> Lots of retailers (both physical & online) have similar requirements

My understanding (IANAL) is that that is illegal, and those retailers should be prosecuted as well. That is essentially price fixing, because the retailer is enforcing their competitors have the same price, using the supplier as an intermediary.

> many manufacturers have similar requirements

That is a different situation, and is AFAICT legal in the US (but not in many other countries, and IMHO probably shouldn't be legal), at least in some situations, but there are limits.

▲

Ferret7446 an hour ago | parent [-]

Is that actually bad for consumers? Wouldn't deranking the "not lowest" price make it easier for customers to find the lowest price (whether that is a different product on the same storefront, or the same product on a different storefront), and hence be good for customers?

	▲	gruez an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Wouldn't deranking the "not lowest" price make it easier for customers to find the lowest price The original wording was >Amazon requires that anyone selling through their platform not offer lower prices elsewhere online. which means if the seller offers to sell something on amazon for $x, but has a shopify site selling it for < $x, then that seller will get deranked. That's not the same thing as the lowest price, because it's possible that other sellers sell for higher prices, and some people might not find whatever obscure shopify site that has the lowest price. The wording is admittedly ambiguous, but the fact that there are totally overpriced items available on amazon suggests amazon isn't deranking people just because it's not the best price on the internet.