WhatsApp Sucks - Amazon Google Facebook Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy
Google reportedly ran a secret project called “Project Bernanke” that relied on bidding data collected from advertisers using its ad exchange to benefit the company’s own ad system, name of the project was visible in an inadvertently unredacted document Google had filed as part of an antitrust lawsuit in Texas which proved lucrative for Google, generating hundreds of millions of dollars for the company.
The company was able to access historical data about bids made through Google Ads, to change bids by its clients and boost the clients’ chances of winning auctions for ad impressions, putting rival ad tools at a disadvantage. Texas cited in court documents an internal presentation from 2013 in which Google said Project Bernanke would bring in $230 million in revenue for that year.
In a response to the complaint of a group of state attorney generals, Google’s lawyers - Paul Yetter at Yetter Coleman - filed a response, but accidentally forgot to redact critical information. So now we know a few important new details about the Texas adtech case. This case includes an allegation that Google’s large online advertising marketplace - think stock market but instead of stocks they trade ad slots - is riddled with secret rigged auctions.
The redacted details show something called “Project Bernanke,” a scheme engineered by Google in which had one arm of its ad business front-running trades for ad inventory, awarding itself hundreds of millions of dollars a year by giving itself a better position in the auctions. Project Bernanke (cute name guys!) was kept secret from publishers.
In addition, we now know more details about a deal between Google and Facebook to give Facebook some preferred position in those ad auctions, supposedly in return for Facebook not competing with Google in the online advertising auction space. As the Wall Street Journal notes, “The agreement was signed by, among other individuals, Philipp Schindler, Google’s Senior Vice President and Chief Business Officer, and Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer.”
The company was able to access historical data about bids made through Google Ads, to change bids by its clients and boost the clients’ chances of winning auctions for ad impressions, putting rival ad tools at a disadvantage. Texas cited in court documents an internal presentation from 2013 in which Google said Project Bernanke would bring in $230 million in revenue for that year.
In a response to the complaint of a group of state attorney generals, Google’s lawyers - Paul Yetter at Yetter Coleman - filed a response, but accidentally forgot to redact critical information. So now we know a few important new details about the Texas adtech case. This case includes an allegation that Google’s large online advertising marketplace - think stock market but instead of stocks they trade ad slots - is riddled with secret rigged auctions.
The redacted details show something called “Project Bernanke,” a scheme engineered by Google in which had one arm of its ad business front-running trades for ad inventory, awarding itself hundreds of millions of dollars a year by giving itself a better position in the auctions. Project Bernanke (cute name guys!) was kept secret from publishers.
In addition, we now know more details about a deal between Google and Facebook to give Facebook some preferred position in those ad auctions, supposedly in return for Facebook not competing with Google in the online advertising auction space. As the Wall Street Journal notes, “The agreement was signed by, among other individuals, Philipp Schindler, Google’s Senior Vice President and Chief Business Officer, and Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer.”
Facebook Just Gave 2.8 Billion Users A Reason To Quit Their Accounts - Forbes, April 15, 2021
Facebook has had a bad month and, having lost the data of 533 million users, new revelations may just make the social media giant’s 2.8 billion active users think about calling it quits.
The revelations come from two very different sources: a university student and a prominent UK newspaper, but both are likely to significantly undermine trust in the social network.
The first comes from a viral thread posted by student Zamaan Qureshi:
“So I decided to download my Facebook data after learning I was a part of the 533m breach,” he explained. “Clicked on a folder called “your_off_facebook_activity” and was unsurprised to learn that Facebook is following me all over the internet.”
Qureshi attaches a video (below) of what this means, showing hundreds of files recording his browsing activity. This ranges from records of him ordering pizza to university applications and registration to political sites. Moreover, Qureshi explains that this happened after he deleted his “off-Facebook activity” from the site and disabled off-site tracking (two Facebook privacy settings).
Serious Warning Issued For Millions Of WhatsApp Users - Forbes, April 17, 2021
Facebook has its own problems right now, but things just got a lot worse as a serious warning has now been issued for millions of WhatsApp users.
In a new report titled: “How a WhatsApp status loophole is aiding cyberstalkers”, cybersecurity firm Traced has revealed flaws in WhatsApp security are creating a growth industry in tracking and stalking the app’s users. Moreover, there’s nothing you can do about it.
“When someone comes online in WhatsApp (that is, they open the app or bring it to the foreground), an indicator changes, setting their status to ‘Online’”, Traced explains. “This indicator is public information, and can be used by anyone to build a service that watches out for this online status indicator.”
While Traced redacted the names of the services exploiting this (and I have respected this), it did publish some chilling examples of what they promise:
“Tracker1‘s own marketing on their website: ‘If you suspect a cheating spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend… [Tracker1]’s WhatsApp last seen tracker online can help you to confirm whether or not your suspicions are really true.”
Facebook has had a bad month and, having lost the data of 533 million users, new revelations may just make the social media giant’s 2.8 billion active users think about calling it quits.
The revelations come from two very different sources: a university student and a prominent UK newspaper, but both are likely to significantly undermine trust in the social network.
The first comes from a viral thread posted by student Zamaan Qureshi:
“So I decided to download my Facebook data after learning I was a part of the 533m breach,” he explained. “Clicked on a folder called “your_off_facebook_activity” and was unsurprised to learn that Facebook is following me all over the internet.”
Qureshi attaches a video (below) of what this means, showing hundreds of files recording his browsing activity. This ranges from records of him ordering pizza to university applications and registration to political sites. Moreover, Qureshi explains that this happened after he deleted his “off-Facebook activity” from the site and disabled off-site tracking (two Facebook privacy settings).
Serious Warning Issued For Millions Of WhatsApp Users - Forbes, April 17, 2021
Facebook has its own problems right now, but things just got a lot worse as a serious warning has now been issued for millions of WhatsApp users.
In a new report titled: “How a WhatsApp status loophole is aiding cyberstalkers”, cybersecurity firm Traced has revealed flaws in WhatsApp security are creating a growth industry in tracking and stalking the app’s users. Moreover, there’s nothing you can do about it.
“When someone comes online in WhatsApp (that is, they open the app or bring it to the foreground), an indicator changes, setting their status to ‘Online’”, Traced explains. “This indicator is public information, and can be used by anyone to build a service that watches out for this online status indicator.”
While Traced redacted the names of the services exploiting this (and I have respected this), it did publish some chilling examples of what they promise:
“Tracker1‘s own marketing on their website: ‘If you suspect a cheating spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend… [Tracker1]’s WhatsApp last seen tracker online can help you to confirm whether or not your suspicions are really true.”
Keller Lenkner lawfirm represents the State of Texas in its antitrust case against Google. According to the complaint, Google entered into an unlawful agreement with rival Facebook to maintain control of the marketplace for header bidding. This level of collusion severely violates federal antitrust laws.
According to an article from WIRED, here’s why it matters. Google’s “unlawful agreement” with Facebook gave it “special privileges in exchange for promising not to support a competing ad system. It’s just one of many claims made in a case that takes broad aim at Google’s monopoly over the online advertising ecosystem, but it could very well be the most consequential. The case is a civil suit, and it names only Google as a defendant. But if what Texas is alleging is true, then both companies may have violated federal antitrust law—and committed felonies in the process.”
“The other antitrust cases filed against Google and Facebook this year—by the Justice Department for Google and the Federal Trade Commission and state AGs for Facebook—are based on Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which is about building a monopoly. In a Section 2 case, it isn’t enough to show that a company dominates a market; the government must also prove that it got to the top by using anticompetitive tactics rather than by just being the best. The alleged conspiracy between Google and Facebook is different. It falls under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which makes it illegal for two or more companies to make any contract or agreement ‘in restraint of trade.’ “
According to an article from WIRED, here’s why it matters. Google’s “unlawful agreement” with Facebook gave it “special privileges in exchange for promising not to support a competing ad system. It’s just one of many claims made in a case that takes broad aim at Google’s monopoly over the online advertising ecosystem, but it could very well be the most consequential. The case is a civil suit, and it names only Google as a defendant. But if what Texas is alleging is true, then both companies may have violated federal antitrust law—and committed felonies in the process.”
“The other antitrust cases filed against Google and Facebook this year—by the Justice Department for Google and the Federal Trade Commission and state AGs for Facebook—are based on Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which is about building a monopoly. In a Section 2 case, it isn’t enough to show that a company dominates a market; the government must also prove that it got to the top by using anticompetitive tactics rather than by just being the best. The alleged conspiracy between Google and Facebook is different. It falls under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which makes it illegal for two or more companies to make any contract or agreement ‘in restraint of trade.’ “
Facebook Risks Instagram-WhatsApp Breakup in Antitrust Case
Facebook Inc. was sued by U.S. antitrust officials and a coalition of states that want to break up the company by unwinding its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, deals the government says were part of a campaign to illegally crush competition.
The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general led by New York said they filed antitrust complaints against Facebook Wednesday, alleging the company stifled competition from rivals in order to protect its monopoly in social media. The lawsuits seek court orders unwinding Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp, according to copies of the complaints provided by the states and the FTC.
The cases represent the biggest regulatory attack against Facebook in the company’s history. They follow the Justice Department’s October lawsuit against Alphabet Inc.’s Google. Together, the Google and Facebook actions mark the most significant monopoly cases filed in the U.S. since the Justice Department sued Microsoft Corp. in 1998. Unlike the Google case, the Facebook complaints seek a court order breaking up the company.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” Ian Conner, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
Facebook has squashed or hindered what the company saw as potential threats, said New York Attorney General Letitia James during an online press conference.
Facebook used “vast amounts of money” to acquire companies that could potentially threaten its dominance, particularly Instagram and WhatsApp, she said. The effort was meant to “squeeze every bit of oxygen out of the room.”
Facebook became a prime target for President Donald Trump in the last two months of his administration. Last week, he threatened to veto the annual U.S. defense authorization bill unless Congress adds a rider to abolish the law that protects technology companies, including Facebook, from liability over most content posted by users. The demand followed months of attacks by Trump and some other Republicans, who accused technology platforms of suppressing conservative views after they began flagging misleading and false posts about the pandemic and the election. Those claims aren’t part of the suits filed Wednesday.
Facebook and its tech peers are facing a groundswell of bipartisan antagonism over their control of digital commerce and their ability to influence what users watch and read.
The investigations into the companies began in the summer of 2019 after the FTC and the Justice Department agreed on a plan to divide up scrutiny of Facebook, Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. A House report, which was released in October following a 16-month investigation, determined the four companies are abusing their market power as gatekeepers of the digital economy.
It will be up to President-elect Joe Biden’s Justice Department to carry the Google case forward, while the Facebook case will fall to whomever Biden picks as FTC chairman if Joe Simons, who was appointed by Trump, leaves the agency. Simons, a Republican, voted with the agency’s two Democrats to approve the Facebook complaint. The other two Republicans voted against it.
Facebook called the complaints “revisionist history,” saying it was Facebook’s investments in Instagram and WhatsApp that made them successful. Both acquisitions were investigated and approved by the FTC when they were announced.
“The government now wants a do-over, sending a chilling warning to American business that no sale is ever final,” Facebook General Counsel Jennifer Newstead said in a statement. “People and small businesses don’t choose to use Facebook’s free services and advertising because they have to, they use them because our apps and services deliver the most value.”
Facebook offered $1 billion for Instagram in 2012 when it had only 25 million users and no revenue, but had already started to capture the market for mobile photo-sharing. Facebook “quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power,” the FTC said.
Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg knew that by buying Instagram, Facebook “would not only squelch the direct threat that Instagram posed, but also significantly hinder another firm from using photo-sharing on mobile phones to gain popularity as a provider of personal social networking.”
The states’ complaint says Zuckerberg was able to convince former Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom to sell the company “based in no small part upon Zuckerberg’s growing reputation for wielding Facebook’s power as a sword.” Systrom asked an Instagram investor if Zuckerberg was likely to “go into destroy mode” if he turned down the offer. Systrom later said, “bottom line I don’t think we’ll ever escape the wrath of mark...it just depends how long we avoid it,” according to the complaint.
The company repeated its anti-competitive acquisition strategy when it acquired WhatsApp, the mobile messaging leader, in 2014 for $19 billion, the FTC and the states said. Facebook saw direct messaging apps as a significant threat, according to emails that were included in the complaints from Zuckerberg and employees. In a 2012 email, Zuckerberg said messaging apps could be used “as a springboard to build more general mobile social networks.” A Facebook business growth director predicted internally that “[t]his might be the biggest threat we’ve ever faced as a company.”
WhatsApp’s position as a global service without ties or restrictions to work with any single platform made it an attractive acquisition, the FTC found.
“Once again, Facebook decided it was better to buy than compete,” the FTC said. “After Facebook announced the acquisition of WhatsApp, employees internally celebrated the acquisition of ‘probably the only company which could have grown into the next FB purely on mobile[.]’”
WhatsApp, unlike Instagram, does not contribute meaningful revenue to Facebook today, but the company is setting the stage to turn the messaging app into a commerce and payments service in key international markets, including India and Brazil. In recent years, Facebook has been combining the WhatsApp and Instagram networks with its own, strengthening its power over global communication and making any future breakup more technically difficult.
Earlier: Facebook Sees WhatsApp As Its Future, Antitrust Suit or Not
The lawsuits also accuse Facebook of thwarting competition in violation of antitrust laws by preventing apps that were seen as competitive threats from accessing its platform. The House committee that investigated Facebook and the other tech companies said Facebook “weaponized” its platform against rivals by preventing them from getting access to the data they needed to grow.
“The two most utilized strategies have been to acquire smaller rivals and potential rivals before they could threaten Facebook’s dominance and to suffocate and squash third-party developers that Facebook invited to utilize its platform,” James’s office said in a statement.
Facebook has long denied it’s a threat to competition. Zuckerberg told Congress in July that the company faces intense competition around the world and is constantly innovating to develop products users will like and to avoid falling behind.
“With hindsight it probably looks like obvious that Instagram would have reached the scale that it has today, but at the time it was far from obvious,” he told Representative Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee. “This has been an American success story.”
The Facebook complaint is the most significant antitrust action under Simons’s tenure since he took over the agency in 2018. Last year, Simons reached a $5 billion settlement with Facebook for privacy infractions, an agreement that was widely criticized by privacy advocates, Democratic lawmakers and the agency’s two Democratic commissioners for not securing changes in the way Facebook operates.
The FTC is taking on Facebook just as it’s coming off a stinging loss in a monopoly case brought against Qualcomm Inc. A federal appeals court in August ruled in favor of the chipmaker and reversed a lower-court decision that the company abused its dominant position in the market for cell-phone chips.
Facebook Inc. was sued by U.S. antitrust officials and a coalition of states that want to break up the company by unwinding its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, deals the government says were part of a campaign to illegally crush competition.
The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general led by New York said they filed antitrust complaints against Facebook Wednesday, alleging the company stifled competition from rivals in order to protect its monopoly in social media. The lawsuits seek court orders unwinding Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp, according to copies of the complaints provided by the states and the FTC.
The cases represent the biggest regulatory attack against Facebook in the company’s history. They follow the Justice Department’s October lawsuit against Alphabet Inc.’s Google. Together, the Google and Facebook actions mark the most significant monopoly cases filed in the U.S. since the Justice Department sued Microsoft Corp. in 1998. Unlike the Google case, the Facebook complaints seek a court order breaking up the company.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” Ian Conner, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
Facebook has squashed or hindered what the company saw as potential threats, said New York Attorney General Letitia James during an online press conference.
Facebook used “vast amounts of money” to acquire companies that could potentially threaten its dominance, particularly Instagram and WhatsApp, she said. The effort was meant to “squeeze every bit of oxygen out of the room.”
Facebook became a prime target for President Donald Trump in the last two months of his administration. Last week, he threatened to veto the annual U.S. defense authorization bill unless Congress adds a rider to abolish the law that protects technology companies, including Facebook, from liability over most content posted by users. The demand followed months of attacks by Trump and some other Republicans, who accused technology platforms of suppressing conservative views after they began flagging misleading and false posts about the pandemic and the election. Those claims aren’t part of the suits filed Wednesday.
Facebook and its tech peers are facing a groundswell of bipartisan antagonism over their control of digital commerce and their ability to influence what users watch and read.
The investigations into the companies began in the summer of 2019 after the FTC and the Justice Department agreed on a plan to divide up scrutiny of Facebook, Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. A House report, which was released in October following a 16-month investigation, determined the four companies are abusing their market power as gatekeepers of the digital economy.
It will be up to President-elect Joe Biden’s Justice Department to carry the Google case forward, while the Facebook case will fall to whomever Biden picks as FTC chairman if Joe Simons, who was appointed by Trump, leaves the agency. Simons, a Republican, voted with the agency’s two Democrats to approve the Facebook complaint. The other two Republicans voted against it.
Facebook called the complaints “revisionist history,” saying it was Facebook’s investments in Instagram and WhatsApp that made them successful. Both acquisitions were investigated and approved by the FTC when they were announced.
“The government now wants a do-over, sending a chilling warning to American business that no sale is ever final,” Facebook General Counsel Jennifer Newstead said in a statement. “People and small businesses don’t choose to use Facebook’s free services and advertising because they have to, they use them because our apps and services deliver the most value.”
Facebook offered $1 billion for Instagram in 2012 when it had only 25 million users and no revenue, but had already started to capture the market for mobile photo-sharing. Facebook “quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power,” the FTC said.
Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg knew that by buying Instagram, Facebook “would not only squelch the direct threat that Instagram posed, but also significantly hinder another firm from using photo-sharing on mobile phones to gain popularity as a provider of personal social networking.”
The states’ complaint says Zuckerberg was able to convince former Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom to sell the company “based in no small part upon Zuckerberg’s growing reputation for wielding Facebook’s power as a sword.” Systrom asked an Instagram investor if Zuckerberg was likely to “go into destroy mode” if he turned down the offer. Systrom later said, “bottom line I don’t think we’ll ever escape the wrath of mark...it just depends how long we avoid it,” according to the complaint.
The company repeated its anti-competitive acquisition strategy when it acquired WhatsApp, the mobile messaging leader, in 2014 for $19 billion, the FTC and the states said. Facebook saw direct messaging apps as a significant threat, according to emails that were included in the complaints from Zuckerberg and employees. In a 2012 email, Zuckerberg said messaging apps could be used “as a springboard to build more general mobile social networks.” A Facebook business growth director predicted internally that “[t]his might be the biggest threat we’ve ever faced as a company.”
WhatsApp’s position as a global service without ties or restrictions to work with any single platform made it an attractive acquisition, the FTC found.
“Once again, Facebook decided it was better to buy than compete,” the FTC said. “After Facebook announced the acquisition of WhatsApp, employees internally celebrated the acquisition of ‘probably the only company which could have grown into the next FB purely on mobile[.]’”
WhatsApp, unlike Instagram, does not contribute meaningful revenue to Facebook today, but the company is setting the stage to turn the messaging app into a commerce and payments service in key international markets, including India and Brazil. In recent years, Facebook has been combining the WhatsApp and Instagram networks with its own, strengthening its power over global communication and making any future breakup more technically difficult.
Earlier: Facebook Sees WhatsApp As Its Future, Antitrust Suit or Not
The lawsuits also accuse Facebook of thwarting competition in violation of antitrust laws by preventing apps that were seen as competitive threats from accessing its platform. The House committee that investigated Facebook and the other tech companies said Facebook “weaponized” its platform against rivals by preventing them from getting access to the data they needed to grow.
“The two most utilized strategies have been to acquire smaller rivals and potential rivals before they could threaten Facebook’s dominance and to suffocate and squash third-party developers that Facebook invited to utilize its platform,” James’s office said in a statement.
Facebook has long denied it’s a threat to competition. Zuckerberg told Congress in July that the company faces intense competition around the world and is constantly innovating to develop products users will like and to avoid falling behind.
“With hindsight it probably looks like obvious that Instagram would have reached the scale that it has today, but at the time it was far from obvious,” he told Representative Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee. “This has been an American success story.”
The Facebook complaint is the most significant antitrust action under Simons’s tenure since he took over the agency in 2018. Last year, Simons reached a $5 billion settlement with Facebook for privacy infractions, an agreement that was widely criticized by privacy advocates, Democratic lawmakers and the agency’s two Democratic commissioners for not securing changes in the way Facebook operates.
The FTC is taking on Facebook just as it’s coming off a stinging loss in a monopoly case brought against Qualcomm Inc. A federal appeals court in August ruled in favor of the chipmaker and reversed a lower-court decision that the company abused its dominant position in the market for cell-phone chips.
FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
December 9, 2020
Agency challenges Facebook’s multi-year course of unlawful conduct
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. Following a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy—including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers—to eliminate threats to its monopoly. This course of conduct harms competition, leaves consumers with few choices for personal social networking, and deprives advertisers of the benefits of competition.
The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook is the world’s dominant personal social networking service and has monopoly power in a market for personal social networking services. This unmatched position has provided Facebook with staggering profits. Last year alone, Facebook generated revenues of more than $70 billion and profits of more than $18.5 billion.
Anticompetitive Acquisitions
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook targeted potential competitive threats to its dominance. Instagram, a rapidly growing startup, emerged at a critical time in personal social networking competition, when users of personal social networking services were migrating from desktop computers to smartphones, and when consumers were increasingly embracing photo-sharing. The complaint alleges that Facebook executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power.
The complaint alleges that Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own offerings, but Facebook ultimately chose to buy Instagram rather than compete with it. Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012 allegedly both neutralizes the direct threat posed by Instagram and makes it more difficult for another personal social networking competitor to gain scale.
Around the same time, according to the complaint, Facebook perceived that “over-the-top” mobile messaging apps also presented a serious threat to Facebook’s monopoly power. In particular, the complaint alleges that Facebook’s leadership understood—and feared—that a successful mobile messaging app could enter the personal social networking market, either by adding new features or by spinning off a standalone personal social networking app.
The complaint alleges that, by 2012, WhatsApp had emerged as the clear global “category leader” in mobile messaging. Again, according to the complaint, Facebook chose to buy an emerging threat rather than compete, and announced an agreement in February 2014 to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion. Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp allegedly both neutralizes the prospect that WhatsApp itself might threaten Facebook’s personal social networking monopoly and ensures that any future threat will have a more difficult time gaining scale in mobile messaging.
Anticompetitive Platform Conduct
The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
The lawsuit follows an investigation by the FTC’s Technology Enforcement Division, whose staff cooperated closely with a coalition of attorneys general, under the coordination of the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Participating Attorneys General include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was 3-2. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no.
NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint.
Betsy Lordan elordan@ftc.gov - Office of Public Affairs 202-326-3707
December 9, 2020
Agency challenges Facebook’s multi-year course of unlawful conduct
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. Following a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy—including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers—to eliminate threats to its monopoly. This course of conduct harms competition, leaves consumers with few choices for personal social networking, and deprives advertisers of the benefits of competition.
The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook is the world’s dominant personal social networking service and has monopoly power in a market for personal social networking services. This unmatched position has provided Facebook with staggering profits. Last year alone, Facebook generated revenues of more than $70 billion and profits of more than $18.5 billion.
Anticompetitive Acquisitions
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook targeted potential competitive threats to its dominance. Instagram, a rapidly growing startup, emerged at a critical time in personal social networking competition, when users of personal social networking services were migrating from desktop computers to smartphones, and when consumers were increasingly embracing photo-sharing. The complaint alleges that Facebook executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power.
The complaint alleges that Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own offerings, but Facebook ultimately chose to buy Instagram rather than compete with it. Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012 allegedly both neutralizes the direct threat posed by Instagram and makes it more difficult for another personal social networking competitor to gain scale.
Around the same time, according to the complaint, Facebook perceived that “over-the-top” mobile messaging apps also presented a serious threat to Facebook’s monopoly power. In particular, the complaint alleges that Facebook’s leadership understood—and feared—that a successful mobile messaging app could enter the personal social networking market, either by adding new features or by spinning off a standalone personal social networking app.
The complaint alleges that, by 2012, WhatsApp had emerged as the clear global “category leader” in mobile messaging. Again, according to the complaint, Facebook chose to buy an emerging threat rather than compete, and announced an agreement in February 2014 to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion. Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp allegedly both neutralizes the prospect that WhatsApp itself might threaten Facebook’s personal social networking monopoly and ensures that any future threat will have a more difficult time gaining scale in mobile messaging.
Anticompetitive Platform Conduct
The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
The lawsuit follows an investigation by the FTC’s Technology Enforcement Division, whose staff cooperated closely with a coalition of attorneys general, under the coordination of the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Participating Attorneys General include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was 3-2. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no.
NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint.
Betsy Lordan elordan@ftc.gov - Office of Public Affairs 202-326-3707
Should Amazon, and/or CEO Jeff Bezos, along with Google and/or Sundar Pichai be prosecuted for Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act or the Clayton Antitrust Act, and if found guilty how many years should Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy and Sundar Pichai or any of the other high ranking executives be incarcerated in Federal Prison?
Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right. Collusion is not always considered illegal. It can be used to attain objectives forbidden by law; for example, by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.
Amazon and Google are engaged in a collusion which is a secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose and have illegally conspired together, in violation of both state and federal antitrust laws, to prevent this website, and the 200+ websites listed herein, from appearing in their appropriate locations within the Google search because they don't want the public to learn about their many illegal activities. The website domain names contain very specific keyword phrases for the express purpose of being located in the first or second pages on Google, based upon the algorithms utilized, yet most do not show up at all or are deliberately relegated to the last or next to last pages so the general public will never be aware of their existence thereby accomplishing Amazon and Google's goal of not allowing the content to be viewed considering that the majority of internet visitors rarely search for anything beyond the very few pages at the beginning regardless of what they search for. Amazon nor Google should be allowed to participate in illegal censorship.
Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos and the incoming CEO Andy Jassy along with Google's CEO Sundar Pichai are not honest people and the owner of these websites anxiously anticipate the time when the three of them can be questioned at length on the witness stand regarding their unlawful actions in conjunction with the documentation to verify their respective crimes.
Both Amazon and Google consistently engage in "antitrust evils", to coin a phrase used by numerous states Attorneys General in the current Antitrust lawsuits against Google and soon to be Amazon, for their flagrant abuses of the law. These individuals are criminals in the purest sense and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and should be incarcerated in prison for decades because they are "criminal sociopaths" and will never act honestly towards the millions of people who use their services! They are no better than your common street thugs stealing purses from the elderly or mistreating young children, these individuals have no morals nor a conscience.
Amazon and Google are engaged in a collusion which is a secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose and have illegally conspired together, in violation of both state and federal antitrust laws, to prevent this website, and the 200+ websites listed herein, from appearing in their appropriate locations within the Google search because they don't want the public to learn about their many illegal activities. The website domain names contain very specific keyword phrases for the express purpose of being located in the first or second pages on Google, based upon the algorithms utilized, yet most do not show up at all or are deliberately relegated to the last or next to last pages so the general public will never be aware of their existence thereby accomplishing Amazon and Google's goal of not allowing the content to be viewed considering that the majority of internet visitors rarely search for anything beyond the very few pages at the beginning regardless of what they search for. Amazon nor Google should be allowed to participate in illegal censorship.
Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos and the incoming CEO Andy Jassy along with Google's CEO Sundar Pichai are not honest people and the owner of these websites anxiously anticipate the time when the three of them can be questioned at length on the witness stand regarding their unlawful actions in conjunction with the documentation to verify their respective crimes.
Both Amazon and Google consistently engage in "antitrust evils", to coin a phrase used by numerous states Attorneys General in the current Antitrust lawsuits against Google and soon to be Amazon, for their flagrant abuses of the law. These individuals are criminals in the purest sense and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and should be incarcerated in prison for decades because they are "criminal sociopaths" and will never act honestly towards the millions of people who use their services! They are no better than your common street thugs stealing purses from the elderly or mistreating young children, these individuals have no morals nor a conscience.
Google CEO Apologizes, Vows To Restore Trust After Black Scientist's Ouster
December 9, 2020 Bobby Allyn
Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai on Wednesday apologized in the aftermath of the dismissal of a prominent Black scientist whose ouster set off widespread condemnation from thousands of Google employees and outside researchers.
Timnit Gebru, who helped lead Google's Ethical Artificial Intelligence team, said that she was fired last week after having a dispute over a research paper and sending a note to other Google employees criticizing the company for its treatment of people of color and women, particularly in hiring.
"I've heard the reaction to Dr. Gebru's departure loud and clear: it seeded doubts and led some in our community to question their place at Google. I want to say how sorry I am for that, and I accept the responsibility of working to restore your trust," Pichai wrote to Google employees on Wednesday, according to a copy of the email reviewed by NPR.
Since Gebru was pushed out, more than 2,000 Google employees have signed an open letter demanding answers, calling Gebru's termination "research censorship" and a "retaliatory firing."
In his letter, Pichai said the company is conducting a review of how Gebru's dismissal was handled in order to determine whether there could have been a "more respectful process."
Pichai went on to say that Google needs to accept responsibility for a prominent Black female leader leaving Google on bad terms.
"This loss has had a ripple effect through some of our least represented communities, who saw themselves and some of their experiences reflected in Dr. Gebru's. It was also keenly felt because Dr. Gebru is an expert in an important area of AI Ethics that we must continue to make progress on — progress that depends on our ability to ask ourselves challenging questions," Pichai wrote.
Pichai said Google earlier this year committed to taking a look at all of the company's systems for hiring and promoting employees to try to increase representation among Black workers and others underrepresented groups.
"The events of the last week are a painful but important reminder of the progress we still need to make," Pichai wrote in his letter, which was earlier reported by Axios.
In a series of tweets, Gebru said she did not appreciate Pichai's email to her former colleagues.
"Don't paint me as an 'angry Black woman' for whom you need 'de-escalation strategies' for," Gebru said.
"Finally it does not say 'I'm sorry for what we did to her and it was wrong.' What it DOES say is 'it seeded doubts and led some in our community to question their place at Google.' So I see this as 'I'm sorry for how it played out but I'm not sorry for what we did to her yet,'" Gebru wrote.
One Google employee who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation said Pichai's letter will do little to address the simmering strife among Googlers since Gebru's firing.
The employee expressed frustration that Pichai did not directly apologize for Gebru's termination and continued to suggest she was not fired by the company, which Gebru and many of her colleagues say is not true. The employees described Pichai's letter as "meaningless PR."
December 9, 2020 Bobby Allyn
Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai on Wednesday apologized in the aftermath of the dismissal of a prominent Black scientist whose ouster set off widespread condemnation from thousands of Google employees and outside researchers.
Timnit Gebru, who helped lead Google's Ethical Artificial Intelligence team, said that she was fired last week after having a dispute over a research paper and sending a note to other Google employees criticizing the company for its treatment of people of color and women, particularly in hiring.
"I've heard the reaction to Dr. Gebru's departure loud and clear: it seeded doubts and led some in our community to question their place at Google. I want to say how sorry I am for that, and I accept the responsibility of working to restore your trust," Pichai wrote to Google employees on Wednesday, according to a copy of the email reviewed by NPR.
Since Gebru was pushed out, more than 2,000 Google employees have signed an open letter demanding answers, calling Gebru's termination "research censorship" and a "retaliatory firing."
In his letter, Pichai said the company is conducting a review of how Gebru's dismissal was handled in order to determine whether there could have been a "more respectful process."
Pichai went on to say that Google needs to accept responsibility for a prominent Black female leader leaving Google on bad terms.
"This loss has had a ripple effect through some of our least represented communities, who saw themselves and some of their experiences reflected in Dr. Gebru's. It was also keenly felt because Dr. Gebru is an expert in an important area of AI Ethics that we must continue to make progress on — progress that depends on our ability to ask ourselves challenging questions," Pichai wrote.
Pichai said Google earlier this year committed to taking a look at all of the company's systems for hiring and promoting employees to try to increase representation among Black workers and others underrepresented groups.
"The events of the last week are a painful but important reminder of the progress we still need to make," Pichai wrote in his letter, which was earlier reported by Axios.
In a series of tweets, Gebru said she did not appreciate Pichai's email to her former colleagues.
"Don't paint me as an 'angry Black woman' for whom you need 'de-escalation strategies' for," Gebru said.
"Finally it does not say 'I'm sorry for what we did to her and it was wrong.' What it DOES say is 'it seeded doubts and led some in our community to question their place at Google.' So I see this as 'I'm sorry for how it played out but I'm not sorry for what we did to her yet,'" Gebru wrote.
One Google employee who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation said Pichai's letter will do little to address the simmering strife among Googlers since Gebru's firing.
The employee expressed frustration that Pichai did not directly apologize for Gebru's termination and continued to suggest she was not fired by the company, which Gebru and many of her colleagues say is not true. The employees described Pichai's letter as "meaningless PR."
Apple, Google to pay $324 million to settle conspiracy lawsuit
(Reuters) - Four major tech companies including Apple and Google have agreed to pay a total of $324 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of conspiring to hold down salaries in Silicon Valley, sources familiar with the deal said, just weeks before a high profile trial had been scheduled to begin.
Tech workers filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Inc and Adobe Systems Inc in 2011, alleging they conspired to refrain from soliciting one another’s employees in order to avert a salary war. They planned to ask for $3 billion in damages at trial, according to court filings. That could have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law.
The case has been closely watched due to the potentially high damages award and the opportunity to peek into the world of Silicon Valley’s elite. The case was based largely on emails in which Apple’s late co-founder Steve Jobs, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and some of their Silicon Valley rivals hatched plans to avoid poaching each other’s prized engineers.
In one email exchange after a Google recruiter solicited an Apple employee, Schmidt told Jobs that the recruiter would be fired, court documents show. Jobs then forwarded Schmidt’s note to a top Apple human resources executive with a smiley face.
Another exchange shows Google’s human resources director asking Schmidt about sharing its no-cold call agreements with competitors. Schmidt, now the company’s executive chairman, advised discretion.
“Schmidt responded that he preferred it be shared ‘verbally, since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?’” he said, according to a court filing. The HR director agreed.
(Reuters) - Four major tech companies including Apple and Google have agreed to pay a total of $324 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of conspiring to hold down salaries in Silicon Valley, sources familiar with the deal said, just weeks before a high profile trial had been scheduled to begin.
Tech workers filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Inc and Adobe Systems Inc in 2011, alleging they conspired to refrain from soliciting one another’s employees in order to avert a salary war. They planned to ask for $3 billion in damages at trial, according to court filings. That could have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law.
The case has been closely watched due to the potentially high damages award and the opportunity to peek into the world of Silicon Valley’s elite. The case was based largely on emails in which Apple’s late co-founder Steve Jobs, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and some of their Silicon Valley rivals hatched plans to avoid poaching each other’s prized engineers.
In one email exchange after a Google recruiter solicited an Apple employee, Schmidt told Jobs that the recruiter would be fired, court documents show. Jobs then forwarded Schmidt’s note to a top Apple human resources executive with a smiley face.
Another exchange shows Google’s human resources director asking Schmidt about sharing its no-cold call agreements with competitors. Schmidt, now the company’s executive chairman, advised discretion.
“Schmidt responded that he preferred it be shared ‘verbally, since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?’” he said, according to a court filing. The HR director agreed.
Amazon Notorious Markets
Amazon Notorious Markets - A Company That Facilitates Illegal Counterfeits and Piracy
Is Amazon Notorious Markets a Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade?
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testifies under oath to United States Congress that they sell 'Stolen Goods'
You Can't Fight Gravity!
Did Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon,
lie under oath to the United States Congress? Let’s find out!
Amazon Notorious Markets - A Company That Facilitates Illegal Counterfeits and Piracy
Is Amazon Notorious Markets a Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade?
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testifies under oath to United States Congress that they sell 'Stolen Goods'
You Can't Fight Gravity!
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, chastised 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.
The Sherman Antitrust 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 United States Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, chastised 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.
The Sherman Antitrust 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.
Jeff Bezos admits 'stolen and counterfeit goods' are being sold on Amazon!
No one should be above the law, not even Jeff Bezos, common thieves deal in 'stolen goods' and when found guilty in a court of law they are sentenced to prison, Jeff Bezos should be no different!
What separates Jeff Bezos from the Ponzie criminal Bernie Madoff? Steel Bars and Armed Guards!
On February 2, 2021 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) just fined Amazon $61.7 Million Dollars for STEALING TIP money from their own delivery drivers, how low can one company get! How low can Jeff Bezos be but to allow, or maybe even instruct, Amazon to STEAL millions of dollars from their own hard working delivery drivers, absolutely despicable!
Jeff Bezos admitted emphatically that he knowingly allowed Amazon to sell 'stolen goods' which is also know as stolen property, stolen merchandise etc. and he should be held accountable and forced to face a criminal trial jury of his peers. If found guilty, it would be extremely difficult to render any other verdict, as he testified under oath to Congress and that Congressional Hearing was televised and viewed by millions of people around the world that Amazon sells 'stolen goods'.
Amazon, by Jeff Bezos' testimony, has over a million third-party sellers so it would be reasonable to conclude even a miniscule percentage could amount to tens of thousands of 'stolen goods' would be handled by Amazon and therefore the penalty for each individual infraction could conceivably bring about several years in prison and then multiplied by the massive number of sales of 'stolen goods' could amount to a lifetime behind bars, and the evidence of his direct and irrefutable testimony would cause his conviction without the need for any witnesses. And to even magnify this each act of selling 'stolen goods' is the direct result of receiving 'stolen goods', another set of felonies for each. Jeff Bezos, if convicted, may never see the light of day beyond his prison walls. Amazon did nothing to investigate and vet these sellers to determine for themselves that none of this property was stolen or counterfeit so he deserves whatever sentence the various juries decide. Had Amazon conducted sufficient due diligence instead of just being focused on the almighty dollar they could have easily prevented this criminal action of receiving and selling 'stolen goods'.
All of the District Attorneys and Attorneys General in every jurisdiction throughout the United States could prosecute Jeff Bezos and in addition to prison incarceration could quite possibly enforce Billions of Dollars in fines and court costs which very well may reduce Jeff Bezos from being the richest man in the world to just your average every day common felon criminal. Daunting thought to say the least. Jeff Bezos may receive his come uppings and he has no one else to blame except himself for being so greedy as to knowingly sell 'stolen goods'.
In August 2019 the FBI uncovered a theft ring in Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered, that sold millions of dollars' of 'stolen goods' on Amazon.com in just the past 6 years FBI agent Ariana Kroshinsky wrote in her affidavit.
The guilty must face the consequences of their actions and Jeff Bezos must be held to the same legal standards that all Americans agree to live by and he may have become a multi billionaire because he engaged in selling 'stolen goods' where the great majority of Americans walk the narrow path of honesty instead of criminal activity and apparently Jeff Bezos chose the easy road with impunity!
Approximately 145 Million people around the globe subscribe to Amazon's "Prime" accounts and pay billions of dollars for the privilege believing that Amazon would act in their best interest and never sell them any counterfeit, dangerous, defective or 'stolen goods' and because Amazon deceived them they at the very least should have the entirety of their costs refunded to them which would most likely amount to BILLIONS of dollars which would then affect the income to Amazon being decreased exponentially and subsequently reduce the stock value accordingly. Amazon would be required to file documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission of these 'material facts'.
There is another possible smoking gun regarding how Amazon conducts their respective businesses and that is their "Terms of Service". If their "Terms of Service" are worded in a specific way with the intent to deceive as mentioned above then quite possibly it could be construed in a court of law that it is a "Scheme or Artifice to Defraud" in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1346 which could eliminate it from their business entirely by making it invalid and unenforceable in every aspect. This would open up a whole new legal quandary for Amazon should the courts decide to deem their "Terms of Service" unenforceable.
Most major corporations have a 'morals clause' as part of their employee contracts which should include all executives and members of the Board of Directors, wherein if any of them violate it they should be terminated for committing or allowing knowingly criminal acts such as multiple felonies. It would be difficult, if not impossible to claim 'plausible deniability' since the CEO Jeff Bezos admitted under oath his direct knowledge of Amazon engaging in the selling of 'stolen goods'.
Another gleaming aspect of this criminal behavior within Amazon's hierarchy is that in the commission of this very serious crime situation is that the law requires what is referred to as "Clawback" which details that all money generated in the act of committing a Felony the proceeds can be confiscated and/or forfeited to the respective governmental agencies having jurisdiction.
In the case with Jeff Bezos, if found guilty, his multiple million dollar personal acquisitions such as his mansions in Beverly Hills and Washington D.C. and the newspaper Washington Post etc. should also be forfeited as the benefits gained from illegal activity selling 'stolen goods.'
At the risk of being redundant, no one should be above the law which would include Jeff Bezos and when prosecuted finalized and established that he is guilty his forfeitures should amount to several Billion dollars. He was aware of his crimes and did nothing to prevent it and therefore 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". We reap exactly what we sow, including the richest man in the world.
The numerous law enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction of the crimes locations, which might be all 50 states, should prosecute every high ranking executive within Amazon including but not limited to CEO Jeff Bezos to the fullest extent of the law and sentence them to the maximum number of years possible to set an example that literally no one is above the law and thus these severe penalties will be a deterrent to any other corporate execs to refrain from engaging is such egregious activities against their fellow man!
There may be other foreign entities such as Canada, the European Union, Great Britain, Ireland among numerous others that want to initiate their own legal proceedings against Amazon, Jeff Bezos along with additional senior executives who participated and allowed the crime of selling 'stolen goods' to have their day in court.
Jeff Bezos may come to 'Rue the Day' that he admitted under oath to selling 'stolen goods'!
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020, the world's richest man, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, testified under oath before the United States Congress answering questions regarding his company's anti-competitive behavior.
During the five-hour-long Q&A session Jeff Bezos was hit with a wide array of questions about topics ranging from Amazon's controversial use of third-party seller data to turning a blind eye to counterfeit products and selling 'stolen goods'.
Being the founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos is acutely aware of literally all that happens within his Amazon empire as he would be the most knowledgeable regarding the inner workings of his own company which is precisely how he became the richest man in the entire world.
David Cicilline, the chair of the House of Representative's Antitrust subcommittee who was leading the investigation into Amazon's stated "As CEO and founder of the company, (Jeff Bezos) must be accountable for Amazon's record of dishonesty before Congress", and "In light of the gravity of this situation, I am also considering whether a perjury referral is warranted".
Congress also said that the company statements "appear to be misleading, and possibly criminally false or perjurious".
For example, when Rep. Pramila Jayapal asked him whether Amazon ever used third-party seller data to create competing products under its own label, Bezos dodged that direct and specific question by replying "I can't answer yes or no to that question".
"We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private-label business", he added, "But I can't guarantee you that that policy has never been violated". Jeff Bezos knows full well what takes place at Amazon, he answered in that verbiage to cover himself and not be found guilty of perjury.
Pressed to address allegations of Amazon's data appropriation exposed in a Wall Street Journal investigation in April, Bezos said he didn't know the specifics yet. "We continue to look into that very carefully".
In a separate exchange later in the hearing, Congresswoman Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia asked Bezos whether Amazon has allowed 'stolen goods' to be sold on its platform. Rep. McBath asked Jeff Bezos, "Are 'stolen goods' sold on Amazon? To which Bezos replied, "Congresswoman, not to my knowledge". This response was absolute perjury to the United States Congress because Jeff Bezos was acutely aware of the August 2019 FBI investigation of the $10 Million dollar theft ring that sold 'stolen goods' on Amazon!
Asked more than once Jeff Bezos eventually admitted under oath that yes, Amazon does indeed sell 'stolen goods' by stating among other things that "There are more than one million sellers on Amazon. I'm sure there have been 'stolen goods' sold on Amazon".
Rep. McBath asked point blank again, "So basically Mr. Bezos that means you are saying YES?" To which Bezos finally responded, "I GUESS SO".
Pressed further by Rep. McBath on the subject of selling 'stolen goods', Jeff Bezos stated "I don't think it's a large part of what we are doing". Are you kidding Jeff Bezos, NOT A LARGE PART OF WHAT WE ARE DOING! You act as if it's no big deal but definitely something that brings in lots of income so we just close our eyes and let the money flow in from our 'stolen goods' business!
Mr. Bezos, 'Go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect the $200, just like the play monopoly game'! It appears to you that selling 'stolen goods' is something you take for granted and enjoy since it's part and parcel of what made you into a Billionaire and the richest man in the world. You mock the hard working honest people of America and you should be ashamed of yourself...
Law enforcement can't ignore your blatant refusal to police your own company and eliminate once and for all the criminal behavior of selling 'stolen goods' etc. and they should prosecute you Jeff Bezos just like any street criminal who robs a liquor store for a couple hundred dollars. Not only does selling Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods' hurt the consumer but cause the prices of everything any legitimate business sells to try and offset what you do on what could possibly be an every day occurence.
Every individual engaged in Law Enforcement in the United States has sworn a sacred oath to "Defend the Constitution Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic' and to uphold the law equally regardless of who may be the criminal so they must investigate and prosecute every perpetrator including Jeff Bezos as he is an 'admitted criminal' against his own customers.
Selling 'stolen goods' is a FELONY! Receiving 'stolen goods' is also a FELONY!
Since a vast number of third-party sellers ship their goods to be sold in the 'Fulfillment by Amazon' (FBA) and Amazon then receives and stores their products within Amazon's warehouses (fulfillment centers) and then the Amazon advertises the various products for sale, uses Amazon's payment methods, and then will pick, pack and ship them in Amazon packaging to the purchasers.
A California Appeals court ruled last April that Amazon was indeed the seller of record to Angela Bolger since Amazon's activities basically conducted the entire transaction from beginning to end even though they did not manufacture the defective product and harmed Bolger severely.
In respect with 'stolen goods' Amazon receives them from the third party sellers which means Amazon is committing numerous FELONIES by becoming the recipient of 'stolen property' and then selling/delivering 'stolen goods' with the full and complete knowledge of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as verified by his sworn testimony before the United States Congress, can't be more substantiated proof than that! GUILTY!!!
Congress has demanded that Amazon discontinue selling 'Stolen Goods', Counterfeit, Illegal, Deadly and Deceptive Products.
There may be another possibility why sellers have chosen Amazon as their partner in crime and that is it would be the perfect mechanism to carry out 'money laundering', meaning taking the dirty money obtained via 'stolen goods' being sold at will on Amazon and then cleaning that same sales money, which is a 'Prime" method, and hopefully undetectable to Amazon since Amazon nor Jeff Bezos has been able to stem the tide of long term 'stolen goods' from being overwhelming sold on Amazon.
If Amazon has become too large and unwieldy then maybe the Federal Government should force Amazon into a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy which could then install one of their Bankruptcy Court Trustees to oversee and run the company since it appears that Jeff Bezos does not possess the necessary control capabilities to prevent and eliminate the proliferation of receiving and selling Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective and Illegal 'Stolen Goods' from their platform.
The United States Congress should subpoena every single sales document of Amazon for at least the past 10 years to establish exactly how many transactions contained any Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods' took place and reverse those illegal sales and return the entire purchase price to the consumer victims who was deceived.
MacKenzie Scott, as she is currently known, was married to Jeff Bezos for 26 years and was MacKenzie Bezos until shortly after their divorce was final, and they had created Amazon together. She legally changed her name from Bezos, partly because she no longer wanted to be associated with his name, which is totally understandable. She recently donated over $4.5 Billion dollars of her vast divorce settlement fortune to hundreds of various charities which is an awesome benefit to the less fortunate of society and very commendable. Knowing that Jeff Bezos admitted under oath that while they were married he was involved with rampant receiving and selling Millions of dollars of 'Stolen Goods' along with Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, and Illegal property to unsuspecting Amazon consumers and therefore MacKenzie Scott, as she is now known, may have felt extremely guilty that her husband was so greedy that he took advantage of his customers and this might have been her way of alleviating at least some of that tremendously burdensome guilty conscience. Was MacKenzie Bezos aware at the time she was married to Jeff Bezos that his company, Amazon, was STEALING Millions of Dollars from his own delivery drivers?
We may never know if these were the true reasons, or it could possibly be due to his infidelity, either one or both, who knows. Another distinct possibility could be is that if and when he is prosecuted for these numerous felonies MacKenzie Scott wanted to be as distanced from Jeff Bezos as much as she could so she would not become entangled with his prosecution and subsequent conviction since he did testify under oath that he knowingly was party to the felony of selling 'Stolen Goods'.
This entire situation would make for a great book to be published utilizing the title for example of "Jeff Bezos, The Richest Felon". Is someone considered a 'Felon' at the time they admit under oath that they committed a 'Felony' or only when the jury has found that person guilty in a court of law? Interesting scenario nonetheless, however the book itself could become a true 'Best Seller'!
Even Amazon's highly touted cloud business, AWS (Amazon Web Services), is in shambles because in just one specific instance in August 2019 a former Amazon employee, Paige A. Thompson, was able to use her training to hack into Capital One Bank credit card division and expose over 100 Million accounts allowing their private information such as Social Security numbers, bank account info etc. to be known thereby showing to the entire world that Amazon AWS is not all that it's cracked up to be and nothing is totally safe from criminals at Amazon especially current or former employees!
California Penal Code Section § 496 - Receiving Stolen Property
Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of theft, or by burglary or robbery. Theft includes obtaining property by larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or trick.
To receive property means to take possession and control of it. Two or more people can possess the property at the same time.
A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to possess it. It is enough if the person has control over it either personally or through another person.
When Amazon third-party sellers deliver 'stolen goods' to an Amazon Fulfillment Center for resale and delivery the Amazon company is then the recipient of 'stolen property' based upon the California Penal Code Section § 496, they are part and parcel of the actual act.
California Penal Code section § 496, subdivision (a) (section 496(a)) makes receiving or buying property “that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft” a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. Section § 496, subdivision (c) (section 496(c)) provides that any person “who has been injured by a violation of (section 496(a) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.”
Plaintiffs contends, based on the statutory language, a criminal conviction under section 496(a) is not a prerequisite to recovery of treble damages under section 496(c). Plaintiff asserts that the phrase “any manner constituting theft” under section 496(a) includes theft by false pretense.
Leading buyers of Amazon products without disclosing that they may be 'counterfeit, damaged, deadly, defective, illegal, and/or 'stolen goods' is tantamount to selling via false pretenses and therefore may be considered the crime of theft by false pretense under California Penal Code Section § 496.
Receiving Stolen Property (Penal Code, § 496(a)). (“(Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of theft, or by burglary or robbery. (Theft includes obtaining property by larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or trick.))”)
Theft by False Pretense, Larceny by Trickery, Unjust Enrichment (Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Pandemic Emergency), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith are a few more that need to be investigated in the process of selling and receiving 'stolen goods' as they pertain to Amazon not disclosing these facts to potential buyers of the Counterfeit, Dangerous, Deadly, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods'.
California Penal Code § 532 (a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.
California Penal Code § 484 Larceny (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.
California Penal Code § 396 (a) The Legislature hereby finds that during a state of emergency or local emergency, including, but not limited to, an earthquake, flood, fire, riot, storm, drought, plant or animal infestation or disease, pandemic or epidemic disease outbreak, or other natural or manmade disaster, some merchants have taken unfair advantage of consumers by greatly increasing prices for essential consumer goods and services. While the pricing of consumer goods and services is generally best left to the marketplace under ordinary conditions, when a declared state of emergency or local emergency results in abnormal disruptions of the market, the public interest requires that excessive and unjustified increases in the prices of essential consumer goods and services be prohibited. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to protect citizens from excessive and unjustified increases in the prices charged during or shortly after a declared state of emergency or local emergency for goods and services that are vital and necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of consumers, whether those goods and services are offered or sold in person, in stores, or online. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that this section be liberally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be served.
California Penal Code § Unjust Enrichment - In every contract or agreement there is an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. This implied promise means that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of any other party to receive the benefits of the contract. Good faith means honesty of purpose without any intention to mislead or to take unfair advantage of another. Generally speaking, it means being faithful to one’s duty or obligation. However, the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing cannot create obligations that are inconsistent with the terms of the contract. Amazon by the very nature of selling 'Stolen Goods' as just one example, without full disclosure has violated "Good Faith and Fair Dealing" with every buyer of property from Amazon including the 'Elderly' which would kick in Elder Financial Abuse.
Ignorance of the law is neither an excuse nor a defense of the criminal act.
The very instant that a Defendant commits any other crimes, any property so obtained was then obtained by "Theft" and thus selling said property would be considered "Stolen Property" and could immediately constitute additional crimes under California Penal Code Section § 496.
There is a relatively unknown but extremely important, legal case decided by the California Appeals Court that will have a profound effect on Amazon and Jeff Bezos regarding the receiving of and selling 'stolen goods',
California Court of Appeals Fourth District, Division 3, Penal Code Section § 498(c) making it illegal to receive stolen goods allows Treble Damages GO46166 Decided January 15, 2013 Sharon Bell v. Igal J. Feibush does not require a criminal conviction under Section § 496(a).
In Bell v. Feibush (filed January 15, 2013) 2013 DJDAR 627, Feibush argues that permitting Bell to recover treble damages under section 496(c) is contrary to public policy and permits litigants to circumvent limitations on remedies. Our decision to affirm the default judgment is based on straightforward statutory interpretation. Section 496(a) extends liability to “(e)very person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft.” (Italics added.) Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a) describes the acts constituting theft to include theft by false pretense, which is the consensual but fraudulent acquisition of property from its owner. (Pen.Code § 484, subd. (a), 532.) Feibush was found liable for fraud, i.e., for the fraudulent acquisition of property (money) from its owner (Bell). “Anything that could be the subject of a theft can also be property under section 496.” (People v. Gopal (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 524, 541, 217 Cal.Rptr. 487.) A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted for either theft or receiving stolen property under section 496(a).
Penal Code § 487 PC – Grand theft defined (may be charged in connection with receiving stolen property). (“Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases: (a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b). (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in any of the following cases: . . . (c) When the property is taken from the person of another. (d) When the property taken is any of the following: (1) An automobile, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine animal, any caprine animal, mule, jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow, boar, gilt, barrow, or pig. (2) A firearm.”)
Plaintiff contends that under California Penal Code section § 496 Defendants, by obtaining ownership even temporarily via committing a criminal act in violation of California Penal Code section § 532 Defendant did so illegally and thus obtained momentary and temporary ownership of said property stored in an Amazon warehouse, fulfillment center, to sell to millions of unsuspecting buyers by false pretenses makes the property transfer tantamount to "receiving and then subsequently selling stolen property", a felony under California Law.
California has an extremely valuable law for Senior Citizens, individuals 65 years old and over commonly referred to as Elder Financial Abuse Act.
There are approximately 9 million residents of California aged 65+, of which a substantial number have at one time or another purchased property from Amazon, which makes their situation a monumental dilemma for Jeff Bezos and his Amazon company.
California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e) Elder Financial Abuse and Civil Code Section § 1575
Elder Financial Abuse is both a civil tort and a criminal offense.
It is not necessary under these statutes that the taker maintain an intent to defraud; rather, a person is guilty of committing financial elder abuse so long as it would be obvious to a reasonable person that the taker is not entitled to the elder’s assets.
When Amazon for instance charges a Senior for its "Prime" account and sells them 'stolen goods, counterfeit, dangerous and/or defective products it could be construed as by false pretenses and thusly Elder Financial Abuse may have taken place in which the law now can be invoked to protect the financial wherewithal of the deceived individual.
The State of California only requires that the aggreived need be a California resident, 65 years of age and cheated in some amount not specified, basically defrauded in any amount for this law to kick in.
California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e)
(d) Any person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of an elder or a dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or a dependent adult, is punishable as follows:
(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(e) Any caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable as follows:
(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.07.
"Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult" means either of the following:
(a) Physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.
(b) The deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.
15610.27. "Elder" means any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.
California Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30.
(a) "Financial abuse" of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:
(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70 and by Section 1575 of the Civil Code.
(b) A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.
Not all of California's 9 million residents 65+ years are involved with everything stated herein however a vast majority may have the circumstances regarding their respective dealings with Amazon creating monumental legal ramifications with potential
California Welfare and Institutions Code section § 15657.5 provides:
(a) Where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for financial abuse, as defined n Section 15610.30, in addition to all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the court shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The term "costs" includes, but is not limited to, reasonable fees for the services of a conservator, if any, devoted to the litigation of a claim brought under this article.
(b) Where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30, and where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of the abuse, in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs set forth in subdivision (a), and all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the following shall apply:
(1) The limitations imposed by Section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the damages recoverable shall not apply.
(2) The standards set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code regarding the imposition of punitive damages on an employer based upon the acts of an employee shall be satisfied before any damages or attorney's fees permitted under this section may be imposed against an employer.
(c) Nothing in this section affects the award of punitive damages under Section 3294 of the Civil Code.
One of the absolutely fantastic scenarios regarding California's Elder Financial Abuse Act is should a Plaintiff decide to file a lawsuit against a Defendant the law states that if the Plaintiff prevails then is awarded reasonable costs and attorney fees however conversely if does not prevail the Plaintiff has no legal obligation to reimburse the Defendant any of their costs or attorney fees.
The California legislature decided to give tremendous teeth to this law so seniors would be more inclined to pursue their perpetrator knowing that if they were not successful they would not be burdened with a horrific legal expense of the Defendant.
Being aware of this above information it would appear that there may well be numerous lawsuits initiated against any company that has willfully and knowingly sold among other things 'stolen goods' to the vulnerable California residents over the age of 65 and even possibly the other 49 states residents as well depending on the various laws pertaining to their situations!
No one should be above the law, not even Jeff Bezos, common thieves deal in 'stolen goods' and when found guilty in a court of law they are sentenced to prison, Jeff Bezos should be no different!
What separates Jeff Bezos from the Ponzie criminal Bernie Madoff? Steel Bars and Armed Guards!
On February 2, 2021 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) just fined Amazon $61.7 Million Dollars for STEALING TIP money from their own delivery drivers, how low can one company get! How low can Jeff Bezos be but to allow, or maybe even instruct, Amazon to STEAL millions of dollars from their own hard working delivery drivers, absolutely despicable!
Jeff Bezos admitted emphatically that he knowingly allowed Amazon to sell 'stolen goods' which is also know as stolen property, stolen merchandise etc. and he should be held accountable and forced to face a criminal trial jury of his peers. If found guilty, it would be extremely difficult to render any other verdict, as he testified under oath to Congress and that Congressional Hearing was televised and viewed by millions of people around the world that Amazon sells 'stolen goods'.
Amazon, by Jeff Bezos' testimony, has over a million third-party sellers so it would be reasonable to conclude even a miniscule percentage could amount to tens of thousands of 'stolen goods' would be handled by Amazon and therefore the penalty for each individual infraction could conceivably bring about several years in prison and then multiplied by the massive number of sales of 'stolen goods' could amount to a lifetime behind bars, and the evidence of his direct and irrefutable testimony would cause his conviction without the need for any witnesses. And to even magnify this each act of selling 'stolen goods' is the direct result of receiving 'stolen goods', another set of felonies for each. Jeff Bezos, if convicted, may never see the light of day beyond his prison walls. Amazon did nothing to investigate and vet these sellers to determine for themselves that none of this property was stolen or counterfeit so he deserves whatever sentence the various juries decide. Had Amazon conducted sufficient due diligence instead of just being focused on the almighty dollar they could have easily prevented this criminal action of receiving and selling 'stolen goods'.
All of the District Attorneys and Attorneys General in every jurisdiction throughout the United States could prosecute Jeff Bezos and in addition to prison incarceration could quite possibly enforce Billions of Dollars in fines and court costs which very well may reduce Jeff Bezos from being the richest man in the world to just your average every day common felon criminal. Daunting thought to say the least. Jeff Bezos may receive his come uppings and he has no one else to blame except himself for being so greedy as to knowingly sell 'stolen goods'.
In August 2019 the FBI uncovered a theft ring in Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered, that sold millions of dollars' of 'stolen goods' on Amazon.com in just the past 6 years FBI agent Ariana Kroshinsky wrote in her affidavit.
The guilty must face the consequences of their actions and Jeff Bezos must be held to the same legal standards that all Americans agree to live by and he may have become a multi billionaire because he engaged in selling 'stolen goods' where the great majority of Americans walk the narrow path of honesty instead of criminal activity and apparently Jeff Bezos chose the easy road with impunity!
Approximately 145 Million people around the globe subscribe to Amazon's "Prime" accounts and pay billions of dollars for the privilege believing that Amazon would act in their best interest and never sell them any counterfeit, dangerous, defective or 'stolen goods' and because Amazon deceived them they at the very least should have the entirety of their costs refunded to them which would most likely amount to BILLIONS of dollars which would then affect the income to Amazon being decreased exponentially and subsequently reduce the stock value accordingly. Amazon would be required to file documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission of these 'material facts'.
There is another possible smoking gun regarding how Amazon conducts their respective businesses and that is their "Terms of Service". If their "Terms of Service" are worded in a specific way with the intent to deceive as mentioned above then quite possibly it could be construed in a court of law that it is a "Scheme or Artifice to Defraud" in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1346 which could eliminate it from their business entirely by making it invalid and unenforceable in every aspect. This would open up a whole new legal quandary for Amazon should the courts decide to deem their "Terms of Service" unenforceable.
Most major corporations have a 'morals clause' as part of their employee contracts which should include all executives and members of the Board of Directors, wherein if any of them violate it they should be terminated for committing or allowing knowingly criminal acts such as multiple felonies. It would be difficult, if not impossible to claim 'plausible deniability' since the CEO Jeff Bezos admitted under oath his direct knowledge of Amazon engaging in the selling of 'stolen goods'.
Another gleaming aspect of this criminal behavior within Amazon's hierarchy is that in the commission of this very serious crime situation is that the law requires what is referred to as "Clawback" which details that all money generated in the act of committing a Felony the proceeds can be confiscated and/or forfeited to the respective governmental agencies having jurisdiction.
In the case with Jeff Bezos, if found guilty, his multiple million dollar personal acquisitions such as his mansions in Beverly Hills and Washington D.C. and the newspaper Washington Post etc. should also be forfeited as the benefits gained from illegal activity selling 'stolen goods.'
At the risk of being redundant, no one should be above the law which would include Jeff Bezos and when prosecuted finalized and established that he is guilty his forfeitures should amount to several Billion dollars. He was aware of his crimes and did nothing to prevent it and therefore 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". We reap exactly what we sow, including the richest man in the world.
The numerous law enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction of the crimes locations, which might be all 50 states, should prosecute every high ranking executive within Amazon including but not limited to CEO Jeff Bezos to the fullest extent of the law and sentence them to the maximum number of years possible to set an example that literally no one is above the law and thus these severe penalties will be a deterrent to any other corporate execs to refrain from engaging is such egregious activities against their fellow man!
There may be other foreign entities such as Canada, the European Union, Great Britain, Ireland among numerous others that want to initiate their own legal proceedings against Amazon, Jeff Bezos along with additional senior executives who participated and allowed the crime of selling 'stolen goods' to have their day in court.
Jeff Bezos may come to 'Rue the Day' that he admitted under oath to selling 'stolen goods'!
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020, the world's richest man, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, testified under oath before the United States Congress answering questions regarding his company's anti-competitive behavior.
During the five-hour-long Q&A session Jeff Bezos was hit with a wide array of questions about topics ranging from Amazon's controversial use of third-party seller data to turning a blind eye to counterfeit products and selling 'stolen goods'.
Being the founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos is acutely aware of literally all that happens within his Amazon empire as he would be the most knowledgeable regarding the inner workings of his own company which is precisely how he became the richest man in the entire world.
David Cicilline, the chair of the House of Representative's Antitrust subcommittee who was leading the investigation into Amazon's stated "As CEO and founder of the company, (Jeff Bezos) must be accountable for Amazon's record of dishonesty before Congress", and "In light of the gravity of this situation, I am also considering whether a perjury referral is warranted".
Congress also said that the company statements "appear to be misleading, and possibly criminally false or perjurious".
For example, when Rep. Pramila Jayapal asked him whether Amazon ever used third-party seller data to create competing products under its own label, Bezos dodged that direct and specific question by replying "I can't answer yes or no to that question".
"We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private-label business", he added, "But I can't guarantee you that that policy has never been violated". Jeff Bezos knows full well what takes place at Amazon, he answered in that verbiage to cover himself and not be found guilty of perjury.
Pressed to address allegations of Amazon's data appropriation exposed in a Wall Street Journal investigation in April, Bezos said he didn't know the specifics yet. "We continue to look into that very carefully".
In a separate exchange later in the hearing, Congresswoman Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia asked Bezos whether Amazon has allowed 'stolen goods' to be sold on its platform. Rep. McBath asked Jeff Bezos, "Are 'stolen goods' sold on Amazon? To which Bezos replied, "Congresswoman, not to my knowledge". This response was absolute perjury to the United States Congress because Jeff Bezos was acutely aware of the August 2019 FBI investigation of the $10 Million dollar theft ring that sold 'stolen goods' on Amazon!
Asked more than once Jeff Bezos eventually admitted under oath that yes, Amazon does indeed sell 'stolen goods' by stating among other things that "There are more than one million sellers on Amazon. I'm sure there have been 'stolen goods' sold on Amazon".
Rep. McBath asked point blank again, "So basically Mr. Bezos that means you are saying YES?" To which Bezos finally responded, "I GUESS SO".
Pressed further by Rep. McBath on the subject of selling 'stolen goods', Jeff Bezos stated "I don't think it's a large part of what we are doing". Are you kidding Jeff Bezos, NOT A LARGE PART OF WHAT WE ARE DOING! You act as if it's no big deal but definitely something that brings in lots of income so we just close our eyes and let the money flow in from our 'stolen goods' business!
Mr. Bezos, 'Go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect the $200, just like the play monopoly game'! It appears to you that selling 'stolen goods' is something you take for granted and enjoy since it's part and parcel of what made you into a Billionaire and the richest man in the world. You mock the hard working honest people of America and you should be ashamed of yourself...
Law enforcement can't ignore your blatant refusal to police your own company and eliminate once and for all the criminal behavior of selling 'stolen goods' etc. and they should prosecute you Jeff Bezos just like any street criminal who robs a liquor store for a couple hundred dollars. Not only does selling Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods' hurt the consumer but cause the prices of everything any legitimate business sells to try and offset what you do on what could possibly be an every day occurence.
Every individual engaged in Law Enforcement in the United States has sworn a sacred oath to "Defend the Constitution Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic' and to uphold the law equally regardless of who may be the criminal so they must investigate and prosecute every perpetrator including Jeff Bezos as he is an 'admitted criminal' against his own customers.
Selling 'stolen goods' is a FELONY! Receiving 'stolen goods' is also a FELONY!
Since a vast number of third-party sellers ship their goods to be sold in the 'Fulfillment by Amazon' (FBA) and Amazon then receives and stores their products within Amazon's warehouses (fulfillment centers) and then the Amazon advertises the various products for sale, uses Amazon's payment methods, and then will pick, pack and ship them in Amazon packaging to the purchasers.
A California Appeals court ruled last April that Amazon was indeed the seller of record to Angela Bolger since Amazon's activities basically conducted the entire transaction from beginning to end even though they did not manufacture the defective product and harmed Bolger severely.
In respect with 'stolen goods' Amazon receives them from the third party sellers which means Amazon is committing numerous FELONIES by becoming the recipient of 'stolen property' and then selling/delivering 'stolen goods' with the full and complete knowledge of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as verified by his sworn testimony before the United States Congress, can't be more substantiated proof than that! GUILTY!!!
Congress has demanded that Amazon discontinue selling 'Stolen Goods', Counterfeit, Illegal, Deadly and Deceptive Products.
There may be another possibility why sellers have chosen Amazon as their partner in crime and that is it would be the perfect mechanism to carry out 'money laundering', meaning taking the dirty money obtained via 'stolen goods' being sold at will on Amazon and then cleaning that same sales money, which is a 'Prime" method, and hopefully undetectable to Amazon since Amazon nor Jeff Bezos has been able to stem the tide of long term 'stolen goods' from being overwhelming sold on Amazon.
If Amazon has become too large and unwieldy then maybe the Federal Government should force Amazon into a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy which could then install one of their Bankruptcy Court Trustees to oversee and run the company since it appears that Jeff Bezos does not possess the necessary control capabilities to prevent and eliminate the proliferation of receiving and selling Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective and Illegal 'Stolen Goods' from their platform.
The United States Congress should subpoena every single sales document of Amazon for at least the past 10 years to establish exactly how many transactions contained any Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods' took place and reverse those illegal sales and return the entire purchase price to the consumer victims who was deceived.
MacKenzie Scott, as she is currently known, was married to Jeff Bezos for 26 years and was MacKenzie Bezos until shortly after their divorce was final, and they had created Amazon together. She legally changed her name from Bezos, partly because she no longer wanted to be associated with his name, which is totally understandable. She recently donated over $4.5 Billion dollars of her vast divorce settlement fortune to hundreds of various charities which is an awesome benefit to the less fortunate of society and very commendable. Knowing that Jeff Bezos admitted under oath that while they were married he was involved with rampant receiving and selling Millions of dollars of 'Stolen Goods' along with Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, and Illegal property to unsuspecting Amazon consumers and therefore MacKenzie Scott, as she is now known, may have felt extremely guilty that her husband was so greedy that he took advantage of his customers and this might have been her way of alleviating at least some of that tremendously burdensome guilty conscience. Was MacKenzie Bezos aware at the time she was married to Jeff Bezos that his company, Amazon, was STEALING Millions of Dollars from his own delivery drivers?
We may never know if these were the true reasons, or it could possibly be due to his infidelity, either one or both, who knows. Another distinct possibility could be is that if and when he is prosecuted for these numerous felonies MacKenzie Scott wanted to be as distanced from Jeff Bezos as much as she could so she would not become entangled with his prosecution and subsequent conviction since he did testify under oath that he knowingly was party to the felony of selling 'Stolen Goods'.
This entire situation would make for a great book to be published utilizing the title for example of "Jeff Bezos, The Richest Felon". Is someone considered a 'Felon' at the time they admit under oath that they committed a 'Felony' or only when the jury has found that person guilty in a court of law? Interesting scenario nonetheless, however the book itself could become a true 'Best Seller'!
Even Amazon's highly touted cloud business, AWS (Amazon Web Services), is in shambles because in just one specific instance in August 2019 a former Amazon employee, Paige A. Thompson, was able to use her training to hack into Capital One Bank credit card division and expose over 100 Million accounts allowing their private information such as Social Security numbers, bank account info etc. to be known thereby showing to the entire world that Amazon AWS is not all that it's cracked up to be and nothing is totally safe from criminals at Amazon especially current or former employees!
California Penal Code Section § 496 - Receiving Stolen Property
Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of theft, or by burglary or robbery. Theft includes obtaining property by larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or trick.
To receive property means to take possession and control of it. Two or more people can possess the property at the same time.
A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to possess it. It is enough if the person has control over it either personally or through another person.
When Amazon third-party sellers deliver 'stolen goods' to an Amazon Fulfillment Center for resale and delivery the Amazon company is then the recipient of 'stolen property' based upon the California Penal Code Section § 496, they are part and parcel of the actual act.
California Penal Code section § 496, subdivision (a) (section 496(a)) makes receiving or buying property “that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft” a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. Section § 496, subdivision (c) (section 496(c)) provides that any person “who has been injured by a violation of (section 496(a) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.”
Plaintiffs contends, based on the statutory language, a criminal conviction under section 496(a) is not a prerequisite to recovery of treble damages under section 496(c). Plaintiff asserts that the phrase “any manner constituting theft” under section 496(a) includes theft by false pretense.
Leading buyers of Amazon products without disclosing that they may be 'counterfeit, damaged, deadly, defective, illegal, and/or 'stolen goods' is tantamount to selling via false pretenses and therefore may be considered the crime of theft by false pretense under California Penal Code Section § 496.
Receiving Stolen Property (Penal Code, § 496(a)). (“(Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of theft, or by burglary or robbery. (Theft includes obtaining property by larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or trick.))”)
Theft by False Pretense, Larceny by Trickery, Unjust Enrichment (Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Pandemic Emergency), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith are a few more that need to be investigated in the process of selling and receiving 'stolen goods' as they pertain to Amazon not disclosing these facts to potential buyers of the Counterfeit, Dangerous, Deadly, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods'.
California Penal Code § 532 (a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.
California Penal Code § 484 Larceny (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.
California Penal Code § 396 (a) The Legislature hereby finds that during a state of emergency or local emergency, including, but not limited to, an earthquake, flood, fire, riot, storm, drought, plant or animal infestation or disease, pandemic or epidemic disease outbreak, or other natural or manmade disaster, some merchants have taken unfair advantage of consumers by greatly increasing prices for essential consumer goods and services. While the pricing of consumer goods and services is generally best left to the marketplace under ordinary conditions, when a declared state of emergency or local emergency results in abnormal disruptions of the market, the public interest requires that excessive and unjustified increases in the prices of essential consumer goods and services be prohibited. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to protect citizens from excessive and unjustified increases in the prices charged during or shortly after a declared state of emergency or local emergency for goods and services that are vital and necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of consumers, whether those goods and services are offered or sold in person, in stores, or online. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that this section be liberally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be served.
California Penal Code § Unjust Enrichment - In every contract or agreement there is an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. This implied promise means that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of any other party to receive the benefits of the contract. Good faith means honesty of purpose without any intention to mislead or to take unfair advantage of another. Generally speaking, it means being faithful to one’s duty or obligation. However, the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing cannot create obligations that are inconsistent with the terms of the contract. Amazon by the very nature of selling 'Stolen Goods' as just one example, without full disclosure has violated "Good Faith and Fair Dealing" with every buyer of property from Amazon including the 'Elderly' which would kick in Elder Financial Abuse.
Ignorance of the law is neither an excuse nor a defense of the criminal act.
The very instant that a Defendant commits any other crimes, any property so obtained was then obtained by "Theft" and thus selling said property would be considered "Stolen Property" and could immediately constitute additional crimes under California Penal Code Section § 496.
There is a relatively unknown but extremely important, legal case decided by the California Appeals Court that will have a profound effect on Amazon and Jeff Bezos regarding the receiving of and selling 'stolen goods',
California Court of Appeals Fourth District, Division 3, Penal Code Section § 498(c) making it illegal to receive stolen goods allows Treble Damages GO46166 Decided January 15, 2013 Sharon Bell v. Igal J. Feibush does not require a criminal conviction under Section § 496(a).
In Bell v. Feibush (filed January 15, 2013) 2013 DJDAR 627, Feibush argues that permitting Bell to recover treble damages under section 496(c) is contrary to public policy and permits litigants to circumvent limitations on remedies. Our decision to affirm the default judgment is based on straightforward statutory interpretation. Section 496(a) extends liability to “(e)very person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft.” (Italics added.) Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a) describes the acts constituting theft to include theft by false pretense, which is the consensual but fraudulent acquisition of property from its owner. (Pen.Code § 484, subd. (a), 532.) Feibush was found liable for fraud, i.e., for the fraudulent acquisition of property (money) from its owner (Bell). “Anything that could be the subject of a theft can also be property under section 496.” (People v. Gopal (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 524, 541, 217 Cal.Rptr. 487.) A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted for either theft or receiving stolen property under section 496(a).
Penal Code § 487 PC – Grand theft defined (may be charged in connection with receiving stolen property). (“Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases: (a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b). (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in any of the following cases: . . . (c) When the property is taken from the person of another. (d) When the property taken is any of the following: (1) An automobile, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine animal, any caprine animal, mule, jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow, boar, gilt, barrow, or pig. (2) A firearm.”)
Plaintiff contends that under California Penal Code section § 496 Defendants, by obtaining ownership even temporarily via committing a criminal act in violation of California Penal Code section § 532 Defendant did so illegally and thus obtained momentary and temporary ownership of said property stored in an Amazon warehouse, fulfillment center, to sell to millions of unsuspecting buyers by false pretenses makes the property transfer tantamount to "receiving and then subsequently selling stolen property", a felony under California Law.
California has an extremely valuable law for Senior Citizens, individuals 65 years old and over commonly referred to as Elder Financial Abuse Act.
There are approximately 9 million residents of California aged 65+, of which a substantial number have at one time or another purchased property from Amazon, which makes their situation a monumental dilemma for Jeff Bezos and his Amazon company.
California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e) Elder Financial Abuse and Civil Code Section § 1575
Elder Financial Abuse is both a civil tort and a criminal offense.
It is not necessary under these statutes that the taker maintain an intent to defraud; rather, a person is guilty of committing financial elder abuse so long as it would be obvious to a reasonable person that the taker is not entitled to the elder’s assets.
When Amazon for instance charges a Senior for its "Prime" account and sells them 'stolen goods, counterfeit, dangerous and/or defective products it could be construed as by false pretenses and thusly Elder Financial Abuse may have taken place in which the law now can be invoked to protect the financial wherewithal of the deceived individual.
The State of California only requires that the aggreived need be a California resident, 65 years of age and cheated in some amount not specified, basically defrauded in any amount for this law to kick in.
California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e)
(d) Any person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of an elder or a dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or a dependent adult, is punishable as follows:
(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(e) Any caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable as follows:
(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.07.
"Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult" means either of the following:
(a) Physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.
(b) The deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.
15610.27. "Elder" means any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.
California Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30.
(a) "Financial abuse" of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:
(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70 and by Section 1575 of the Civil Code.
(b) A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.
Not all of California's 9 million residents 65+ years are involved with everything stated herein however a vast majority may have the circumstances regarding their respective dealings with Amazon creating monumental legal ramifications with potential
California Welfare and Institutions Code section § 15657.5 provides:
(a) Where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for financial abuse, as defined n Section 15610.30, in addition to all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the court shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The term "costs" includes, but is not limited to, reasonable fees for the services of a conservator, if any, devoted to the litigation of a claim brought under this article.
(b) Where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30, and where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of the abuse, in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs set forth in subdivision (a), and all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the following shall apply:
(1) The limitations imposed by Section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the damages recoverable shall not apply.
(2) The standards set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code regarding the imposition of punitive damages on an employer based upon the acts of an employee shall be satisfied before any damages or attorney's fees permitted under this section may be imposed against an employer.
(c) Nothing in this section affects the award of punitive damages under Section 3294 of the Civil Code.
One of the absolutely fantastic scenarios regarding California's Elder Financial Abuse Act is should a Plaintiff decide to file a lawsuit against a Defendant the law states that if the Plaintiff prevails then is awarded reasonable costs and attorney fees however conversely if does not prevail the Plaintiff has no legal obligation to reimburse the Defendant any of their costs or attorney fees.
The California legislature decided to give tremendous teeth to this law so seniors would be more inclined to pursue their perpetrator knowing that if they were not successful they would not be burdened with a horrific legal expense of the Defendant.
Being aware of this above information it would appear that there may well be numerous lawsuits initiated against any company that has willfully and knowingly sold among other things 'stolen goods' to the vulnerable California residents over the age of 65 and even possibly the other 49 states residents as well depending on the various laws pertaining to their situations!
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."
“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."
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, Receiving and Selling 'Stolen Goods', Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Social Injustice, Unethical Practices and Unsafe Working Conditions just to name a few.
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, Receiving and Selling 'Stolen Goods', Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Social Injustice, Unethical Practices and Unsafe Working Conditions just to name a few.