A lawsuit has been brought against online retail giant Amazon, which could see up to £900m paid out to customers in the UK.
A collective action, which will be filed by the end of the month, accuses the internet behemoth of breaching competition law and railroading its customers into paying higher prices.
Here's what you need to know.
What's the lawsuit about?
It's being alleged that Amazon abused its dominant market position to trick customers into paying higher prices.
The suit, known as the UK Box Buy Claim, will submit that most customers buy their products from the 'featured' section of the Amazon website and app.
The company, they allege, uses a "secretive and self-favouring algorithm" to ensure that this section, reffered to as the Buy Box "nearly always" features goods sold directly by Amazon itself, or by third-party retailers who pay hefty storage and delivery fees to the company.
It's claimed that the Buy Box is deliberately designed and presented to make it harder for customers to browse the site for cheaper options on products or delivery.
The claimants say this is an abuse of Amazon's power as the dominant online retailer and as such a breach of its "obligation as the dominant marketplace not to distort competition".
Who is bringing the lawsuit?
It's being put forward by Julie Hunter as the proposed class representative, she is the chair of the Consumer & Public Interest Network and a long-standing advocate of consumer rights.
The suit is due to be filed in the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London by the end of the month.
How much are they seeking from Amazon?
They're seeking damages of £900m, in the form of compensation to customers.
Would I be eligible for compensation?
If they win the case and you've been an Amazon customer, yes.
The collective action is being filed on behalf of all potential claimants, which means you don't have to opt-in.
So, if you've made purchases on the Amazon UK website or the Amazon app you'd be entitled to compensation.
What do Amazon say?
A spokesman said: "This claim is without merit and we’re confident that will become clear through the legal process.
"Amazon has always focused on supporting the 85,000 businesses that sell their products on our UK store, and more than half of all physical product sales on our UK store are from independent selling partners. We always work to feature offers that provide customers with low prices and fast delivery."
What do the claimants say?
Julie Hunter said: "Nine out of ten shoppers in the UK have used Amazon, according to surveys, and two thirds use it at least once a month. Like countless millions of people in the UK, I often use Amazon for the convenience it offers.
"Many consumers believe that Amazon offers good choice and value, but instead it uses tricks of design to manipulate consumer choice and direct customers towards the featured offer in its Buy Box. Far from being a recommendation based on price or quality, the Buy Box favours products sold by Amazon itself, or by retailers who pay Amazon for handling their logistics.
"Other sellers, however good their offers might be, are effectively shut out – relegated down-page, or hidden several clicks away in an obscure corner of Amazon’s website.
"Online shoppers have a right to be treated fairly and to be able to make informed decisions. This lack of transparency and manipulation of choice is an abuse of consumers’ trust, as well as a raid on their wallets.
"Amazon occupies an incredibly powerful position in the market, making it impossible for consumers to take individual action. Amazon shouldn’t be allowed to set the rules in its favour and treat consumers unfairly. That is why I am bringing this action."
What's the outcome likely to be?
It's hard to say: Amazon have the resources for good lawyers and a lengthy case.
However, an initial investigation by the European Commission into the same practice returned a preliminary finding that the company had breached anti-trust laws.
Following that the UK's Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) launched its own investigation in June this year.
This isn't the first time Amazon's been criticised...
No, the company has come under fire for all manner of things, including working conditions in its warehouses and for its delivery drivers.
Its European arm was fined €746m in 2021 for violating GDPR rules, a decision which Amazon says it will appeal.
The effect it has on small business has also been criticised. Amazon's prices are low, and it doesn't actually make very much money - if any - on its retail operations.
The company books a lot of its profits from AWS (Amazon Web Services) which provides cloud computing services on a pay-as-you go basis.
That brought in $62bn of revenue last year and an operating income of $18bn.
Amazon's revenue as a whole was close to $500bn but its operating income was closer to $25bn. So, while the bulk of its income comes from online stores, whether through its own products or third parties, it doesn't rely on them to make money in the way a smaller business does - meaning it can afford to sell things far more cheaply and, in some cases, cut others out of the market.
There has also been criticism of the amount of tax the company pays. Amazon reports its UK retail sales through the aforementioned Amazon EU, which in 2020 brought in €44bn of revenue but made a €1.2bn loss so paid no tax.
Its UK arm, Amazon UK Services, deals with warehouses and logistics and paid £18.3m in corporation tax on £128m in profits.
Including retail, logistics and IT services it made £20.63bn that year and said it paid out paid out £492m in “direct taxes” - including employer’s national insurance, business rates, stamp duty and corporation tax.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here