Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Amazon

The SHOP SAFE Act Would Entrench Amazon's Dominance

An ill-conceived proposal to increase liability for online marketplaces could effectively outlaw all but the biggest players.

Robby Soave | 1.19.2022 10:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
zumaamericasthirtythree141580 (1) | Blue Origin/ZUMA Press/Newscom
(Blue Origin/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

The SHOP SAFE Act is a typical piece of safety-themed legislation, in that it would accomplish something much more sinister than what its name promises. Far from protecting online shoppers from harmful products, this legislation—sponsored by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) in the House and by Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) in the Senate—threatens to obliterate online marketplaces by subjecting them to increased liability.

Democrats are currently plotting to add the SHOP SAFE Act to the bipartisan Endless Frontier Act, a technology infrastructure bill that already passed in the Senate and could certainly become law sometime in the future. This would be a disaster; the SHOP SAFE Act has massive problems that would make it very difficult for smaller online marketplaces to survive. While the bill is undoubtedly intended to seize on Congress's anti–Big Tech fervor, the likely outcome of its passage would be the solidification of Amazon's dominance.

That's because the bill would raise the liability threshold for online marketplaces: not just Amazon and eBay, but also Etsy, Facebook, and virtually any internet platform where goods can be sold—even Gmail.

"The current bill language could be interpreted to cover anything from Craigslist to Gmail—basically any online service that can play a role in advertising, selling, or delivering goods," argues the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "This isn't just some reach reading that we came up with; at least two anti-counterfeiting organizations supporting SHOP SAFE have urged Congress to make sure it applies even to Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp."

Any online platform where goods can theoretically be exchanged could be liable if those goods were counterfeit and "implicate health and safety," per the bill's wording. Needless to say, this is extremely broad language that could scare the big platforms' would-be competitors out of the market entirely. One of the easiest ways to entrench Amazon as the default online marketplace would be for regulators to add a crippling liability burden that only Amazon is wealthy enough to survive.

If that weren't bad enough, the SHOP SAFE Act also raises serious digital privacy concerns, by requiring platforms to collect information from their vendors. Given how vast the coverage is here, EFF worries about a world in which users have to "provide a copy of your driver's license to Craigslist just to advertise your garage sale or sell a used bike."

Eric Goldman, a professor of law at Santa Clara University, describes the bill as a massive invasion of privacy that could inadvertently help hackers obtain damaging information on buyers and sellers.

"This bill will kill online marketplaces and make markets less efficient," he writes. "The net competitive effects, then, are that consumers will pay higher prices, consumers will lose their ability to find long-tail items and incur higher search costs to do so, existing market leaders will consolidate their dominant positions, and hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs."

Goldman also suspects the bill would drive most if not all online marketplaces out of business, with the possible exception of Amazon.

"Another possibility is that Amazon will be the only player able to comply with the law, in which case the law entrenches an insurmountable competitive moat around Amazon's marketplace," he writes.

And for what? The law doesn't accomplish anything that's urgently needed by the public. Online marketplaces already have incentives to remove counterfeit merchandise and ensure that vendors are representing their products correctly. The SHOP SAFE Act is a heavy-handed government intervention that will make matters much, much worse.

"Mitigating retail crime is incredibly important but SHOP SAFE intentionally targets e-commerce companies and the sellers that use them in ways that harm their businesses and fail to solve the real underlying problems of fraud and retail crime," says Jennifer Huddleston, policy counsel at NetChoice, a trade association for tech groups.

It has been all too common for political figures on both sides of the ideological spectrum to rail against the Big Tech menace, proposing solutions that would worsen the very problems they purport to solve. The SHOP SAFE Act falls squarely into this category; frighteningly, it could very well become law.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Voters Around the World Are Cooling on Populists, Gravitating Toward Technocrats

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

AmazonTechnologyRegulationCommerce
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (50)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Chumby   3 years ago

    It would lead to more folks pursuing an Amazon position.

    1. Debra   3 years ago

      Work At Home For USA ]My buddy's aunt makes $50/hr on the computer. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her but pay check was $18000 just working on the computer for a few hours. Check The Details HERE:- >>>>> CLICK HERE

  2. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

    "The SHOP SAFE Act Would Entrench Amazon's Dominance ... Far from protecting online shoppers from harmful products, this legislation—sponsored by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) in the House and by Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) in the Senate—threatens to obliterate online marketplaces by subjecting them to increased liability."

    OMG

    You're telling me Democrats are proposing legislation that would help Amazon, which was founded by Jeff Bezos, the second richest person on the planet?

    #OBLsFirstLaw
    #VoteDemocratToHelpBillionaires

    1. Chumby   3 years ago

      OBL, could you post the Bezos wealth index? Post Trump.

      1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

        Unfortunately Mr. Bezos is down $8 billion in 2022 which more than erases the progress he made in 2021. The year is still early though. He'll bounce back.

        Also it's important to note that Warren Buffett's net worth is the most reliable indicator. And Buffett is up $7 billion this year, on top of the $21 billion he made last year.

        1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

          Would the Bezo's dip have anything to do with the rocket phallus he ejaculated into space?

          1. B G   3 years ago

            He's been pouring money into Blue Origin for 20+ years. You don't get to design and build a rocket on credit then pay the whole tab once it's flown.

        2. Overt   3 years ago

          OBL- play songs by Buena Vista Social Club

      2. Overt   3 years ago

        "OBL, could you post the Bezos wealth index? Post Trump."

        Holy shit...OBL has just been an Amazon Alexa with reason pluggin enabled all this time?

    2. Hank Phillips   3 years ago

      If nationalsocialist platform like The Shill is agin' it, that alone suggests it might not be so bad. Robbie reinforces this by splitting the universe into "both sides" of "the" ideological spectrum binary digit. That can only mean the Republican christianofascist versus the Fabian communist Dems, with the Libertarian Party dumped off the chessboard entirely. Very soave and deboner reality control for a Reason vid.

    3. NOYB2   3 years ago

      It’s not that Democrats help Bezos per se, they simply pursue policies that are in the financial interest of their major constituencies, including tech workers, Wall St, nonprofit workers, etc.

      That is, it isn’t as simple as “Bezos is a Democrat, therefore they help Bezos”, it’s more like “a lot of Democrats benefit when Bezos benefits, so they help his company.” But Bezos, of course, does his part to help Democrats anyway.

  3. rahul   3 years ago

    very interesting, good job and thanks for sharing such a good blog. Romantic Shayari Images

  4. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

    Sounds like a feature, not a bug.

  5. damikesc   3 years ago

    "Far from protecting online shoppers from harmful products, this legislation—sponsored by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) in the House and by Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) in the Senate—threatens to obliterate online marketplaces by subjecting them to increased liability."

    I see no reason to assume that this was unintended.

    1. n00bdragon   3 years ago

      https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00000939

      I'll just leave this here.

      1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        What were we supposed to conclude? There isn't any online retailer prominently listed in his donor list.

    2. Penguin   3 years ago

      I don't see how a handful of citizens can stop it seeing that elitist meet in secret all the time, draw up some bills and laws and call it a done day. One of the problems is the erosion of local farming and local markets but in turn I seen a mom-and-pop owned hardware store trying to sell a hammer that you can buy cheaper online at Walmart so it is a paradox.

      1. Hank Phillips   3 years ago

        If "the people" are too cowardly to lift (literally) a finger to vote libertarian, then The Kleptocracy will continue to do whatever it wants at your expense. That's the way it was done in Germany and Japan, before the invention of Libertarian Parties. Now all it takes to weaken the initiation of force is for 3% to make a mark a couple of inches further down once every two years or so. Is that easier than riding a cattle cart to Treblinka or being baked with X-rays?

    3. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      Go ahead and hold whatever biases you want, but for a lot of us we assume bad legislation proposals are the product of good intentions combined with dumb ideas.

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        Go ahead and hold whatever biases you want, but for a lot of us we assume bad legislation proposals are the product of good intentions combined with dumb ideas.

        You say that as if that's an excuse. I mean, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini thought they had "good intentions".

        "Good intentions" lie at the heart of fascism and socialism. Good intentions result in the destruction of societies, totalitarianism, and genocides.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          You are reading that into what I said. I don't think good intentions count for that much.

          1. NOYB2   3 years ago

            I don't think good intentions count for that much.

            I'm glad to hear it. We'll hold you to that when you argue for more progressive laws based on good intentions (yours or others).

            I was merely pointing out that not only do "good intentions" fail to matter for achieving good outcomes, they usually lead to disaster, because "good intentions" in government mean that you are trying to use government to help people, something it is incapable of.

            1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

              “We'll hold you to that when you argue for more progressive laws based on good intentions (yours or others).”

              OK, I’ve never argued for more progressive laws (based on any justification), but if I ever do you can hold me to what I said.

            2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

              Oh, that’s silly. Of course, government helps people every now and then. “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

              From stopping rapists and murderers, to rescuing people from floods, to fixing the occasional pothole.

              Maybe they don’t do consistently or cost efficiently or without bad side effects, but of course they do help people now and then.

              1. NOYB2   3 years ago

                If you hold me up at gunpoint, take my wallet, steal $1000 and all my credit cards, and then give me $5 to catch a bus home, you aren't helping me.

                Likewise, when the government takes my money to provide me an inferior service compared to what a private market would, it is not helping me, it is hurting me. And that is what the government does in each and every one of your examples: "stopping rapists and murderers, to rescuing people from floods, to fixing the occasional pothole."

        2. Hank Phillips   3 years ago

          By "good" looters invariably mean altruistic.

      2. Zeb   3 years ago

        The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      3. Overt   3 years ago

        "for a lot of us we assume bad legislation proposals are the product of good intentions combined with dumb ideas."

        Who is this "us" kemosabe?

        Mike Yesterday:
        "When the Democrats are illogical and irrational, the Republicans could jump in and propose balanced, well-reasoned alternative proposals. But they don’t. They concentrate on being oppositional."

        Funny, it seems like Mike isn't willing to assume Republicans have "Good Intentions"- no, they are just trying to be oppositional. This was just YESTERDAY he was implying that the GOP doesn't have good intentions, and now he is here pretending that all good thinking people like him assume good intentions.

        https://reason.com/2022/01/18/arlington-alexandria-youngkin-mask-mandates-schools-cdc-ban/?comments=true#comments

        But this is Mike's trolling MO. He pretends to be a reasonable, fair and balanced guy, even though he is obviously partisan. And he will sit there and lie to everyone on the thread that he has a certain point of view when just the previous day he was doing the opposite. Just as he did when he passed around the fake Rolling Stone Ivermectin story, and then the next monday was pretending that he would never trust RS for anything but music news.

        If you get into a conversation with this guy, understand that it will lead nowhere because he isn't interested in sharing viewpoints- his viewpoints will be whatever is necessary tomorrow to look reasonable while defending the left.

      4. damikesc   3 years ago

        At a certain point, with a waterfall of terrible legislation, I see no benefit in giving Congress the benefit of the doubt. I do not see their "good intentions" but I do see a litany of their dumb ideas.

  6. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    Sponsored by (D) = Not a good idea.

    1. Hank Phillips   3 years ago

      I feel so sorry for girl-bullying Trumpanzees having lost their Divine Fuhrer. Imagine how horrified the Italian people were to find their Duce hanging upside down at a gas station. Has the GOP suicide rate gone up like it did in Germany in the latter half of 1945?

  7. ishwarphotos   3 years ago

    That was really a great Artucle.Thanks for sharing information. COntinue doing this.
    shankar bhagwan images

  8. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    So just like Facebook who went so far as to create its own whistleblower, or like Alphabet's big regulatory push.

    Muh private company.

  9. Dillinger   3 years ago

    the youths call this feature not bug

  10. Bob1062   3 years ago

    As I have said before, I would rather hear " I come in peace" from a foreign invader than a domestic politician saying "it's for your safety"

    1. Hank Phillips   3 years ago

      How true... GUARDS, silence Bob immediately!!

  11. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Siricon Varrey preased.

    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

      Das lacist!

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        Speaking of

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ8ViYIeH04

        I'm at the combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell...

  12. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

    "The SHOP SAFE Act"

    Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.

    1. Overt   3 years ago

      + 1 Boomstick.

  13. NOYB2   3 years ago

    "The current bill language could be interpreted to cover anything from Craigslist to Gmail—basically any online service that can play a role in advertising, selling, or delivering goods," argues the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

    The EFF has about as much credibility these days as the Democratic Socialists of America.

    That's because the bill would raise the liability threshold for online marketplaces: not just Amazon and eBay, but also Etsy, Facebook, and virtually any internet platform where goods can be sold—even Gmail [and WhatsApp].

    Oh, how sad! /sarc

    These companies supported the creeps who are running Congress; let them suffer the consequences.

    1. Zeb   3 years ago

      All of them?

      We all suffer the consequences.

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        We all suffer the consequences.

        If the Internet oligopolies are destroyed, that's a good thing for most Americans, given that they are effectively government-created monopolies.

        The market will quickly develop better replacements.

      2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

        People only suffer from private monopolies.

        This will be addressed by the yet to be revealed Government Retail by Amazon Future Trust Act (G.R.A.F.T.) which will create the Board for Auditing Retail Fairness (acronym to be determined later) which will monitor pricing and product reviews to protect consumers from predatory behaviors and poor customer service by levying penalties for which payment can be made in Amazon gift cards made out to 'Grandma'.

        To insure equity for historically disenfranchised communities, the G.R.A.F.T. Act will also incorporate a consumer rating. Customers will be awarded 1-5 stars based on a combination of their neighborhood's historical status within redlines and their vaccination status, and can be improved by their selection of products that meet BBB environmental and diversity goals. Availability at distribution outlets and shipping will be prioritized to customers who score highest within the Consumer United National Tracking System. Under this system, products will flow first and foremost to those striving the hardest to keep the C.U.N.T.S. happy.

    2. Overt   3 years ago

      Where has the EFF been going off the rails? I thought they were pretty annoying in the early 2000's only to realize they were 100% correct in their predictions about the Patriot Act. Last I checked they were more reliable on free speech than the ACLU...but did Trump break them too?

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        As far as I'm concerned, the EFF has become a lobbying arm for big tech, lawyers, and NGOs.

    3. Hank Phillips   3 years ago

      Congress used to censor away the LP by threatening news and teevee cartels. Electronic media made the LP visible so The Kleptocracy HAS to crush them to eliminate non-binary, non-looter movements wanting to repeal their cruel and alienating laws.

  14. Aloysious   3 years ago

    Rico, after watching the video, I'm offended by the lack of hair products. You're coiffure is asymmetrical, which throws off the feng shui of the television set.

  15. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    For just the measly price of your vote, only moments of your time when you can vote the entire ticket by mail, your kind and wise Democratic majority will see to it that 'caveat emptor' never be used as an excuse to fleece you again.

  16. Hank Phillips   3 years ago

    For people trapped outside the USA, Amazon is the only way to get stuff that works. Discount Electronics won't ship overseas, and Caudillo Republics make it so without Amazon you fight hostile apps to overpay tariffs in advance hundreds of miles away while idiots break your stuff. Amazon accurately includes the looter state tariff in the price so the thing gets delivered quickly at twice the cost plus shipping. A bargain! Disclosure: I own 0.000000000002% of Amazon.

  17. MatthewSlyfield   3 years ago

    Take any bill/law with a "clever" name and odds are it does the exact opposite of what the name implies.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

'Banal Horror': Asylum Case Deals Trump Yet Another Loss on Due Process

Billy Binion | 5.29.2025 5:27 PM

Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects

Jeff Luse | 5.29.2025 3:31 PM

What To Expect Now That Trump Has Scrapped Biden's Crippling AI Regulations

Jack Nicastro | 5.29.2025 3:16 PM

Original Sin, the Biden Cover-Up Book, Is Better Late Than Never

Robby Soave | 5.29.2025 2:23 PM

Did 'Activist Judges' Derail Trump's Tariffs?

Eric Boehm | 5.29.2025 2:05 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!