While I care a lot about having a competitive marketplace, it's much more important to me that I and my family aren't poisoned. Are you saying that smaller companies can't compete with Amazon if everyone has to check that they're not poisoning us?

>Are you saying that smaller companies can't compete with Amazon if everyone has to check that they're not poisoning us?

Yes, because this adds cost to manufacturing. Imagine if you yourself wanted to make and sell children's jewelry. How difficult would it be for you to get a lab to test all of the stuff you make? Could you make any money after you subtract the cost of these kinds of lab tests?

A large company has economies of scale. Finding a lab is a much smaller portion of the cost for them compared to you.

Well, I think most of us make due with just buying ingredients that aren't poisonous when we cook (with the assurance in part coming from independent quality control of said ingredients).

But I'm sure I must have missed why this general principle couldn't be used for other things that we don't want to be toxic.

But the whole argument is that buying parts/ingredients that aren't poisonous isn't enough. You still have to spend a lot of resources on testing. I think that these kinds of regulations should scale with the size of the company/revenue/profit. Smaller companies shouldn't have as great of a burden, so as to encourage competition. (There should still be punishments for them failing though. Eg you're not required to test if you're small, but you can still be punished for selling poisonous products.)

Most regions have prescribed safety standards to meet, for instance the kitemark or the CE mark (http://www.safekids.co.uk/toysafetymarks.html)[http://www.sa... show an item meets the regulatory safety requirements - these aren't added by stores, they are obtained by the manufacturer so that its products can be sold in stores across Britain and Europe.

Saying that the onus should be on stores is crazy, unless you accept that a company should have exclusive rights to your product at which point it become a licensed product and would probably be branded as such.

Oh, I completely agree that the onus shouldn't really be on the store. I was talking about manufacturers that sell it themselves.

Problem is even if you only use safe parts, legally you have to get a lab to test your product. Using lead free everything isn't enough to LEGALLY prove your product is lead free.

Smaller companies in the US would typically know not to put poison in their products in the first place, negating the need for direct lab testing, and those small companies can purchase bulk supplies from sources large enough to do upstream testing.

> Smaller companies in the US would typically know not to put poison in their products in the first place...

The catch is when they buy materials (like paint) that are cheaper because they don't comply. Either because they are made for a market with different regulations, or they have been contaminated some how.

Manufacturers may need to get certifications from suppliers about the materials meeting the regulations, but these won't be the cheapest option.

This is still a problem that could be solved by having governments that actually acted in the interest of their constituents and not just their cronies.

Product safety regulations and other regulations are really not the same thing. Please don't mix them. There's no such thing as regulatory capture by mandating that you aren't allowed to poison people.

Safety regulations that mandate expensive testing can absolutely be a part of regulatory capture. In well thought out regulations the benefits outweigh the costs, but being beneficial doesn't prevent a regulation from entrenching the big players.

This supposed “insight” is on its way to become just another tired meme. If, somehow, Amazon profits from this settlement, why did they not just implement its terms before? Or for other categories? There is nothing stopping them from requiring whatever lab tests they want from any seller they want, after all.

Regulatory capture is a useful concept, but please don’t just parrot it for any case related to regulation. As seen here, it is now used most often as a cudgel against any sort of regulation, and that’s exactly what they wanted all along.

It's not enough for Amazon to voluntarily adopt these measures, incurring costs only on themselves, but rather for the entire category/industry to be forced to implement these measures, incurring costs on everyone in the market. Even if the measures today are Amazon specific, the likely inexorable path is for this to become standard across the industry, which will eventually benefit those for whom the fixed cost portion can be spread across the largest amount of sales.

So we should just ignore the long list of cases where it has happened, because This Time It Will Be Different?

No, use it when appropriate. Here, it isn’t, because:

- this settlement applies to Amazon only, not any competitor. That doesn’t fit the usual mechanism of using regulation to shackle competition

- regulatory capture also refers to a social mechanism, where regulators become friends with the industry because they spend so much time together etc. That doesn’t fit too well here, because a state attorney’s office is far more diversified than, say, the FAA.

- the points in my initial comment, which you just ignored

I apologize, I was talking specifically about this:

>This supposed “insight” is on its way to become just another tired meme.

On the other hand, people were explicitly talking about regulation, which I took to mean as a wider-reaching thing than just this agreement Amazon made. In this specific case, Amazon is basically acting like the government for the sellers.