The Indian regulators and Amazon appear to have been playingan arms race, but Amazon was the one who was aware of and running the game.
In early 2019, when a senior Amazon.com Inc executive JayCarney was to promote his company to the Indian government, his team has suppliedhim talking points, and more importantly, things not to talk about.
The documents which mentioned these have been arranged byReuters. Now, the things which were not to be disclosed or discussed by Amazon withthe Indian authorities in that meeting are exposing the ‘ends justify the means’approach of the American-based international online marketplace.
In a nutshell, the company has allegedly taken steps at everyturn to favour big sellers at the expense of small businesses, all the whilepromoting an image of being friendly and conducive to small participants.
At the time of the meeting, about 33 Amazon sellersaccounted for a third of the value of the products sold on the website. Thisinformation was specifically marked as not to be discussed or disclosed.
Further, contrary to the company’s emphatic claim that it isan unbiased and equal opportunity provider and never interferes or is astakeholder in any seller, the company is alleged to have stake, albeit indirectly,in two sellers. These two sellers accounted for about 35% of the platform’ssales.
The company is adamant that it has not broken any Indianrule. However, in its disclosure to its investors (as Amazon is a publiclylisted company, thus it has to report any development which may affect thecompany) has claimed that its misunderstanding with the Indian authorities maybe ruled against the company and the possibility of the company having to shutoperations in India is possible.
Amazon responded to Reuters, "treats all sellers in afair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner, with each seller responsiblefor independently determining prices and managing their inventory."