Guitarhancock wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:53 am
Here is the way it works in reality. Neither LaBella or Mari are required to sell their product to anyone. They can sell their product from the back door of their warehouse if they have the correct local licenses. Or they can sell to WalMart and not to Amazon if they choose. If SBM wants to only sell LaBella they can . If they want to sell Mari and La Bella does not like it then SBM can tell LaBella to take a hike unless they have a binding legal contract they signed not to sell Mari strings. This happens throughout retailing in the USA. Many high end companies that only sell to Saks, Macys and Nordstrom would never sell to Costco or Wal Mart because their items would be sold at a lower price. It works.
Do not let the government interfere. Any more than it does.
Australia sounds like a great place to live but ....SBM is in the USA. Competition
I understand all of that and agree that, by and large, that is competition at play. It may well be that as we have a smaller domestic market we therefore need additional regulation. This regulation is not interfering
with competition, but designed to stop anti-competitive behaviour. The only example given by you above where it would trigger in Australia is a case where a supplier offered product to a retailer but did so on the basis that the retailer could not stock a competitor's products
. The reason for this is to avoid large players using their market power to stifle smaller competitors, which is certainly not in the interests of consumer in the longer term.