gov, Docket Number USTR-2019-0013). The NML is based predominantly on publicly available information. USTR has identified notorious markets in the Special 301 Report since 2006.

Since the release of the 2018 Notorious Markets List, there have been notable efforts to address widespread availability of pirated or counterfeit goods in some online and physical markets. The United States commends these efforts and encourages governments, right holders, service providers, and the owners and operators of these and other markets, including those newly identified in the 2019 NML, to engage in sustained and meaningful efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting.

Several studies this year addressed global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a report on the latest trends in trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, based on data from 2016. This report found that trade in counterfeit and pirated physical goods has risen steadily in the last few years and now stands at 3.3% of global trade ($509 billion), with some industries being significantly more affected than others—22% for footwear, 15% for clothing, 13% for leather goods, and 12% for electrical equipment. The OECD report identifies corruption, poor IP enforcement, free trade zones, China’s role as a top producer of counterfeit and pirated goods, and the use of post or courier services to send small shipments as key factors behind this growth. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) investigated the “epidemic of counterfeit goods sold online” in the United States and issued a report finding that “[o]rganized criminals operating out of China are behind the vast majority of this fraud,” and that they are “supported by a large ecosystem of groups that arrange for credit card processing.” The BBB recommended that credit card payment processors increase their efforts to combat the sellers of counterfeit goods. A study by Ghostdata of counterfeit goods sold on Instagram found that the “top payment system is by far WeChat Pay,” which is owned by Chinese company Tencent.

The United States commends these efforts, appreciates studies being done in this area, and encourages its trading partners to continue their individual and cooperative efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting.

The Notorious Markets List identifies prominent and illustrative examples of online and physical markets in which pirated or counterfeit products and services reportedly are available or that facilitate substantial piracy and counterfeiting. It does not constitute a legal finding of a violation or an analysis of the general IP protection and enforcement environment in any country or economy. The NML is not an exhaustive inventory of all notorious markets around the world. Markets on the NML are drawn from the many nominations received as well as other input, such as from U.S. embassies, in order to highlight prominent examples of both online and physical markets where pirated or counterfeit goods and services reportedly are trafficked to the detriment of legitimate trade in IP-intensive goods and services.

Owners and operators of notorious markets that are willing to address piracy and counterfeiting have many options for doing so. Such owners and operators can, for example, adopt business models that rely on the licensed distribution of legitimate content and can negotiate appropriate licenses with right holders. If an otherwise legitimate business has become a platform for piracy or counterfeiting, the owner or operator can work with right holders and law enforcement officials to help discourage and curtail acts of infringement. Industry groups have developed a variety of best practices that can help combat counterfeiting and piracy. In the absence of good faith efforts, responsible government authorities should investigate reports of piracy and counterfeiting in these and similar markets and pursue appropriate action against such markets and their owners and operators. Governments should also ensure that appropriate enforcement tools are at the disposal of right holders and government authorities, which may require closing loopholes that permit operators to evade enforcement laws.

Presidential Memorandum addressing trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods. In January 2020, in response to the Presidential Memorandum, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a report on “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods.” The DHS report notes that, although e-commerce has supported the launch of thousands of legitimate businesses, e-commerce platforms, third-party marketplaces, and their supporting intermediaries have also served as powerful stimulants for the trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods. Selling counterfeit and pirated goods through e-commerce platforms and related online third-party marketplaces can be a highly profitable venture. For counterfeiters, production costs are low, millions of potential customers are available online, transactions are convenient, and listing goods on well-known platforms provides an air of legitimacy. Moreover, when sellers of illicit goods are in another country, they are exposed to relatively little risk of criminal prosecution or civil liability under current law enforcement and regulatory practices.

USTR agrees that actions should be taken to protect American consumers and businesses against the harm and losses inflicted by counterfeiters.

In light of these concerns, USTR believes e-commerce platforms need to take additional actions to combat trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods and reduce the availability of such goods on their platforms. For example, the DHS “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” report called for the swift adoption by e-commerce platforms that operate third-party marketplaces and other third-party intermediaries of the following ten high priority best practices:

1. Comprehensive "Terms of Service" Agreements
2. Significantly Enhanced Vetting of Third-Party Sellers
3. Limitations on High Risk Products
4. Efficient Notice and Takedown Procedures
5. Enhanced Post-Discovery Actions
6. Indemnity Requirements for Foreign Sellers
7. Clear Transactions Through Banks that Comply with U.S. Enforcement Requests
8. Pre-Sale Identification of Third-Party Sellers
9. Establish Marketplace Seller IDs
10. Clearly Identifiable Country of Origin Disclosures

Without such actions, U.S. right holders stand to be irreparably damaged by a flood of imported counterfeit and pirated goods on e-commerce platforms, regardless of where such platforms are based. Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum on Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods, USTR will continue to address the issue of counterfeit and pirated goods with our trading partners and is considering seeking more information regarding e-commerce platforms, including those based in the United States, in future reviews of Notorious Markets.

AMAZON’S FOREIGN DOMAINS
Nominated as amazon.ca, amazon.co.uk, amazon.de, amazon.fr, and amazon.in.

Submissions by right holders expressed concerns regarding the challenges related to combating counterfeits with respect to e-commerce platforms around the world. One submission specifically highlighted examples of the challenges right holders face with alleged high levels of counterfeit goods on the e-commerce platforms amazon.ca in Canada, amazon.de in Germany, amazon.fr in France, amazon.in in India, and amazon.co.uk in the United Kingdom. For example, right holders expressed concern that the seller information displayed by Amazon is often misleading such that it is difficult for consumers and right holders alike to determine who is selling the goods and that anyone can become a seller on Amazon with too much ease because Amazon does not sufficiently vet sellers on its platforms.

They also commented that Amazon’s counterfeit removal processes can be lengthy and burdensome, even for right holders that enroll in Amazon’s brand protection programs.

In addition, as the scale and sophistication of the counterfeiters have continued to grow and evolve over the years, these right holders indicate that Amazon should commit the resources necessary to make their brand protection programs scalable, transparent, and most importantly, effective. More specifically, they ask that Amazon take additional actions to address their concerns, including by collecting sufficient information from sellers to prevent repeat infringers from creating multiple storefronts on the platforms, making detailed information about the real seller of a product obvious to consumers and right holders, being more responsive to complaints of counterfeits by right holders, and being more proactive in preventing counterfeit goods from appearing on the platform.

PUBLIC INFORMATION

The 2019 Notorious Markets List is the result of the tenth out-of-cycle review of notorious markets, which USTR initiated on August 19, 2019, through a Federal Register Request for Public Comments. The request and responses are available at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket Number USTR-2019-0013. USTR developed the 2019 NML in coordination with the federal agencies represented on the Special 301 Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC). Information about Special 301 and other intellectual property-related processes and issues is available at https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/intellectual-property.

To assist U.S. right holders and consumers who confront IP infringement online, the U.S. Government continues to expand the tools available on https://www.stopfakes.gov, including by providing links to infringement reporting mechanisms at a number of popular online retailers and markets. Victims and interested parties may report IP theft and import violations to U.S. law enforcement agencies through https://www.stopfakes.gov, https://eallegations.cbp.gov, or https://www.iprcenter.gov/referral.

Predatory Pricing - Pricing below a competitor's costs occurs in many competitive markets and generally does not violate the antitrust laws however if it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses.

Price Fixing - Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms. Generally, the antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor. When consumers make choices about what products and services to buy, they expect that the price has been determined freely on the basis of supply and demand, not by an agreement among competitors. When competitors agree to restrict competition, the result is often higher prices. Accordingly, price fixing is a major concern of government antitrust enforcement.

A plain agreement among competitors to fix prices is almost always illegal, whether prices are fixed at a minimum, maximum, or within some range. Illegal price fixing occurs whenever two or more competitors agree to take actions that have the effect of raising, lowering or stabilizing the price of any product or service without any legitimate justification. Price-fixing schemes are often worked out in secret and can be hard to uncover, but an agreement can be discovered from "circumstantial" evidence. For example, if direct competitors have a pattern of unexplained identical contract terms or price behavior together with other factors (such as the lack of legitimate business explanation), unlawful price fixing may be the reason. Invitations to coordinate prices also can raise concerns, as when one competitor announces publicly that it is willing to end a price war if its rival is willing to do the same, and the terms are so specific that competitors may view this as an offer to set prices jointly. Price fixing relates not only to prices, but also to other terms that affect prices to consumers, such as shipping fees, warranties, discount programs, or financing rates.

A defendant is allowed to argue that there was no agreement, but if the government or a private party proves a plain price-fixing agreement, there is no defense to it. Defendants may not justify their behavior by arguing that the prices were reasonable to consumers, were necessary to avoid cut-throat competition, or stimulated competition.

Amazon Accused In Massive Price-Fixing Scheme - March 22, 2020

Amazon was hit with antitrust claims in Seattle federal court over an alleged “pricing scheme that broadly and anti-competitively impacts virtually all products offered for sale in the US retail e-commerce market,” reported Bloomberg.
“Amazon’s horizontal price-fixing agreement with its two million sellers is a per se violation of antitrust law,” the lawsuit claims.

The proposed consumer class action targeting the e-commerce giant, which is responsible for 49% of US online retail sales, was filed late Thursday, March 19, in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The suit accuses Amazon of continuing to enforce de facto “most favored nation” pricing terms against 2 million third-party sellers offering 600 million products, despite promising the Federal Trade Commission last year that it would stop.

When the mega-retailer abandoned that policy, it was supposed to begin permitting merchants to offer lower prices through cheaper competing platforms, like eBay or their own websites, according to the complaint.
The companies should be able to turn the same profit at a lower price on those other platforms, which should in turn reduce Amazon’s prices through competition, the suit states.

But Amazon allegedly reframed the same rule as a requirement of its “fair pricing” agreements with third-party sellers, which account for 68% of its total sales. The provision explicitly requires any product sold on Amazon to “have a price that is equal to or lower than the price of the same item being sold by the seller on other sites,” according to the complaint.

“Sellers are contractually barred or severely penalized from passing on these savings to their customers,” the suit states.

Thanks to Amazon’s dominance in the e-commerce market, its policies have jacked up prices across the board, the consumer plaintiffs claim.

The company also allegedly “exercises a significant level of control over the flow of available information to consumers on the internet.” Other large retailers like Walmart and Target recently complained to the FTC that they can’t break through the “information bottleneck” caused by the “collective control” Amazon and Google have over online product searches, the suit says.

Fake Reviews - "People rely on reviews when they’re shopping online” said Andrew Smith, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “When a company buys fake reviews to inflate its ratings, it hurts both shoppers and companies that play by the rules.” A fake review is a review written by someone who has not actually used the product or service. They can be written by friends, family, or employees of a company. Companies get fake positive reviews to increase sales, or source negative reviews on other company's to bring down their competitors.

Insider Trading - Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, on the basis of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information. Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities. 

SEC Charges Amazon Finance Manager and Family With Insider Trading
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington D.C., Sept. 28, 2020 --

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former finance manager at Amazon.com Inc. and two family members with insider trading in advance of Amazon earnings announcements between January 2016 and July 2018.
According to the SEC's complaint, Laksha Bohra worked as a senior manager in Amazon's tax department, where she prepared and reviewed calculations used to finalize numbers included in Amazon's quarterly and annual earnings that were filed with the SEC. Beginning in January 2016 and continuing through July 2018, Laksha Bohra allegedly acquired, and tipped her husband Viky Bohra with, highly confidential information about Amazon's financial performance. The complaint alleges that Viky Bohra and his father, Gotham Bohra, traded on this confidential information in 11 separate accounts maintained by different members of the Bohra family. The complaint further alleges that Laksha Bohra disregarded quarterly reminders prohibiting her from passing material nonpublic information or recommending the purchase or sale of Amazon securities. As alleged, the family reaped illicit profits of approximately $1.4 million from their unlawful trading in Amazon securities.

"We allege that the Bohras repeatedly and systematically used Amazon's confidential information for their own gain," said Erin Schneider, Director of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office. "Employees with access to confidential, potentially market-moving corporate information may not use that information to enrich themselves, their friends, or their families."

The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Seattle, charges all three Bohras with violating antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. All three Bohras have consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from further violations of the charged provisions, and ordering them to pay total disgorgement of $1,428,094, total prejudgment interest of $118,406, and total penalties of $1,106,399.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington today filed criminal charges against Viky Bohra.

The SEC's investigation was conducted by Sallie Kim, with assistance from Marc Katz and Andrew Hefty, under the supervision of Monique C. Winkler of the San Francisco Regional Office. Darren Boerner of the Market Abuse Unit also assisted the investigation. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Counterfeit Products - Counterfeits are goods intended to trick consumers who rely on brand names and logos when deciding what to buy. Consumers seek out certain brands because of the product quality or other features they have learned to expect from those brands. Counterfeiters deceive consumers by placing familiar brand names or logos on fake goods that are not produced by the brand owner. These goods may appear safe and legitimate, but are manufactured and sold illegally. When you buy counterfeits, you are not actually getting the product you wanted to buy.

Some consumers intentionally buy counterfeit goods, while others may mistake counterfeits for the real thing. In either case, counterfeit goods may be unsafe, and the profits often go to dangerous criminal organizations. At the most basic level, counterfeits are a means to steal from you and the brand owner.

Counterfeit medicine, personal hygiene products, and make up may contain toxic materials that can endanger your health. Fake electronics and mechanical parts are usually not tested for safety, which means phone chargers and batteries can start fires or explode, and car parts can catastrophically fail while you are driving.

Law enforcement agencies around the world have found that counterfeit goods purchased on the street and online often fund criminal organizations. Even seemingly harmless counterfeits, such as clothing, often contribute directly to criminal organizations and are often produced by people working in unsafe conditions without regulatory oversight. These criminal organizations put consumers at risk of illness and injury and use the profits to fund illegal activities.

Defective Products - Defective Product is an imperfection in a product that has a manufacturing or design defect, or is faulty because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product is in a defective condition if it is unreasonably dangerous to the user or to consumer who purchases the product and causes physical harm. A defective condition is a legal cause of damage if it directly or in the natural sequence contributes substantially to the injury. A defective design refers to a product with an inherent flaw introduced during the design stage. As a result, every item manufactured in accordance with the flawed design contains a defect that has the potential to harm the end user. This can mean thousands, or millions, of defective products flooding the market, all with the potential to injure consumers. A person injured by a product with a defective design can hold the manufacturer or its agent liable for substantial damages.

Burning laptops and flooded homes: Courts hold Amazon liable for faulty products - Multiple court rulings have found the e-commerce giant responsible for defects in products sold by third-party merchants on its marketplace - Washington Post by Jay Greene August 29, 2020

SEATTLE — Angela Bolger heard some clicks in her laptop, but when she lifted it to her ear and looked it over, nothing seemed amiss.

When she lowered it back to her lap, sparks flew from the $12.30 replacement battery she’d recently purchased on Amazon. It caused third-degree burns on her arms, legs and feet, as well as burning her bed, clothes and the floor of her San Diego apartment. In the nearly four years that have passed since the incident, Bolger has had surgery to graft skin to repair the damage.

Amazon fought her lawsuit seeking to hold it liable for the injuries. The only compensation the e-commerce giant provided: a refund.

“This changed my whole life. My apartment was on fire. I was on fire,” Bolger said. “I don’t hate Amazon. I just want them to take responsibility.”

Nearly 60 percent of all physical goods sold on Amazon’s e-commerce marketplace come from third-party merchants, a fact that’s lost on many shoppers, including, at the time, Bolger. Amazon has argued in court that this relationship absolves it of any liability related to defective products sold by those vendors. And for many years, courts have largely sided with Amazon.

But Bolger’s case, and a handful of others in Texas, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have halted Amazon’s winning streak. And legislation that was under debate this week in California aimed to place liability squarely on e-commerce retailers that provide a platform for dubious merchants selling dangerous goods.

Bolger’s case and others in California led to a first-of-its-kind bill that would have extended rules that apply in the physical world to electronic commerce. The bill, which Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone pulled late Friday as the legislative session neared its end, called for holding online marketplaces liable for the products they sell, just as retailers can be held responsible for goods purchased in their brick-and-mortar stores.

Surprisingly, Amazon supported the measure, with one condition: the company wanted the law to apply to all online marketplaces, including its competitors who, for example, do not warehouse and ship products sold by third-party merchants. That drew intense opposition from several Amazon rivals, including Etsy, whose chief executive, Josh Silverman, wrote in a blog post that the measure will saddle small businesses with “complex, hard-to-comply-with legislation that only [Amazon] can afford to absorb.”

The selection of counterfeit goods on Amazon is vast, from bracelets to belts to bags. We bought a few of these items to compare to the originals.
    
With the legislative session set to end Monday, Stone withdrew the measure, saying in a statement that he’s “committed to continuing the conversation,” though he didn’t commit to reintroducing the bill when the next session starts in January.

Amazon has emerged as the nation’s largest online retailer, in part by turning its store into an online bazaar where more than 2.5 million third-party vendors sell their goods. The company has prioritized that vast selection, allowing merchants to sell on the site with scant vetting. The company has said that, among its screening processes, it uses machine learning technology to identify risky sellers, as well as using investigators to review applications.

The business of selling other merchants’ goods is enormously lucrative for Amazon. In the last quarter, Amazon generated $18.2 billion of revenue from seller services such as fees and commissions, a figure that jumped 52 percent from the same period a year ago.

Listings of products federal agencies have deemed unsafe have led regulators and lawmakers to criticize the company for putting profits over safety. That’s because even when a shopper buys an item from a third party on Amazon’s platform, Amazon keeps a roughly 15 percent cut of the sale.

Though the company aims to develop a marketplace with the widest selection, Amazon spokeswoman Cecilia Fan said it’s not doing so at the expense of customer safety.

The challenge for Amazon is that as it has allowed so many sellers into its marketplace, it’s also made it difficult to police for dangerous goods. And some Chinese manufacturers and sellers, which it aggressively recruited to create a catalogue of products so extensive that no other retailer could match it, do not manufacture products to standards set by U.S. lawmakers and regulators.

In addition to the claim that its practices sometimes result in the sale of dangerous products, Amazon has also come under fire for counterfeit goods sold by third-party merchants. When Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) challenged Bezos on the proliferation of fake goods on the site during a hearing on tech giants’ market clout last month, Bezos countered that Congress should enact tougher laws targeting counterfeiters. And in July, Amazon notified third-party vendors that they will no longer be able to anonymously sell goods on its U.S. e-commerce site as of Sept. 1, a move that could also help curb sales of dangerous and counterfeit items that have plagued the site in recent years.

Until recently, legal experts say, courts often found Amazon’s relationship with those sellers at enough of an arm’s length that it was insulated from liability for defective goods. Product liability laws vary from state to state but generally were written decades ago, before Internet retail existed. Amazon racked up a string of legal victories, arguing that it merely was a conduit that connected sellers to shoppers, sheltered from claims that it was responsible for defective goods third-party merchants sold on its site.

“What the courts have been struggling with is, can Amazon do that?” said Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, a cyberlaw professor at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

That’s because many of the third-party sellers are effectively judgment-proof, Hurwitz said. When products from Chinese sellers hurt shoppers in the United States, the merchants often disappear, leaving consumers unable to hold them accountable.

Recently, courts have started to apply the same rules to Amazon that exist for brick-and-mortar retailers, which can be held liable for products they sold. Earlier this month, in the Bolger case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in California ruled that, like a physical retailer, Amazon is part of the distribution chain and could have exerted influence on product safety in a way few consumers could. And since the third-party seller, a Chinese company, couldn’t be found by the litigants, Amazon was the only viable defendant.

The court ruled that Amazon took possession of the battery, accepted Bolger’s order, billed her for it and shipped the battery to her in Amazon packaging. “But for Amazon’s own acts, Bolger would not have been injured,” the court ruled. “Amazon’s own acts, and its control over the product in question, form the basis for its liability.”

The ruling is not binding outside California. But courts often consider decisions from other states as they make their own determinations, and the Bolger decision along with a handful of other similar rulings seem likely to make it much harder for Amazon to dodge liability from defective products sold by third parties on its website.

“Plaintiffs can now point to the decision to make future case decisions,” said Jeremy Robinson, Bolger’s lawyer. “Now Amazon has bad precedent out there.”

Amazon intends to appeal the decision, Fan said.

“The court's decision was wrongly decided and is contrary to well-established law in California and around the country that service providers are not liable for third party products they do not make or sell,” Fan said in a statement.

If the appeals court decision is not overturned, Bolger will return to district court where she’ll need to prove the laptop battery was defective and that the defect caused her injury, to hold Amazon liable.

A key to the Bolger ruling, and the other recent liability rulings against Amazon, is that the company warehoused and shipped the defective products. Rulings have held that Amazon’s possession of those products in its warehouses, as well as its shipping them in boxes covered in the company’s logo, puts it squarely in the distribution chain.

Taking possession of goods from third-party sellers has been a key to Amazon’s success. Sending products to Amazon warehouses, under a program called Fulfillment by Amazon, makes those items eligible for speedy Prime shipping, which can often be the difference in a third-party merchant making a sale.

A federal judge in Texas determined that placing a defective product “into the stream of commerce” was a factor when she ruled in June that Amazon could be held liable for the sale of the item by a third party on its site. In that case, Morgan McMillan’s 19-month-old daughter swallowed a coin-sized battery from a knockoff Apple TV remote that didn’t have a childproof seal on the battery compartment. The battery lodged in the girl’s esophagus, leaking caustic fluids that McMillan alleges have increased her daughter’s risk of infection and choking. The battery needed to be surgically removed.

The McMillan family purchased the remote on Amazon from a Chinese seller they have since been unable to locate.

So the family sued Amazon, arguing that the company could have exerted pressure on the seller to improve product safety.

In denying Amazon’s efforts to have the case dismissed in June, federal judge Vanessa D. Gilmore found that the company could have pulled the dangerous product. McMillan notified Amazon of the product defect.

“The judges are scratching their heads, saying ‘Wait a minute,’” McMillan’s lawyer, Jeff Meyerson, said.

The McMillan decision wasn’t a complete defeat for Amazon. Gilmore ruled that Amazon couldn’t be held liable for failing to warn shoppers that the remote was dangerous. That’s because the product description was provided by the seller, not Amazon, giving it immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That rule, which some lawmakers want to change, also generally insulates social media companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter from liability for harmful content posted on their sites.

Amazon declined to comment on the case. To hold the company liable, McMillan will now have to prove in court that the remote the family purchased from Amazon was defective and that the defect led to her daughter’s injury.

The new rulings could play a role in appeals of cases Amazon has won. Dave Carpenter lost his lawsuit against Amazon that he filed after the charger for a hoverboard he purchased for his daughter caught fire. Carpenter, his wife and daughter weren’t at their Santa Rosa, Calif., home when the fire damaged his house. But his two dogs — a goldendoodle named Bella and a Boston terrier named Boo — were. When he returned home to find firefighters battling the blaze, he found the dogs under a tarp on his lawn, dead.

Dave Carpenter lost a lawsuit he filed against Amazon after the charger for a hoverboard he purchased for his daughter caught fire. Carpenter, his wife and daughter were not at their Santa Rosa, Calif., home when the fire damaged their house.

Carpenter didn’t have an understanding that third-party sellers operate on Amazon, he said. He assumed the hoverboard was vetted because he didn’t think Amazon would put its name behind a product that was dangerous.

“That’s why we got it from there; it was Amazon,” Carpenter said.

Carpenter, though, lost his case when federal judge Jon Tigar in the Northern District of California ruled, in part, that there was not sufficient evidence that Amazon’s role was “a necessary factor in bringing the product to market.” Carpenter is appealing the decision.

Amazon is also facing deep-pocketed insurers that have the financial wherewithal to go toe-to-toe against the company in courtrooms. Insurers often assume the claims of customers when, say, their house was damaged by a faulty product.

Luke Cain’s Eau Claire, Wis., home flooded after an adapter for a faucet he purchased from a Chinese-based third-party seller on Amazon failed. State Farm insured Cain and took Amazon to court, arguing the retail giant was responsible for the damage. A Wisconsin judge denied Amazon’s effort to have the case dismissed, and the company settled with State Farm without disclosing terms.

Amazon declined to comment on the case.

“Insurance companies have the pockets they need to do the inspections and pursue the investigations necessary,” State Farm’s lawyer in the case, Teirney Christenson, said. His firm currently has claims against Amazon pending in seven states thanks to the new trend, he added.

correction

A California appeals court held that Amazon’s actions formed the basis for its liability in the Bolger case. An earlier version of this report misattributed a quote from a filing by Bolger to the court‘s decision.

Anticompetitive Practices - The Federal Trade Commission takes action to stop and prevent unfair business practices that are likely to reduce competition and lead to higher prices, reduced quality or levels of service, or less innovation. Anticompetitive practices include activities like price fixing, group boycotts, and exclusionary exclusive dealing contracts or trade association rules, and are generally grouped into two types:

• agreements between competitors, also referred to as horizontal conduct
• monopolization, also referred to as single firm conduct

The FTC generally pursues anticompetitive conduct as violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”

It is illegal for businesses to act together in ways that can limit competition, lead to higher prices, or hinder other businesses from entering the market. The FTC challenges unreasonable horizontal restraints of trade. Such agreements may be considered unreasonable when competitors interact to such a degree that they are no longer acting independently, or when collaborating gives competitors the ability to wield market power together. Certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include arrangements to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids.

It is unlawful for a company to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade, meaning a firm with market power cannot act to maintain or acquire a dominant position by excluding competitors or preventing new entry. It is important to note that it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge “high prices,” or to try to achieve a monopoly position by aggressive methods. A company violates the law only if it tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods.

Piracy of Intellectual Property - Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—known as “intellectual property”—which can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software. 

It is a growing threat—especially with the rise of digital technologies and Internet file sharing networks. And much of the theft takes place overseas, where laws are often lax and enforcement is more difficult. All told, intellectual property theft costs U.S. businesses billions of dollars a year and robs the nation of jobs and tax revenues.

Preventing intellectual property theft is a priority of the FBI’s criminal investigative program. It specifically focuses on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to the program’s success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced a new strategy that involves partnering more closely with businesses in an effort to combat these types of crimes more effectively. The FBI—working with its investigative partners at the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC)--will play an integral part in this strategy.

The Bureau has already been collaborating for years with brand owners, copyright holders, and trademark holders because we know the harm that intellectual property theft causes: legitimate businesses lose billions of dollars in revenue and suffer damaged reputations, consumer prices go up, the U.S. and global economies are robbed of jobs and tax revenue, product safety is reduced, and sometimes lives are even put at risk. FBI efforts with these businesses to date have involved shared information, aggressive criminal initiatives based on current or emerging trends, and investigations.

Under the FBI’s new strategy, we’re expanding our efforts to work with third-party entities—such as online marketplaces, payment service providers, and advertisers—that may inadvertently enable the activities of criminals.

• Third-party online marketplaces draw consumers to their sites with competitive pricing and a sense of security, but criminal counterfeiters exploit these marketplaces to gain an appearance of legitimacy, access to far-reaching advertising, and efficient sales transactions.
• Payment service providers—such as credit card payment processors and related payment alternatives—also give counterfeiters the appearance of legitimacy when they provide payment options that consumers mistakenly interpret to mean that the businesses they service are legitimate.
• Online advertising systems and platforms enable website owners to outsource the process of monetizing their website traffic. Criminals have begun exploiting advertising as an alternative revenue stream, drawing traffic to their sites by offering counterfeit products for sale or pirated digital content for download.

The benefits of working with these third-party entities? Broadening awareness of the crime problem, obtaining information about crime trends, getting investigative leads that will help identify criminals, and collecting evidence of criminal activity. The FBI will assist these companies with refining their own analytical tools and techniques for uncovering fraud.

Also new in our approach to intellectual property theft is an enhanced relationship between our criminal and counterintelligence personnel when working theft of trade secrets cases. A trade secrets case worked under the counterintelligence program—which occurs when the involvement of state-sponsored actors is suspected—will be referred to a criminal squad if no state sponsorship is found. And when criminal investigators begin to suspect the involvement of a state sponsor, the case will be referred to the counterintelligence squad. The Bureau's goal is to contain and/or even prevent the theft as quickly as possible, no matter who’s behind it.

Monopoly, Monopolization - The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications.

Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

Exclusionary Conduct
Judging the conduct of an alleged monopolist requires an in-depth analysis of the market and the means used to achieve or maintain the monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.
Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal. These topics are discussed in separate Fact Sheets for Single Firm Conduct.

Business Justification
Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

Antitrust Laws - Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.

The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. Courts have applied the antitrust laws to changing markets, from a time of horse and buggies to the present digital age. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.

Here is an overview of the three core federal antitrust laws.

The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.

The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.

The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.

The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.

In addition to these federal statutes, most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.

Bribery - Commercial bribery is the giving by the seller to the agent or employee of the buyer, without the knowledge or consent of the buyer, a commission or gratuity for the purpose of influencing the agent or employee in favor of the goods of the seller. The bribery of agents and employees, in order to influence, sales, has long been regarded as fraudulent and immoral. This is evidenced by numerous decisions of the courts, and by statutory law in many of the United States and foreign countries. The Federal Courts have condemned the practice in no uncertain terms. When business is conducted through agents, commercial bribery often occurs.' Its prevalence results from the economic incentives facing both the agent and those seeking a contract with the principal.

As long as the agent has no direct interest in the contract, he might be tempted to deal with individuals based on a side payment. At the same time, such a payment can cost the party seeking the contract far less than by competing through lowering prices or increasing the quality of the product. Given that most large transactions involve government or private organizations that can only operate through agents, the loss of price and quality competition resulting from commercial bribery imposes a significant toll on consumer welfare.

It is readily seen that the practice comes within the definition of unfair methods of competition as stated by the Supreme Court, It is characterized by deceit and fraud, is opposed to good morals, egad is against public policy.

In addition to the immorality of the practice because of fraud and betrayal of trust, commercial bribery is unfair to competitors and against the interest of the consumer. It eliminates competition based on quality and service, and provides only competition for the good will of the agent or employee who is bribed. This leads inevitably to increase in price or deterioration in quality or both. For this the consumer must suffer.

When bribery attracts trade by the fraud it perpetrates, the trade is diverted from honest and upright competitors. In order to meet this unlawful competition the honest merchant must suffer loss in price, reduce the quality of his goods, or himself become dishonest Prom the time of its creation the Federal Trade Commission has recognized commercial bribery as an unfair method of competition.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Friday, September 18, 2020
 
Six indicted in connection with multi-million dollar scheme to bribe Amazon employees and contractors

Consultants to Amazon Marketplace merchants paid over $100,000 in bribes to secure an unfair competitive advantage worth more than $100 millionSeattle - Six people have been indicted by a Grand Jury in the Western District of Washington with conspiring to pay over $100,000 in commercial bribes to Amazon employees and contractors, in exchange for an unfair competitive advantage on the Amazon Marketplace, announced U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran.  EPHRAIM ROSENBERG, 45, of Brooklyn, New York; JOSEPH NILSEN, 31, and KRISTEN LECCESE, 32, of New York, New York; HADIS NUHANOVIC, 30, of Acworth, Georgia; ROHIT KADIMISETTY, 27, of Northridge, California; and NISHAD KUNJU, 31, of Hyderabad, India, are charged with conspiracy to use a communication facility to commit commercial bribery, conspiracy to access a protected computer without authorization, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud.  The defendants will make their initial appearances in U.S. District Court in Seattle on October 15, 2020.

“As the world moves increasingly to online commerce, we must ensure that the marketplace is not corrupted with unfair advantages obtained by bribes and kick‑backs,” said U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran.  “The ultimate victim from this criminal conduct is the buying public who get inferior or even dangerous goods that should have been removed from the marketplace.  I commend the investigators and cybersecurity experts who have worked to identify and indict those engaged in these illegal schemes.”

“Realizing they could not compete on a level playing field, the subjects turned to bribery and fraud in order to gain the upper hand.  What's equally concerning, not only did they attempt to increase sales of their own products, but sought to damage and discredit their competitors,” said Raymond Duda, Special agent in charge, FBI Seattle.  “This indictment should send a message that the FBI will not sit on the sidelines while criminals try to cheat their way to the top.”

According to the Indictment, since at least 2017, the defendants have used bribery and fraud to benefit merchant accounts on the Amazon Marketplace, resulting in more than $100 million of competitive benefits to those accounts, harm to competitors, and harm to consumers.  More specifically, the Indictment alleges that the defendants served as consultants to so-called third-party (“3P”) sellers on the Amazon Marketplace.  Those 3P sellers consisted of individuals and entities who sold a wide range of goods, including household goods, consumer electronics, and dietary supplements on Amazon’s multi-billion-dollar electronic commerce platform.  In addition to providing consulting services to these 3P sellers, some of the defendants, including NILSEN, LECCESE, and NUHANOVIC, made their own sales on the Amazon Marketplace through 3P accounts they operated. 

In the course of the conspiracy described in the Indictment, the defendants paid bribes to at least ten different Amazon employees and contractors, including KUNJU, who accepted bribes as a seller-support associate in Hyderabad, India, before becoming an outside consultant who recruited and paid bribes to his former colleagues.  In exchange for those bribes, the corrupted employees and contractors took the following illicit steps:

• Reinstating suspended merchant accounts and product listings on the Amazon Marketplace:  The corrupted employees and contractors helped reinstate products and merchant accounts that Amazon had suspended or blocked entirely from doing business on the Amazon Marketplace.  The fraudulently reinstated products included dietary supplements that had been suspended because of customer-safety complaints, household electronics that had been flagged as flammable, consumer goods that had been flagged for intellectual-property violations, and other goods.  The fraudulently reinstated accounts included accounts that Amazon had suspended for manipulating product reviews to deceive consumers, making improper contact with consumers, and other violations of Amazon’s seller policies and codes of conduct.  The Indictment describes a variety of ways in which corrupted employees and contractors misused their positions to reinstate these accounts, including by manually reinstating product listings, and approving baseless and fraudulent merchant appeals that they themselves helped draft.  In total, after their fraudulent reinstatement, the products and merchants earned in excess of $100 million in sales revenue.
• Facilitating attacks against competitors:  The corrupted employees and contractors facilitated attacks against competitors’ 3P accounts and product listings, by (a) sharing competitive intelligence about competitors’ revenues, customers, advertising campaigns, and suppliers; (b) using their inside access to Amazon’s network to suspend competitors’ 3P accounts; and (c) providing consultants with information about Amazon’s internal algorithms, which allowed the consultants to flood competitors’ product listings with fictitious negative product reviews. 
• Misappropriating Amazon’s highly confidential business information:  The corrupted employees and contractors also provided consultants and 3P sellers with unauthorized access to Amazon’s highly confidential standard operating procedures and algorithms.  These materials provided an obvious, unfair, competitive benefit to 3P sellers, by giving them coveted insight into the systems that power Amazon’s search engine, Amazon’s product reviews, and Amazon’s enforcement processes.  The misappropriated data also included the contact information for Amazon employees and consumers, which the members of the conspiracy misused and shared widely.
• Circumventing Amazon’s internal limits on 3P accounts:  The corrupted employees and contractors conveyed exclusive benefits that circumvented Amazon’s rules and regulations.  In exchange for bribes, they increased 3P sellers’ storage limits in Amazon’s warehouses, facilitated 3P sellers’ otherwise meritless requests to sell products in restricted categories, and provided 3P sellers with inside knowledge about the most successful advertising campaigns and most profitable product listings.
• Conspiracy to use a communication facility in furtherance of commercial bribery, and to gain unauthorized access to a protected computer is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. 

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud, are punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), with assistance from the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations, and the Department of Justice Office of International Affairs.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Siddharth Velamoor and Steven Masada. 

Unethical Practices - Inside the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the Bureau of Consumer Protection, which is designed to protect consumers from deceptive or unfair business practices. It provides free information to consumers and investigates alleged violations of federal laws or FTC regulations. The Bureau of Consumer Protection also can bring enforcement actions in federal court. It focuses on protecting the privacy of consumers, fighting identity theft,  regulating advertising and marketing practices, regulating business practices in the financial industry, and protecting Americans from telemarketing fraud. (In this last area, the Bureau of Consumer Protection operates the United States Do Not Call Registry.)

The other components of the FTC are the Bureau of Competition and the Bureau of Economics. The Bureau of Competition focuses on enforcing antitrust laws and other measures designed to protect competition in the market. It often investigates mergers and agreements between direct competitors in an industry. Meanwhile, experts in the Bureau of Economics assist the other two bureaus by analyzing the economic effects of their actions.

Deceptive Practices Affecting Consumers
The FTC has the authority to investigate and prevent deceptive acts by businesses toward consumers. This is considered separate from its authority to prevent unfair acts by businesses toward consumers and unfair methods of competition between businesses. The basis for its authority appears in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Deception cases involve a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead a consumer. In other words, the business may have actively done something to obscure the truth surrounding its products or services. Or it may have failed to disclose something regarding its products or services that a reasonable consumer would expect to be disclosed. Any allegation of a deceptive practice thus is considered from an objective perspective, rather than the subjective perspective of the person reporting the practice. Also, the representation, omission, or practice must be material. This means that it must be something that would be reasonably expected to affect a consumer’s behavior, most likely inducing a consumer to buy the product or service.

Unfair Practices Affecting Consumers
While the FTC has explicitly defined its standards for determining whether a practice is deceptive, it has left the question of whether a practice is unfair to be interpreted by courts. In response, courts have developed a three-factor test to identify an unfair practice. They will consider whether the practice is unethical or unscrupulous, whether it violates public policy, and whether it actually causes harm to consumers.

Sexual Harassment - Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

• The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
• The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
• The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
• Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
• The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.

It is helpful for the victim to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The victim should use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available.

When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis.

Prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. They should clearly communicate to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. They can do so by providing sexual harassment training to their employees and by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on sex or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

Retaliation - Retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases. As EEOC works to address this issue, you can help.Learn more about what constitutes retaliation, why it happens, and how to prevent it.

The EEO laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment.  Asserting these EEO rights is called "protected activity," and it can take many forms.  For example, it is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for:

• filing or being a witness in an EEO charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit
• communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment
• answering questions during an employer investigation of alleged harassment
• refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination
• resisting sexual advances, or intervening to protect others
• requesting accommodation of a disability or for a religious practice
• asking managers or co-workers about salary information to uncover potentially discriminatory wages.

Participating in a complaint process is protected from retaliation under all circumstances. Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws, even if he or she did not use legal terminology to describe it.

Engaging in EEO activity, however, does not shield an employee from all discipline or discharge. Employers are free to discipline or terminate workers if motivated by non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons that would otherwise result in such consequences.  However, an employer is not allowed to do anything in response to EEO activity that would discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future discrimination.

For example, depending on the facts, it could be retaliation if an employer acts because of the employee's EEO activity to:

• reprimand the employee or give a performance evaluation that is lower than it should be;
• transfer the employee to a less desirable position;
• engage in verbal or physical abuse;
• threaten to make, or actually make reports to authorities (such as reporting immigration status or contacting the police);
• increase scrutiny;
• spread false rumors, treat a family member negatively (for example, cancel a contract with the person's spouse); or
• make the person's work more difficult (for example, punishing an employee for an EEO complaint by purposefully changing his work schedule to conflict with family responsibilities).

Racism aka Racial Discrimination - Racial discrimination occurs when an individual is subjected to unequal treatment because of their actual or perceived race. The U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 work in concert to ensure that each resident’s rights and standing under the law are not damaged by their race. However, it's important to remember that slavery was a major driver of the U.S. economy when the Constitution was first ratified, so racism has long played a major (if dubious) role in American culture and on unlawful racial discrimination in a number of settings, including employment, housing, education, and other public resources.

There are a number of federal laws to protect individuals from being discriminated against based on their race. They include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and there are a number of landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases dealing with racial discrimination, including Korematsu v. U.S., Shelley v. Kraemer, Brown v. Board of Education, and more. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was created to promote equal access to housing opportunities. 

Racism is a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race and the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

Race, among other attributes, refers to the categories into which society places individuals on the basis of physical characteristics (such as skin color, hair type, facial form and eye shape). Though many believe that race is determined by biology, it is now widely accepted that this classification system was in fact created for social and political reasons. There are actually more genetic and biological differences within the racial groups defined by society than between different groups.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Title VII protection covers the full spectrum of employment decisions, including recruitment, selections, terminations, and other decisions concerning terms and conditions of employment.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women from sex-based wage discrimination in the payment of wages or benefits, who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, protects persons 40 years of age or older from age-based employment discrimination. The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act amends several sections of the ADEA and establishes conditions for a waiver of ADEA protections. 

Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on disability. This law covers qualified employees and job applicants with disabilities. It also requires Federal agencies to make reasonable accommodation of any known disabilities unless such accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 amends several sections of Title VII to strengthen and improve Federal civil rights laws and provide for the recovery of compensatory damages in Federal sector cases of intentional employment discrimination.

Additional information about unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory practices and the remedies is available to Federal employees and applicants who believe they have been subjected to such practices.

Racist Graffiti - Workers Say Amazon Not Doing Enough After Racist Graffiti Found At Inland Empire Warehouse

EASTVALE (CBSLA) June 22, 2020 — Some Amazon employees are saying the company is not doing enough after racist and violent graffiti was discovered at an Inland Empire warehouse.

“It was really, it was really disgusting,” Johnnie Corina III, a warehouse worker, said.

Corina said he found the graffiti written and etched in his workplace restroom at the Amazon facility in Eastvale.
“So, it basically said, ‘Why are these N-words here? I wish they would go back to Africa. If I was an N-word, I’d kill myself,'” he said.

According to Corina, the graffiti began in late November and happened again in December. He said the graffiti escalated earlier this month.

“Right after George Floyd happened, and everything going on in the world, they tag ‘white power, N-word with the K behind it,'” he said.

Corina said Amazon cleaned up the graffiti but did nothing to address the issue, so he filed a formal complaint.
Meanwhile, another employee posted a picture of one of the racist remarks on Twitter and tagged Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive officer. That’s when civil rights attorney Stephen King said Amazon fired his client, an employee named Donald Archie.

King said Archie did not post nor take the photo.

“Donald Archie was one of the initiating individuals who decided that a picture should be taken, really to preserve it, so that some sort of cultural sensitivity training, something could be done,” King said. “But, because he prompted that, he basically became the fall guy.”

King, who now represents Corina and Archie, said neither employee believes an investigation into who was actually responsible for the graffiti was never initiated.

“So we are going to be seeking damages, but, most of all, what we want is we want Amazon to address its policies,” King said. “I mean, the timing is right, and Amazon should do the right thing.

“We want change,” he continued. We want Black people to feel safe in the workplace.”

In response to the graffiti, Amazon sent a statement that said:

“Amazon has zero tolerance for any behavior deemed hateful, racist, or discriminatory. We take this matter seriously and are actively investigating the situation.”

Corina said he hopes to see a change in the culture at Amazon.

“I want to see something that’s going to be impactful to where people don’t feel OK with their conscious or unconscious bias that they have towards blacks in there right now,” he said.

Unsafe Working Conditions - Under federal and state laws, employers must provide a safe workplace. If unsafe working conditions are present, a worker may report the violation to the employer, to the federal and/or state Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and in some cases, the worker may refuse to work. The following is a summary of OSHA protection and guidelines for dealing with dangerous conditions in the workplace.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act is a federal statute that requires employers to maintain a workplace that is free of dangerous health and safety conditions that can cause illness, injury, or death. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, also referred to as OSHA, enforces the act and establishes safety standards. OSHA applies to private employers that conduct business through interstate commerce. This includes doing business via the U.S. Postal Service or through telephone calls to other states.

The intent of OSHA is to protect workers (excluding independent contractors) from:

• One-time injuries;
• Illnesses caused by unsafe health conditions in the workplace; and
• Recognized hazards that may cause death or serious injury.

To protect workers from unsafe working conditions, employers must abide by workplace safety standards. Employers must:

• Provide a workplace free of health and safety hazards that can cause death or serious injury;
• Post a OSHA job safety notice in the workplace;
• Keep a record of injuries, deaths, and exposure to hazardous material; and
• Provide safety training if necessary.

Safety standards set by OSHA include provisions for the storage of hazardous chemicals, equipment maintenance, fire protection, and protective clothing.

What to Do When a Safety Hazard Poses an Imminent Danger

When unsafe working conditions place the life of a worker in imminent danger, the worker should report the dangerous condition to OSHA. The worker also has the right to refuse to work if:

• There is a reasonable and good faith belief that a condition in the workplace poses an immediate and substantial risk of serious physical injury or death;
• The employer will not fix the dangerous condition;
• The immediacy of the danger does not allow enough time to report the condition to OSHA or the appropriate state agency; and
• The worker did not have a reasonable alternative.

The worker can refuse to return to work until the employer eliminates the danger or investigates and determines that no imminent danger exists.

What to Do When a Safety Hazard Does Not Pose an Imminent Danger

If a dangerous condition does not create the risk of imminent danger, the employee should inform the employer of the problem in writing. If the employer fails to correct the condition, the worker can file a complaint with OSHA or with the appropriate state occupational safety agency.

OSHA regulations and many state laws prohibit an employer from retaliating against a worker that reports a violation. This means the employer may not fire, demote, or reduce a worker's pay because the worker filed a complaint about unsafe working conditions. A determination of employer retaliation by OSHA can result in the reinstatement of the worker to their former position and an order for compensation for lost wages.

Trademarks - A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. A service mark is a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than goods. Some examples include brand names, slogans, and logos. The term "trademark" is often used in a general sense to refer to both trademarks and service marks.  

Unlike patents and copyrights, trademarks do not expire after a set term of years. Trademark rights come from actual “use”. Therefore, a trademark can last forever - so long as you continue to use the mark in commerce to indicate the source of goods and services. A trademark registration can also last forever - so long as you file specific documents and pay fees at regular intervals.

Must all trademarks be registered? No, registration is not mandatory. You can establish “common law” rights in a mark based solely on use of the mark in commerce, without a registration. However, federal registration of a trademark with the USPTO has several advantages, including a notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark, a legal presumption of ownership nationwide, and the exclusive right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods or services set forth in the registration. For more information about “common law” trademark rights and the advantages of federal registration see the Basic Facts About Trademarks booklet.

Each time you use your mark, it is best to use a designation with it.  If registered with the USPTO, use the ® symbol after your mark. If not yet registered, you may use TM for goods or SM for services, to indicate that you have adopted this as a “common law” trademark or service mark.

NOTE: Use of a business name does not necessarily qualify as trademark use, though other use of a business name as the source of goods or services may qualify it as both a business name and a trademark. Many states and local jurisdictions register business names, either as part of obtaining a certificate to do business or as an assumed name filing. For example, in a state where you will be doing business, you might file documents (typically with a state corporation commission or state division of corporations) to form a business entity, such as a corporation or limited liability company. You would select a name for your entity, for example, XYZ, Inc. If no other company has already applied for that exact name in that state and you comply with all other requirements, the state likely would issue you a certificate and authorize you to do business under that name. However, a state’s authorization to form a business with a particular name does not also give you trademark rights and other parties could later try to prevent your use of the business name if they believe a likelihood of confusion exists with their trademarks.

Shareholders - A shareholder (also known as stockholder) is an individual or institution (including a corporation) that legally owns one or more shares of stock in a public or private corporation. Shareholders may be referred to as members of a corporation. By law, a person is not a shareholder in a corporation until their name and other details are entered in the corporation's register of shareholders or members.

The influence of a shareholder on the business is determined by the shareholding percentage owned. Shareholders of a corporation are legally separate from the corporation itself. They are generally not liable for the debts of the corporation and the shareholders' liability for company debts are said to be limited to the unpaid share price unless if a shareholder has offered guarantees. The corporation is not required to record the beneficial ownership of a shareholding, only the owner as recorded on the register. When more than one person are on the record as owners of a shareholding, the first one on the record is taken to have control of the shareholding, and all correspondence and communication by the company will be with that person.

Shareholders may have acquired their shares in the primary market by subscribing to the IPO's and thus provided capital to the corporation. However, most shareholders acquire shares in the secondary market and provided no capital directly to the corporation. Shareholders may be granted special privileges depending on a share class. The board of directors of a corporation generally governs a corporation for the benefit of shareholders.

Shareholders are considered by some to be a subset of stakeholders, which may include anyone who has a direct or indirect interest in the business entity. For example, employees, suppliers, customers, the community, etc., are typically considered stakeholders because they contribute value or are impacted by the corporation.

Principles - Principles are a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. A principle is a proposition or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation. In law, it is a rule that has to be or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose, and the effective operation or use of which would be impossible if any one of the principles was to be ignored. In common English, it is a substantive and collective term referring to rule governance, the absence of which, being "unprincipled", is considered a character defect. It may also be used to declare that a reality has diverged from some ideal or norm as when something is said to be true only "in principle" but not in fact. A principle represents values that orient and rule the conduct of persons in a particular society. To "act on principle" is to act in accordance with one's moral ideals. Principles are absorbed in childhood through a process of socialization. There is a presumption of liberty of individuals that is restrained, do no harm.

Philanthropy - Philanthropy is an active effort or gift done or made for humanitarian purposes and means literally "love of mankind". Thus, philanthropy is giving money for a purpose or cause benefiting people who you don't personally know. (Animals are usually included as well.) Individuals have often set up their own permanent philanthropic organizations in the form of foundations. The greatest American philanthropists have included Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller for example, but tens of millions of us could be considered philanthropists on a much smaller scale.

Facial Recognition - Facial recognition is a method of identifying or verifying the identity of an individual using their face. Facial recognition systems can be used to identify people in photos, video, or in real-time. Law enforcement may also use mobile devices to identify people during police stops. 

But facial recognition data can be prone to error, which can implicate people for crimes they haven’t committed. Facial recognition software is particularly bad at recognizing African Americans and other ethnic minorities, women, and young people, often misidentifying or failing to identify them, disparately impacting certain groups.

Additionally, facial recognition has been used to target people engaging in protected speech. In the near future, facial recognition technology will likely become more ubiquitous. It may be used to track individuals’ movements out in the world like automated license plate readers track vehicles by plate numbers. Real-time facial recognition is already being used in other countries and even at sporting events in the United States. 

Social Justice - Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth. Social justice can also be defined as a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society as a whole and is a political and philosophical theory which asserts that there are dimensions to the concept of justice beyond those embodied in the principles of civil or criminal law, economic supply and demand, or traditional moral frameworks. Social justice tends to focus more on just relations between groups within society as opposed to the justice of individual conduct or justice for individuals.

While formal definitions for social justice vary in wording, there are commonalities among them.

1. Equal rights
2. Equal opportunity
3. Equal treatment

Sexism - Sexism, prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls. Although its origin is unclear, the term sexism emerged from the “second-wave” feminism of the 1960s through the ’80s and was most likely modeled on the civil rights movement's term racism (prejudice or discrimination based on race). Sexism can be a belief that one sex is superior to or more valuable than another sex. It imposes limits on what men and boys can and should do and what women and girls can and should do. The concept of sexism was originally formulated to raise consciousness about the oppression of girls and women, although by the early 21st century it had sometimes been expanded to include the oppression of any sex, including men and boys, intersexual people, and transgender people.

Climate Change - “Climate change” and “global warming” are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings. Similarly, the terms "weather" and "climate" are sometimes confused, though they refer to events with broadly different spatial- and timescales.

Weather refers to atmospheric conditions that occur locally over short periods of time—from minutes to hours or days. Familiar examples include rain, snow, clouds, winds, floods or thunderstorms.

Climate, on the other hand, refers to the long-term regional or even global average of temperature, humidity and rainfall patterns over seasons, years or decades.

Global warming is the long-term heating of Earth’s climate system observed since the pre-industrial period (between 1850 and 1900) due to human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere. The term is frequently used interchangeably with the term climate change, though the latter refers to both human- and naturally produced warming and the effects it has on our planet. It is most commonly measured as the average increase in Earth’s global surface temperature.

Since the pre-industrial period, human activities are estimated to have increased Earth’s global average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), a number that is currently increasing by 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade. Most of the current warming trend is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) the result of human activity since the 1950s and is proceeding at an unprecedented rate over decades to millennia.

Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates. These changes have a broad range of observed effects that are synonymous with the term.

Changes observed in Earth’s climate since the early 20th century are primarily driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere, raising Earth’s average surface temperature. These human-produced temperature increases are commonly referred to as global warming. Natural processes can also contribute to climate change, including internal variability (e.g., cyclical ocean patterns like El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and external forcings (e.g., volcanic activity, changes in the Sun’s energy output, variations in Earth’s orbit).

Scientists use observations from the ground, air and space, along with theoretical models, to monitor and study past, present and future climate change. Climate data records provide evidence of climate change key indicators, such as global land and ocean temperature increases; rising sea levels; ice loss at Earth’s poles and in mountain glaciers; frequency and severity changes in extreme weather such as hurricanes, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods and precipitation; and cloud and vegetation cover changes, to name but a few.

Climate Justice - It begins with the idea that the adverse impacts of a warming climate are not felt equitably among people. Climate change, an inherently social issue, can upset anyone’s daily life in countless ways. But not all climate impacts are created equal, or distributed equally. From extreme weather to rising sea levels, the effects of climate change often have disproportionate effects on historically marginalized or underserved communities. Climate justice is a term used to frame global warming as an ethical and political issue, rather than one that is purely environmental or physical in nature. This is done by relating the effects of climate change to concepts of justice, particularly environmental justice and social justice and by examining issues such as equality, human rights, collective rights, and the historical responsibilities for climate change. An important concern related to climate justice is that those who are least responsible for climate change suffer its gravest consequences.  

The term climate justice is also used to mean actual legal action on climate change issues. In 2017, a report of the United Nations Environment Programme identified 894 ongoing legal actions worldwide.

In 2000, at the same time as the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6), the first Climate Justice Summit took place in The Hague. This summit aimed to "affirm that climate change is a rights issue" and to "build alliances across states and borders" against climate change and in favor of sustainable development.

Subsequently, in August–September 2002, international environmental groups met in Johannesburg for the Earth Summit. At this summit, also known as Rio+10, as it took place ten years after the 1992 Earth Summit, the Bali Principles of Climate Justice were adopted.

 Climate Justice affirms the rights of communities dependent on natural resources for their livelihood and cultures to own and manage the same in a sustainable manner, and is opposed to the commodification of nature and its resources.

Bali Principles of Climate Justice, article 18, August 29, 2002

In 2004, the Durban Group for Climate Justice was formed at an international meeting in Durban, South Africa. Here representatives from NGOs and peoples' movements discussed realistic policies for addressing climate change.  

At the 2007 Bali Conference, the global coalition Climate Justice Now! was founded, and, in 2008, the Global Humanitarian Forum focused on climate justice at its inaugural meeting in Geneva.

In 2009, the Climate Justice Action Network was formed during the run-up to the Copenhagen Summit. It proposed civil disobedience and direct action during the summit, and many climate activists used the slogan 'system change not climate change'.

In April 2010, the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth took place in Tiquipaya, Bolivia. It was hosted by the government of Bolivia as a global gathering of civil society and governments. The conference published a "People's Agreement" calling, among other things, for greater climate justice.  

In December 2018, the People’s Demands for Climate Justice, signed by 292,000 individuals and 366 organisations, called upon government delegates at COP24 comply with a list of six climate justice demands.

Earth Pledge - A solemn oath and/or promise to protect our fragile planet for generations to come.

Climate Action - Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries

Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.

Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible.

Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities.

Aerospace - Aerospace is the human effort in science, engineering, and business to fly in the atmosphere of Earth and surrounding space. Aerospace organizations research, design, manufacture, operate, or maintain aircraft or spacecraft.

Modern aerospace began with Engineer George Cayley in 1799. Cayley proposed an aircraft with a "fixed wing and a horizontal and vertical tail," defining characteristics of the modern airplane.

The 19th century saw the creation of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain (1866), the American Rocketry Society, and the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences, all of which made aeronautics a more serious scientific discipline. Airmen like Otto Lilienthal, who introduced cambered airfoils in 1891, used gliders to analyze aerodynamic forces. The Wright brothers were interested in Lilienthal's work and read several of his publications.They also found inspiration in Octave Chanute, an airman and the author of Progress in Flying Machines (1894). It was the preliminary work of Cayley, Lilienthal, Chanute, and other early aerospace engineers that brought about the first powered sustained flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina on December 17, 1903, by the Wright brothers.

War and science fiction inspired scientists and engineers like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Wernher von Braun to achieve flight beyond the atmosphere. World War II inspired Wernher von Braun to create the V1 and V2 rockets.

The launch of Sputnik 1 in October 1957 started the Space Age, and on July 20, 1969 Apollo 11 achieved the first manned moon landing. In April 1981, the Space Shuttle Columbia launched, the start of regular manned access to orbital space. A sustained human presence in orbital space started with "Mir" in 1986 and is continued by the "International Space Station".  Space commercialization and space tourism are more recent features of aerospace.

Along with these public space programs, many companies produce technical tools and components such as spaceships and satellites. Some known companies involved in space programs include Boeing, Cobham, Airbus, SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, MacDonald Dettwiler and Northrop Grumman. These companies are also involved in other areas of aerospace, such as the construction of aircraft.

Space Force - The U.S. Space Force is the 6th independent U.S. military service branch, tasked with missions and operations in the rapidly evolving space domain. As of June 2020, its headquarters has yet to be announced.

Space Force was signed into law Dec. 20, 2019 as part of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. SpaceForce.mil went live shortly thereafter.

On June 18, 2018, President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon to begin planning for a Space Force. The U.S. Space Force would be the first new military service in more than 70 years, following the establishment of the U.S. Air Force in 1947.

Vice President Mike Pence and the Department of Defense released more details about the planned force on Aug. 9, 2018, citing plans to create a separate combatant command, U.S. Space Command, in addition to an independent service overseen by a civilian secretary, all by 2020.

The Department of Defense forwarded a Space Force proposal to Congress, on March 1, 2019, calling for a service that would fall under the Air Force in the same way the Marine Corps falls under the Department of the Navy. The proposal also included the designation of a new position: undersecretary of the Air Force for space, a civilian position that would answer to the secretary of the Air Force and oversee U.S. Space Force. Officials estimated the creation of a new service would cost $2 billion over five years, and require 15,000 personnel.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the Pentagon activated U.S. Space Command, a new U.S. combatant command led by Air Force Gen. John "Jay" Raymond, intended to serve as a precursor to U.S. Space Force. The Pentagon had a U.S. Space Command from 1985 to 2002, but it had a far more limited scope and was not a geographic combatant command. 

Politics - Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The academic study of politics is referred to as political science.

It may be used positively in the context of a "political solution" which is compromising and non-violent, or descriptively as "the art or science of government", but also often carries a negative connotation. For example, abolitionist Wendell Phillips declared that "we do not play politics; anti-slavery is no half-jest with us. "The concept has been defined in various ways, and different approaches have fundamentally differing views on whether it should be used extensively or limitedly, empirically or normatively, and on whether conflict or co-operation is more essential to it.

A variety of methods are deployed in politics, which include promoting one's own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries. Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels, from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to the international level. In modern nation states, people often form political parties to represent their ideas. Members of a party often agree to take the same position on many issues and agree to support the same changes to law and the same leaders. An election is usually a competition between different parties.

A political system is a framework which defines acceptable political methods within a society. The history of political thought can be traced back to early antiquity, with seminal works such as Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Chanakya's Arthashastra and Chanakya Niti (3rd century BCE), as well as the works of Confucius.

Politics comprises all the activities of co-operation, negotiation and conflict within and between societies, whereby people go about organizing the use, production or distribution of human, natural and other resources in the course of the production and reproduction of their biological and social life.

Connections - A connection is a relationship between two things, people, or groups and something is linked with another or associated with another or that there is a relationship between two or more things. There are literraly a multitude of types and styles of connections.

Invests - Investing is the act of allocating resources, usually money, with the expectation of generating an income or profit. You can invest in endeavors, such as using money to start a business, or in assets, such as purchasing real estate in hopes of reselling it later at a higher price.

The expectation of a return in the form of income or price appreciation with statiscical significance is the core premise of investing. The spectrum of assets in which one can invest and earn a return is a very wide one. Risk and return go hand-in-hand in investing; low risk generally means low expected returns, while higher returns are usually accompanied by higher risk. At the low-risk end of the spectrum are basic investments such as Certificates of Deposit; bonds or fixed-income instruments are higher up on the risk scale, while stocks or equities are regarded as riskier still, with commodities and derivatives generally considered to be among the riskiest investments. One can also invest in something as mundane as land or real estate, while those with a taste for the esoteric - and deep pockets - could invest in fine art and antiques.

Risk and return expectations can vary widely within the same asset class. For example, a blue chip that trades on the New York Stock Exchange will have a very different risk-return profile from a micro-cap that trades on a small exchange.

The returns generated by an asset depend on the type of asset. For instance, many stocks pay quarterly dividends, bonds generally pay interest every quarter, and real estate provides rental income. In many jurisdictions, different types of income are taxed at different rates.

In addition to regular income such as a dividend or interest, price appreciation is an important component of return. Total return from an investment can thus be regarded as the sum of income and capital appreciation. As of March 2019, Standard & Poor's estimates that since 1926, dividends have contributed nearly a third of total equity return while capital gains have contributed two-thirds.

Types of investments

While the universe of investments is a vast one, here are the most common types of investments:

Stocks - A buyer of a company's stock becomes a fractional owner of that company. Owners of a company's stock are known as its shareholders, and can participate in its growth and success through appreciation in the stock price and regular dividends paid out of the company's profits.

Bonds - Bonds are debt obligations of entities such as governments, municipalities and corporations. Buying a bond implies that you hold a share of an entity's debt, and are entitled to receive periodic interest payments and the return of the bond's face value when it matures.

Funds - Funds are pooled instruments managed by investment managers that enable investors to invest in stocks, bonds, preferred shares, commodities etc. The two most common types of funds are mutual funds and exchange-traded funds or ETFs. Mutual funds do not trade on an exchange and are valued at the end of the trading day; ETFs trade on stock exchanges and like stocks, are valued constantly throughout the trading day. Mutual funds and ETFs can either passively track indices such as the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or can be actively managed by fund managers.

Investment trusts - Trusts are another type of pooled investment, with Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) the most popular in this category. REITs invest in commercial or residential properties and pay regular distributions to their investors from the rental income received from these properties. REITs trade on stock exchanges and thus offer their investors the advantage of instant liquidity.

Alternative Investments - This is a catch-all category that includes hedge funds and private equity. Hedge funds are so called because they can hedge their investment bets by going long and short stocks and other investments. Private equity enables companies to raise capital without going public. Hedge funds and private equity were typically only available to affluent investors deemed "accredited investors" who met certain income and net worth requirements. However, in recent years, alternative investments have been introduced in fund formats that are accessible to retail investors.

Options and Derivatives - Derivatives are financial instruments that derive their value from another instrument such as a stock or index. An option is a popular derivative that gives the buyer the right but not the obligation to buy or sell a security at a fixed price within a specific time period. Derivatives usually employ leverage, making them a high-risk, high-reward proposition.

Commodities - Commodities include metals, oil, grain and animal products, as well as financial instruments and currencies. They can either be traded through commodity futures - which are agreements to buy or sell a specific quantity of a commodity at a specified price on a particular future date - or ETFs. Commodities can be used for hedging risk or for speculative purposes.

Real Estate - Real estate investing involves the purchase, ownership, management, rental and/or sale of real estate for profit. Improvement of realty property as part of a real estate investment strategy is generally considered to be a sub-specialty of real estate investing called real estate developement. Real estate is an asset form with limited liquidity relative to other investments, it is also capital intensive (although capital may be gained through mortgage leverage) and is highly cash flow dependent. If these factors are not well understood and managed by the investor, real estate becomes a risk investment.