Is It Illegal To Give Stuff Away?
from the wait-a-second... dept
Kevin Heller has picked up on the fact that both Yahoo and GoDaddy seem to be selling domain registrations below cost, and wonders if this violates California's unfair practices act (or similar acts in other states) which says: "It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this State to sell any article or product at less than the cost thereof to such vendor or to give away any article or product, for the purpose of injuring competitors or destroying competition." This is a typical "anti-dumping" law, that usually doesn't get much attention unless some large incumbent feels threatened by an outsider. However, when you read that, it could be interpreted in a way that makes any company that advertises break the law. An advertisement is, by its very nature, giving something away at less than cost for the purpose of injuring competitors (that is, getting a sale instead of having that go to competitors). Apple and Pepsi are giving away free iTunes songs. That's below cost, and clearly designed to take business away from other music download stores (and from other beverages). That seems to violate the law. What about in the software space? Does this outlaw any company that offers free software? Is MySQL violating the law by offering the database for free? What about Microsoft offering anti-spyware for free? Or does the law somehow only apply to tangible goods? Even in that case... when I bought my laptop, it came with a "free" printer. That's obviously below cost and designed to take business away from the competition. While they're not new, in an age where "free" is important, isn't it about time these anti-dumping laws went away?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Console Gaming Systems
Besides, who's bright idea was it to give the government any sort of control over what you can and can't sell your own goods for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Console Gaming Systems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Successfully getting a sale, to the detriment of your competitors, is not what laws like this are talking about. They're talking about specific tortuous behaviours, and they are generally crafted with the consumer's best interest in mind.
For example: an entity that engaged in unfair practices (e.g. undercutting it's competition) would only do so until it changed the conditions of the market (it's competitors have gone out of business), at which point it would take advantage of the new market (raise it's prices to what the new market can bear). Thus harming the consumer.
Interpretation of legal documents by laymen is frequently plagued by these kinds of misunderstandings. The fact that it "could be interpreted in a way", doesn't mean that it would ever actually be interpreted in that way, in a court of law, by people who are presumably well briefed on the subject.
The same thing goes for any other discipline which has existed long enough to develop it's own unique vocabulary and nuance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The first company can clearly claim that the second is trying to destroy them by completely underpricing them... when the reality is just a business model shift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Having a business model that coincidentally changes the landscape for your competitors (or even for people who you didn't realize you would be affecting) isn't anti-competitive behaviour. (Despite how your competitors might wish to frame the debate.) The law in question, and others like it, are meant to apply, in a very narrow way, only to predatory practices.
If your point is that this would be a judgment call, then you're certainly right about that. And we would certainly hope that the judgments are made by someone who understands the distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal to give away for free
It's the same (or used to be the same) for television broadcasts: you get a free transmission of the TV shows, in exchange for watching the advertisements. The TV stations (and radio and others) get to choose a price.
Things would be very different if everyone ran their own factory - then giving away anything for 'free' would have an effect on other factories. And that's where the anti-dumping laws come in to play, since 'free' for one person is not 'free' for the others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]