The FTC, along with 17 states, sued Amazon last year for alleged antitrust violations. The agency accused Amazon of using “punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies.”

As the case has been making its way through pre-trial motions, US District Judge John Chun has already dismissed some of the claims, including those brought by some of the states involved in the action. According to Reuters, Amazon was trying to convince Judge Chun to dismiss the entire case, saying the FTC had not provided any evidence showing Amazon has harmed consumers.

Interestingly, while Judge Chun did not dismiss the case, he did say it was too early in the process to consider Amazon’s position that it has benefited competition, seemingly leaving the door open that he could come to that conclusion later on.

With the FTC already facing dismissal of some of its claims, there is the distinct possibility that its case may be on shakier ground that it would like.

The FTC, under chair Lina Khan, has faced ongoing criticism for some of its decisions. The agency does not have a good track record of regulatory enforcement, losing a number of efforts to block high-profile mergers and acquisitions within the tech industry.

If the FTC loses its case against Amazon, it could spell for trouble for US regulatory efforts.

The DOJ filed its lawsuit in September 2023, accusing eBay of selling hundreds of thousands of products that harm the environment. The list of harmful items eBay was accused of selling included pesticides, as well as devices designed to circumvent vehicle emission controls. This allegedly put the company in violation of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Catch our chat on the judge tossing out the DOJ case against eBay!

“Laws that prohibit selling products that can severely harm human health and the environment apply to e-commerce retailers like eBay just as they do to brick-and-mortar stores,” Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim, of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), said at the time. “We are committed to preventing the unlawful sale and distribution of emissions-defeating devices and dangerous chemicals that, if used improperly, can lead to dire consequences for individuals and communities.”

“eBay’s sale of emission control defeat devices, pesticides and other unsafe products poses unacceptable risks to our communities disproportionately impacted by environmental and health hazards,” added U.S. Attorney Breon Peace for the Eastern District of New York. “Together with our partners, this office will vigorously enforce federal law against those whose conduct endangers public health and the environment.”

eBay’s Defense

In its defense, eBay argued that it was protected by Section 230, which shields online platforms from liability for what users of its platforms do. The law is a cornerstone of the internet, at least in the US, and has played a major role in the success of online platforms. eBay asked for the DOJ’s case to be dismissed on the basis of Section 230.

eBay raises the following arguments in support of dismissal: 1) the Complaint does not plausibly allege that eBay violated the CAA; 2) the Complaint does not plausibly allege that eBay violated the FIFRA; 3) the Complaint does not plausibly allege that eBay violated the TSCA or the Methylene Chloride Rule; and 4) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) independently bars the United States’ claims.

Key to the defense was the definition of the word “sell,” and whether eBay sold anything directly.

Plaintiff alleges that eBay “sold” Aftermarket Defeat Devices; eBay contends that it does not actually “sell” any item listed on its platform. eBay’s Memo, at 25. In its motion to dismiss, eBay asserts that the ordinary meaning of “sell” requires ownership or possession over an item. Id. at 7. That is, eBay must own or possess an item to “sell” the item under the CAA. Id. eBay contends that because the Complaint fails to allege that eBay owned, held in its possession, or transferred any item covered by the CAA in exchange for value, the Complaint fails to allege that “eBay sold any product that violates the CAA.” Id.

Both parties agree that the word “sell” should be understood to convey its ordinary meaning, and both rely on the plain meaning provided in Black’s Law Dictionary. Id. ; Pl. Opp. at 9. However, eBay argues that “selling an item means transferring title or possession of that item for a price.” eBay’s Memo at 7. Specifically, eBay asserts “Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘sell’ as ‘[t]o transfer (property) by sale,’ and [] defines a ‘sale’ as ‘[t]he transfer of property or title for a price.’ Black’s Law Dictionary 1603, 1634 (11th ed. 2019). Black’s in turn relies on the Uniform Commercial Code, which similarly states that ‘[a] ‘sale’ consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price.’ UCC § 2-106(1).” Id. According to eBay, eBay must own or possess an item to “sell” the item within the meaning of the CAA. It follows that since eBay neither owns nor possesses the items listed on eBay.com, it cannot sell them.

Judge Merchant’s Decision

Ultimately, Judge Merchant agreed with eBay, finding that the company is protected under Section 230 and did not, in fact, directly sell the goods in question.

This Court agrees with eBay. The provision of neutral, automatic email prompts and messages, and of payment processing software does not materially contribute to the illegal products’ “alleged unlawfulness”. Under Section 230, an “information content provider” is “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). This means that “[a]n interactive computer service will be immune for content on its platform under Section 230 unless ‘it assisted in the development of what made the content unlawful,’ thus becoming an information content provider.” Ratermann v. Pierre Fabre USA, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 3d 657, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (citing LeadClick Media, 838 F.3d at 174). The administrative and technical support eBay provides to sellers does not “materially contribut[e] to [the content’s] alleged unlawfulness.” LeadClick Media, 838 F.3d at 176.

Finally, because the liability Plaintiff attempts to impose on eBay is “derived from its status as a publisher … imposing liability … does [] inherently require the court to treat” eBay as the “publisher or speaker of its affiliates’ [illegal content],” Section 230 immunity applies. Id. at 176- 77 (cleaned up). Therefore, although eBay’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief fails under the TSCA, because Section 230 applies, eBay’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is granted.

The Implications of Judge Merchant’s Decision

Section 230 has been a hotly debated piece of legislation, with some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle wanting to revisit and revise it, if not eliminate its protections altogether.

On the other side of the debate are internet companies, as well as free speech advocates, who say the law is a critical free speech protection and vital to a healthy internet.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation outlines the benefits Section 230 provides:

Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms. When harmful speech takes place, it’s the speaker that should be held responsible, not the service that hosts the speech.

Section 230’s protections are not absolute. It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230. Important court rulings on Section 230 have held that users and services cannot be sued for forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that others find objectionable. It also helps to quickly resolve lawsuits cases that have no legal basis.

Without Section 230’s protections, many online intermediaries would intensively filter and censor user speech, while others may simply not host user content at all. This legal and policy framework allows countless niche websites, as well as big platforms like Amazon and Yelp to host user reviews. It allows users to share photos and videos on big platforms like Facebook and on the smallest blogs. It allows users to share speech and opinions everywhere, from vast conversational forums like Twitter and Discord, to the comment sections of the smallest newspapers and blogs.

Judge Merchant’s dismissal of the DOJ’s lawsuit is a strong validation of Section 230’s importance and will help serve as precedent for other similar cases.

The FTC, along with 17 states, sued Amazon in September 2023 alleging “exclusionary conduct” in an effort stifle competition and disrupt rivals.

“Our complaint lays out how Amazon has used a set of punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan at the time of the lawsuit. “The complaint sets forth detailed allegations noting how Amazon is now exploiting its monopoly power to enrich itself while raising prices and degrading service for the tens of millions of American families who shop on its platform and the hundreds of thousands of businesses that rely on Amazon to reach them. Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition.”

In its initial complaint, the FTC made clear that it was not suing Amazon because of its size, but because it uses its size unfairly. In particular, the FTC took aim at the company’s practice of trying to force sellers to gain “Prime” status, as well as punishing those who charged less for their products via other outlets. The company’s fees, sometimes accounting for half of a sellers earnings, also drew criticism.

“We’re bringing this case because Amazon’s illegal conduct has stifled competition across a huge swath of the online economy. Amazon is a monopolist that uses its power to hike prices on American shoppers and charge sky-high fees on hundreds of thousands of online sellers,” added John Newman, Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Seldom in the history of U.S. antitrust law has one case had the potential to do so much good for so many people.”

According to The Wall Street Journal, US District Judge John Chun has agreed with Amazon, scaling back some of the FTC’s case. Judge Chun’s order remains under seal, meaning its unknown exactly what part of the FTC’s case was dismissed. Nonetheless, despite the good news for Amazon, the Journal reports that the FTC’s main claims remain intact.

Given the FTC’s dominance of the e-commerce market, the FTC’s case could have profound repercussions for the entire industry. The fact that the main portion of the agency’s case remains intact means a court will ultimately decide the fate of the e-commerce industry.

In a landmark decision, the European Union’s top court ruled that Booking.com’s restrictions preventing hotels from offering lower prices on their own websites or through rival platforms could hinder competition and damage the market for smaller players. The ruling, delivered on September 19, 2024, could have significant implications for the broader travel and hospitality industry, potentially reshaping the way online booking platforms negotiate terms with hotels.

The ruling focuses on so-called “parity clauses” that Booking.com inserted into its contracts with hotel partners. These clauses, which restricted hotels from offering lower prices on their own websites or through competing platforms, have been a longstanding practice in the online travel industry. While they were designed to maintain consistency in pricing across platforms, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) determined that they may actually reduce competition between reservation services and make it harder for smaller platforms to compete.

The court’s decision comes after a Dutch court sought guidance on whether these clauses violated EU competition laws. It has the potential to ripple through the online travel booking sector, as it raises questions about how other platforms operate under similar agreements.

A Blow to Booking.com’s Business Model

Booking.com, a subsidiary of Booking Holdings, expressed disappointment with the ruling. In a statement, the company argued that the parity clauses were both “necessary and proportionate” to ensure the relationship between hotels and its platform. “We maintain that parity clauses that historically existed in Germany were necessary and proportionate to the relationship between accommodation partners and Booking.com, and that Booking.com operates in a competitive market,” said a company spokesperson.

This ruling could have wide-reaching effects on Booking.com’s business model, as parity clauses have been a critical component of the platform’s ability to offer competitive pricing. Historically, such clauses ensured that customers using Booking.com would not find a better deal by going directly to a hotel’s website. But the EU court’s judgment calls into question whether these measures are necessary to the platform’s success, with the court concluding that there was no substantial proof that these clauses were essential to Booking.com’s operations.

The Impact on Competition

The ruling from the Luxembourg-based court is likely to make it harder for other online platforms across the travel industry to impose restrictions on suppliers, particularly smaller businesses and new entrants. According to the court, price parity clauses—whether wide (restricting hotels from offering lower prices on their own sites and other platforms) or narrow (restricting only the hotel’s own website)—were found to carry the risk of “ousting small platforms” from the market and limiting competition.

In its judgment, the court noted that while online hotel reservation platforms like Booking.com have had a neutral or positive effect on competition by providing consumers with more choice and easier price comparisons, the specific restrictions imposed by parity clauses could work against these competitive benefits. “It has not been established that price parity clauses, whether wide or narrow, are objectively necessary for the implementation of that main operation and are proportionate to the objective pursued by it,” the judges concluded.

The decision highlights a key concern for regulators across Europe: that large platforms could wield too much market power, limiting choices for consumers and squeezing smaller competitors out of the market. “These restrictions may reduce competition between various hotel reservation platforms, force out small platforms and new entrants, and do not appear to be necessary to ensure Booking.com’s economic viability,” the court said.

Regulatory Scrutiny Across Europe

This decision is the latest chapter in ongoing regulatory scrutiny of online travel booking platforms across Europe. Germany’s antitrust watchdog has already banned parity clauses, arguing that they limit competition and harm consumers. The European Union as a whole has taken a more cautious approach, allowing certain restrictions but prohibiting the most stringent forms of parity clauses.

The ruling also dovetails with the recently enacted Digital Markets Act (DMA), which came into force last year. The DMA aims to curb the market power of large online platforms like Booking.com, prohibiting practices such as wide and narrow parity clauses, which can stifle competition. The court’s ruling aligns with these broader regulatory efforts to ensure fair competition in digital markets.

The decision may also encourage other European regulators to take a harder stance on similar practices in different sectors of the digital economy. It could prompt investigations into other industries where large platforms impose restrictive clauses on suppliers, from e-commerce to digital services.

Broader Implications for Hotels and Consumers

For hotels, the ruling offers a new level of flexibility in how they price their rooms. Without parity clauses, hotels will have more freedom to offer discounts and special rates on their own websites, potentially improving their direct booking numbers. This could lead to a more competitive marketplace, where hotels are incentivized to offer better deals directly to consumers, bypassing the commission fees they pay to platforms like Booking.com.

Consumers may also see the benefits of increased competition. With more freedom to offer different prices across platforms, hotels could engage in more aggressive discounting, giving customers a wider range of price options. However, it remains to be seen how Booking.com and other platforms will adjust their business models in response to the ruling, and whether these changes will result in a significant shift in pricing behavior.

A Shifting Landscape in Online Travel

As the travel industry continues to recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, this ruling could be a turning point in the evolution of online booking platforms. The court’s decision is likely to embolden smaller platforms and new entrants seeking to carve out a share of the market, while forcing larger players to rethink their strategies.

Booking.com’s pricing strategy has long been a defining feature of its business, allowing it to dominate the online travel market. But with increased regulatory scrutiny and mounting competition from smaller platforms, the company will need to find new ways to maintain its competitive edge. For now, the ruling represents a significant shift in the balance of power between online platforms and the hotels they serve, with the potential to reshape the future of the travel industry in Europe.

As Innocenzo Genna, a legal expert, observed on social media, “Hotels are now free to offer prices, direct to clients or through platforms, lower than those displayed on Booking. So says the EU court, according to which price parity clauses cannot be classified as ‘ancillary restraints’ for the purposes of EU competition law.”

With the ruling now in place, the real test will be how Booking.com and the broader industry adapt to the changing regulatory environment in the months and years ahead.

“Anyone who’s been paying attention saw this coming years ago,” McBride said in a series of posts on social media, pointing to a multi-phased strategy that Amazon has rolled out over time. According to McBride, the company’s approach was carefully designed, with the ultimate goal of reducing headcount while avoiding massive tax liabilities that could significantly affect profitability.

Listen to a podcast conversation on the ‘real’ reasons for Amazon’s return to the office:

A Multi-Phase Plan to Thin the Ranks

McBride, who left AWS in 2023 during what he referred to as “Phase 3” of Amazon’s plan, outlined the following five phases:

• Phase 1: Lay off over 30,000 employees across various sectors.
• Phase 2: Initiate a “Return to Office” mandate requiring employees to come in two to three days a week.
• Phase 3: Push employees to return to where their teams are physically located, often requiring relocation to Seattle.
• Phase 4: The so-called “Silent Sacking,” where remaining employees find themselves sidelined, without access to meaningful work or in-person meetings, making their work life “incredibly unsatisfying.”
• Phase 5: The “death of remote” work, forcing all employees to sit at a physical desk in the same office as their team.

McBride explained that while Amazon executives publicly framed these moves as necessary for “innovation” and “customer obsession,” the reality, in his view, is far less inspirational. “It’s all about reducing headcount and avoiding tax liabilities,” he asserted.

The Economics Behind the Decision

The most significant factor driving this return-to-office push appears to be the economics of headcount management. During the pandemic, Amazon—along with many other tech giants—dramatically expanded its workforce. “They didn’t really have any other option,” McBride noted, citing the unprecedented demand for AWS cloud services and the need to continue scaling as more companies embraced remote work.

I’m a former AWS employee: most of the hot takes on Amazon's new strict return-to-office policy are wrong.

Anyone who’s been paying attention saw this coming years ago. And ultimately, it comes down to taxes and economics.

Here's their plan:

Phase 1: layoff over 30k people.…

— John McBride (@johncodezzz) September 18, 2024

However, that growth came with significant costs. As McBride explained, AWS operates on “razor-thin margins,” despite being one of Amazon’s most profitable arms. “AWS offers incredible services at excellent usage cost pricing,” he said, pointing to the platform’s ability to enable small disruptors to enter the cloud market. This model has worked well for AWS, but in times of economic uncertainty, even small disruptions in customer spending can have outsize effects on profit margins.

Now, with the broader tech sector scaling back due to rising interest rates and shrinking corporate budgets, AWS’s profitability is being squeezed. “Anyone who leaves AWS or meaningfully reduces their cloud spend can impact AWS’s razor-thin profit margins,” McBride explained. This, he argued, has created intense pressure to cut costs, and for a company like Amazon, “the most expensive cost is headcount.”

Tax Breaks and the Role of Physical Offices

Yet headcount reduction is only one part of the equation. McBride pointed out that the return-to-office mandate is also deeply rooted in tax considerations. “Amazon gets massive tax breaks from cities and states where they have offices,” he said. These breaks are contingent on Amazon bringing jobs to specific locations, like Seattle or Denver. However, those incentives can disappear if offices remain underutilized.

“If Amazon continued to enable a remote workforce,” McBride explained, “the tax man would come knocking, and they’d be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars.” In other words, for Amazon, filling physical offices is not just about fostering collaboration—it’s about protecting its bottom line.

This aligns with the broader economic realities facing Amazon. In 2023, the company’s overall operating margin was a mere 4.7%, and while AWS’s margins are higher—recently reported as close to 40%—those numbers still reflect the company’s general approach of operating with very thin margins at scale. McBride pointed out that Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, famously operated under the mantra “Your margin is my opportunity,” focusing on generating significant profits by operating with minimal margins across large-scale services.

But as AWS faces increasing competition and clients seek ways to reduce cloud spending, maintaining profit margins becomes more difficult. “Amazon has to keep profit up by reducing headcount,” McBride summarized. The return-to-office policy is a strategic move to ensure that they maximize tax incentives while minimizing staffing costs.

The “Silent Sacking” and Employee Fallout

For many employees, however, the return-to-office policy feels more like a veiled attempt to force them out. “Phase 4: the Silent Sacking,” McBride described, is particularly brutal. Employees who resist relocation or fail to comply with the return-to-office directives often find themselves marginalized within the company. “You’d be left out of in-person meetings, stiff-armed by management, and wouldn’t be given meaningful work,” McBride said, adding that this phase has led to a significant number of voluntary resignations.

Indeed, McBride himself left Amazon in 2023 rather than relocate to Seattle. “Many, many people left during this phase,” he noted, signaling that Amazon’s RTO policy is, in part, a way to indirectly thin its ranks without resorting to mass layoffs.

A Larger Trend in the Tech Industry?

Amazon is not alone in this shift back to in-office work. Other tech giants, such as Google and Meta, have also begun rolling back remote work privileges. However, McBride’s insights offer a unique perspective on how these decisions are not just about workplace culture or innovation but are also driven by complex financial and tax-related factors.

“It’s not about collaboration,” McBride reiterated. “It’s about maximizing profit margins, minimizing tax liabilities, and cutting the workforce in the most strategic way possible.”

As more companies grapple with economic uncertainty, this blend of financial strategy and workforce management could become a common theme in the tech sector. “In the end, it’s about survival,” McBride concluded, pointing to the macroeconomic pressures that are reshaping the industry.

For Amazon employees—both current and former—the message is clear: the future of work at the retail and cloud giant is firmly rooted in the physical office, whether they like it or not.

“This is a direct challenge to the business models of companies like Temu and Shein, which have relied heavily on the de minimis exemption to offer rock-bottom prices,” says Dewardric McNeal, Managing Director of Longview Global LLC. “It’s a bold move that signals a shift in U.S.-China trade policy, especially in the tech and retail sectors.”

The End of a Loophole

The de minimis exemption has been a significant driver of success for cross-border e-commerce platforms like Temu and Shein. By shipping small packages directly from China to U.S. consumers, these companies have been able to avoid paying import tariffs on goods priced under $800, allowing them to offer prices that significantly undercut domestic retailers. But the Biden administration argues that this loophole has harmed American businesses and enabled the influx of counterfeit and unsafe goods, including illicit drugs.

“The de minimis exemption was intended to facilitate small, legitimate shipments, not enable massive waves of tariff-free goods from abroad,” says Cheryl Smith Allen, a customs compliance expert. “In practice, this loophole has been exploited to the point where it undermines U.S. industry and consumer safety.”

The surge in direct-to-consumer shipments from China has overwhelmed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which now handles an average of 1 million packages a day under the de minimis rule. This has created a strain on resources, making it more difficult to inspect shipments thoroughly for counterfeits, safety hazards, or even narcotics.

“The sheer volume of packages means many products are entering the U.S. without proper oversight,” explains Jamie Arena, a merchandising and e-commerce leader. “It’s not just a trade issue, it’s a consumer safety issue as well.”

Impacts on Temu and Shein

For Chinese-based platforms like Temu, which rely on offering extremely low prices by sidestepping tariffs, this new legislation could be catastrophic. The platform, which has rapidly gained market share in the U.S. by selling everything from clothing to electronics at jaw-dropping prices, could face severe operational challenges if the exemption is rolled back or removed entirely.

“Temu’s entire model is built around the de minimis exemption,” says Megan Sullivan, content manager at logistics company LVK. “Without it, their cost structure changes drastically, and they’ll have to rethink how they price their products and operate in the U.S.”

For consumers, this could mean an end to “shopping like a billionaire,” as Temu’s marketing famously suggests. Higher prices, longer shipping times, and even potential tariffs added to previously inexpensive goods could dampen consumer enthusiasm for these platforms.

“The impact on consumers will be significant,” says Utkarsh G., a strategic business consultant. “Higher prices, longer delivery times, and potential customs fees will make these platforms less attractive. Consumers who have become accustomed to buying cheap products from overseas might shift back to domestic retailers.”

Reactions from Industry Leaders

The potential end of the de minimis exemption has sent shockwaves through the retail and logistics industries. Many experts see it as a long-overdue measure to level the playing field for U.S. retailers, who have struggled to compete with the low prices offered by Chinese e-commerce giants. However, some are concerned that smaller businesses and consumers will be caught in the crossfire.

“While it’s true that platforms like Temu have exploited this loophole, we have to be careful about the broader implications,” warns Blake Read, Senior Account Executive at LVK. “Small businesses that rely on importing goods for resale could also be impacted, and consumers who depend on affordable products will feel the pinch.”

This concern has led some to question whether an “exemption to the exemption” might be introduced, allowing certain categories of products or businesses to continue benefiting from the de minimis rule. But so far, the Biden administration has shown no signs of backing down from its firm stance on closing the loophole for Chinese platforms.

“This is about reasserting U.S. trade policy and protecting American workers and businesses,” says McNeal. “I don’t see the administration offering a carve-out for companies like Temu or Shein, especially given the bipartisan support for tougher trade measures against China.”

A Changing U.S.-China Trade Landscape

The move to eliminate the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods is part of a broader trend of tightening U.S.-China trade relations. Recent legislative efforts, including the introduction of over 20 anti-China bills in the U.S. House of Representatives, signal a more protectionist approach that prioritizes domestic manufacturing and consumer safety.

“This is about more than just Temu and Shein,” says Dewardric McNeal. “It’s part of a larger strategy to reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese imports and protect American industry from unfair competition.”

China, for its part, has responded with its own protectionist measures, including restricting the operations of U.S. companies like Amazon within its borders. This reciprocal tension highlights the growing divide between the two economic superpowers.

“There’s a clear disconnect between the two countries’ trade policies,” says Utkarsh G. “China’s restrictions on U.S. e-commerce companies like Amazon show that fair competition is not always a priority. The U.S. is responding in kind by tightening its own regulations on Chinese imports.”

The Future of Temu and Shein in the U.S.

While the proposed legislation is not yet law, the writing is on the wall for platforms like Temu and Shein. If the Biden administration successfully implements these trade measures, Chinese e-commerce platforms may have to rethink their U.S. strategies—or face the possibility of losing access to one of their largest markets.

“Temu and Shein will need to adapt quickly or risk being pushed out of the U.S.,” says Megan Sullivan. “We could see these companies pivot to a model where they import goods in bulk to U.S. warehouses and ship domestically, but that will come with increased costs that will likely be passed on to the consumer.”

Temu has already begun exploring alternative strategies, such as transshipping goods through countries like Mexico or investing in local warehousing to minimize tariff exposure. However, these efforts may not be enough to preserve the low-price allure that has made the platform so popular with American shoppers.

“We’re entering a new era of e-commerce,” says Cheryl Smith Allen. “The days of unchecked, tariff-free imports from China are likely coming to an end, and platforms like Temu and Shein will have to adapt or disappear.”

As the U.S. government moves closer to enacting these new trade measures, the future of ultra-low-cost e-commerce from China remains in flux. What is clear, however, is that the days of easy, tariff-free shopping from overseas are likely numbered. For Temu and Shein, the stakes have never been higher.

Squarespace announced in May that it planned to go private as part of a deal with private equity firm Permira. The deal was originally valued at $6.9 billion. The two companies have since amended their agreement, bringing the value up to $7.2 billion, or $46.50 per share, an increase of $2.50 per share.

“The Special Committee is pleased to announce the revised terms of our agreement with Permira,” said Michael Fleisher, Chairman of the Special Committee of the Squarespace Board of Directors. “Our core focus has been maximizing value and certainty for the unaffiliated stockholders. This transaction is the result of a deliberate and thoughtful process and ultimately represents a great outcome that is in the best interest of Squarespace and all of its stockholders.”

David Erlong, Partner at Permira, said, “We are pleased that the revised offer and merger agreement have been unanimously approved by Squarespace’s Special Committee and Board of Directors and appreciate their focus throughout this process. This best and final offer allows Squarespace stockholders to capture immediate and certain value for their investment. By tendering their shares, Squarespace stockholders can act directly to accept the compelling value of this offer.”

The companies confirmed that Squarespace will be a privately-held company once the deal is complete.

Upon completion of the merger, Squarespace’s common stock will no longer be publicly listed, and Squarespace will become a privately-held company.

Squarespace has been working to compete with rivals, such as GoDaddy, snapping up Google Domains in mid-2023 as part of its strategy. It’s hoped that taking the company private will further strengthen its position and give it a competitive advantage.

The EU Commission fined Google in 2017 for promoting its own shopping services over those of rivals, leveraging its dominance in the search market to do so. The Commission levied a whopping $2.7 billion fine on the company, which Google has spent the last seven years fighting.

According to Reuters, the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union has upheld a lower court ruling that validated the Commission’s fine of the search giant. As with most monopoly-regulation, the CJEU judges confirmed there was nothing wrong with having a hard-earned dominant position in the market, but it is illegal to abuse that position to the detriment of rivals.

“In particular, the conduct of undertakings in a dominant position that has the effect of hindering competition on the merits and is thus likely to cause harm to individual undertakings and consumers is prohibited,” they said.

The CJEU’s decision is the latest legal setback for Google, with the company recently losing its antitrust case in the US. The judge presiding over that case intends to announce his decision regarding punitive measures next summer, but experts say the company could face everything from being banned from making exclusionary deals to a possible breakup of its core businesses.

Fake reviews have been a long-term and growing issue for online companies. Amazon and Google have struggled with the problem, with the companies periodically investigated by regulators keep to determine if they are doing enough to tackle the issue.

The FTC is now directly addressing the issue by prohibiting companies from buying or selling fake reviews.

“Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “By strengthening the FTC’s toolkit to fight deceptive advertising, the final rule will protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.”

The final rule prohibits the following:

• Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, and Celebrity Testimonials: The final rule addresses reviews and testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist, such as AI-generated fake reviews, or who did not have actual experience with the business or its products or services, or that misrepresent the experience of the person giving it. It prohibits businesses from creating or selling such reviews or testimonials. It also prohibits them from buying such reviews, procuring them from company insiders, or disseminating such testimonials, when the business knew or should have known that the reviews or testimonials were fake or false.
• Buying Positive or Negative Reviews: The final rule prohibits businesses from providing compensation or other incentives conditioned on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative. It clarifies that the conditional nature of the offer of compensation or incentive may be expressly or implicitly conveyed.
• Insider Reviews and Consumer Testimonials: The final rule prohibits certain reviews and testimonials written by company insiders that fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose the giver’s material connection to the business. It prohibits such reviews and testimonials given by officers or managers. It also prohibits a business from disseminating such a testimonial that the business should have known was by an officer, manager, employee, or agent. Finally, it imposes requirements when officers or managers solicit consumer reviews from their own immediate relatives or from employees or agents – or when they tell employees or agents to solicit reviews from relatives and such solicitations result in reviews by immediate relatives of the employees or agents.
• Company-Controlled Review Websites: The final rule prohibits a business from misrepresenting that a website or entity it controls provides independent reviews or opinions about a category of products or services that includes its own products or services.
• Review Suppression: The final rule prohibits a business from using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation, or certain false public accusations to prevent or remove a negative consumer review. The final rule also bars a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a review portion of its website represent all or most of the reviews submitted when reviews have been suppressed based upon their ratings or negative sentiment.
• Misuse of Fake Social Media Indicators: The final rule prohibits anyone from selling or buying fake indicators of social media influence, such as followers or views generated by a bot or hijacked account. This prohibition is limited to situations in which the buyer knew or should have known that the indicators were fake and misrepresent the buyer’s influence or importance for a commercial purpose.

The FTC voted 5-0 to pass the new rule. Hopefully, it will help improve consumer confidence and enable more honest evaluation of products.

Amazon’s role in handling recalls and defective products has been a bit of a gray area, given that many of the products sold via its online platform are sold by third parties. The Commission received a complaint in 2021, alleging that Amazon was distributing products that posed a “substantial product hazard” under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

During the CPSC’s investigation, Amazon did not deny the risk posed by the products, but argued to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that it was technically not a distributor, as defined by the CPSA, since the products were sold by third parties. Therefore, the company argued that it was not responsible for any recalls or mitigation efforts.

The CPSC ruled against the company, saying the company did qualify as a distributor.

The ALJ rejected Amazon’s argument, holding that Amazon acted as a distributor in this matter. The Commission affirmed that holding in today’s decision.

Amazon also claimed that sending messages to initial purchasers about “potential” safety issues and providing initial purchasers with Amazon.com credits – rather than refunds incentivizing product return or destruction – were sufficient to remedy the product hazards. The Commission, as well as the ALJ, disagreed, finding Amazon’s actions inadequate to protect the public.

Amazon must now develop and submit proposed plans to notify purchasers and the public about the product hazards, and to provide refunds or replacements for these products. Notice to the public is important so that people who may have received one of the products as a gift or purchased it second-hand can learn about the hazards. The Commission will consider these plans and then issue a second order on notification and remedies.

This puts Amazon on the same playing field as Walmart, Target, and other US retailers who must serve notice and facilitate recalls of defective products as a part of their role in distributing them.

Prime Day is Amazon’s annual event that sees steep discounts on products across categories. In some cases, customers can save up to 50% off of products. Positioned shortly before many kids return to school in the US, Prime Day is a good time to save on back-to-school products.

“Prime Day is the biggest event of the year celebrating Prime members, offering huge savings on the brands they love, plus deals across Prime member services like grocery delivery from Amazon subscription and music and podcasts from Amazon Music,” said Jamil Ghani, vice president of Amazon Prime. “If you’re not a Prime member yet, now is the perfect time to join and get the most out of Amazon.”

The company says customers can expect the following deals:

• Save up to 68% on select devices and bundles including Ring Spotlight Cam Plus, eero Pro 6E mesh Wi-Fi systems, Blink Outdoor 4 + Echo Show 5 bundles, Fire TV Stick with an Xbox Wireless Controller bundle, Fire TV 4-Series 4K UHD smart TV, Fire 10 Kids tablet, and Ring Pet bundles
• Save up to 50% on select all-new Amazon devices including Echo Spot, Blink Mini 2, and Ring Battery Doorbell Pro
• Save up to 50% off home appliances from Dyson, Shark, and Bissell
• Save up to 50% on Keurig coffee brewers
• Save up to 50% on Crest Whitestrips and Oral-B toothbrushes
• Save 45% on iRobot Roomba vacuums, mops, and combos
• Save up to 40% on Sony headphones
• Save up to 40% on campus essentials from Amazon Basics and Amazon Essentials
• Save up to 40% off select styles from Allbirds and Rothy’s Footwear
• Save up to 40% on Orolay select apparel
• Save up to 40% on IT Cosmetics makeup and skincare
• Save up to 35% on select kitchen and home appliances from Vitamix
• Save up to 35% off select products from Shopbop including Dr. Martens, Reebok, Fila, and APL
• Save 30% on Urban Decay cosmetics and on Lancôme cosmetics, skincare, and fragrance
• Save up to 30% on select shoes and apparel from New Balance
• Save up to 30% on select haircare products from Amika, Biolage, and Color Wow
• Save up to 30% on select skincare products from Innisfree, Clarins, and beauty products from goop and good.clean.goop
• Save up to 30% off select premium beauty products from new to Amazon brands including Bumble and bumble., Clinique, and Kiehl’s
• Save 20% on select pre-loved designer handbags & accessories from What Goes Around Comes Around
• Save 20% on select luxury fashion and beauty from brands such as AREA, Giuseppe Zanotti, Altuzarra, Dr. Barbara Sturm, and Cle de Peau
• Save on celebrity brands like Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton, and Below 60 by Hilary Duff

American Express is one of the most sought after credit cards, and its customers tend to be among the highest credit card spenders. Unfortunately, the company’s high fees don’t always make up for increased business merchants see.

eBay is one of those merchants, calling out American Express for “unacceptably high fees” at a time when credit card fees should be declining.

“After careful consideration, eBay has decided to no longer accept American Express globally effective August 17 due to the unacceptably high fees American Express charges for processing credit card transactions,” reads the company’s statement. “At a time when payment processing costs should be declining because of technological advancements, investments in fraud capabilities and customer protections by merchants like eBay, credit card transaction fees continue to rise unabated because of a lack of meaningful competition. As consumers and small businesses are worried about inflation and rising costs, there is a need for more robust regulations to drive greater competition to credit card networks and help reduce transaction processing costs for merchants and their customers.”

eBay says its customers are willing to use alternative payment methods in the absence of American Express.

“Based on research, we know that the vast majority of eBay customers are willing to use alternative payment options to continue enjoying buying and selling on our marketplace….Our customers have a deep affinity for eBay due to our unique inventory, attractive prices, and the meaningful role eBay plays in powering recommerce to contribute to a healthier planet.”

Despite a slight unfavorable impact from foreign exchange rates, the company’s growth trajectory remains strong, with notable increases across all major segments. The North America segment saw a 12% increase in sales to $86.3 billion, while international sales rose 10% to $31.9 billion — 11% growth when adjusted for currency fluctuations. Amazon Web Services (AWS), the company’s cloud computing division, continued its impressive performance, with sales climbing 17% to $25 billion.

Operating income for the quarter surged to $15.3 billion, a substantial rise from $4.8 billion in the first quarter of 2023. This growth was reflected across all segments, with North American operating income increasing more than fivefold to $5 billion and the international segment turning a previous loss into a $0.9 billion gain. AWS contributed significantly with $9.4 billion in operating income, up from $5.1 billion last year.

Net income significantly rose to $10.4 billion, or $0.98 per diluted share, compared with $3.2 billion, or $0.31 per diluted share, in the first quarter of 2023. This increase includes a pre-tax valuation loss of $2 billion from the company’s investment in Rivian Automotive, Inc., underscoring the volatile nature of investment returns.

Strategic Highlights and Innovations

Under the leadership of CEO Andy Jassy, Amazon is excelling financially and deepening its engagement with technological innovation and customer experience. Jassy highlighted the accelerated growth of AWS, driven by its expanding AI capabilities and infrastructure modernization. Meanwhile, the company’s retail arm is not only enhancing product selection and delivery speeds but also reducing operational costs.

Amazon has continued to invest heavily in customer-centric innovations. It has significantly expanded its delivery capabilities, with more than 2 billion units delivered the same or next day globally in the first quarter alone. In major cities like London, Tokyo, and Toronto, three-quarters of items now arrive within a day.

The company also broadened its product offerings with new and exclusive brands across various categories and conducted global shopping events offering significant discounts. These initiatives not only enhanced customer satisfaction but also drove sales volume and brand loyalty.

In healthcare, Amazon has expanded its services, including directly delivering critical medications and launching health programs to enhance patient care through digital platforms. The company has also rolled out a grocery subscription service, offering unlimited deliveries for orders over $35 from Whole Foods Market and Amazon Fresh.

Technological Prowess and Future Outlook

Amazon’s commitment to innovation is evident in its use of AI across various operations, from enhancing AWS offerings to integrating AI in customer service applications. The company’s Prime Video is set to expand its content slate significantly, streaming its first NFL Wild Card playoff game in 2025 and continually adding to its local and global original content lineup.

Amazon plans to expand its AWS infrastructure with significant investments in new data centers and technology solutions. This includes future launches of AWS infrastructure regions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Mexico, involving investments surpassing $5 billion in each location.

As Amazon continues its growth, it remains focused on scaling its operations responsibly and sustainably, seeking to blend technological innovation with robust financial performance.

For the upcoming second quarter of 2024, Amazon expects net sales to be between $144 billion and $149 billion, reflecting a growth of 7% to 11% compared with the second quarter of 2023. Operating income is projected to be between $10 billion and $14 billion, compared with $7.7 billion in the same period last year, indicating continuing profitability and operational efficiency.

Amazon’s robust start to 2024 sets a positive tone for its strategies moving forward, blending growth with innovation in ways that promise to enhance customer experiences while driving shareholder value.

Travis Marziani, a seasoned e-commerce veteran and seven-figure seller, explains what it means to sell on Amazon today. “Every day, 4,000 new sellers join Amazon, a clear testament to its allure,” Travis states. However, he quickly points to a stark reality: “Despite this influx, 90% of all e-commerce sellers on platforms like Amazon will fail.” Watch his video below for the full “harsh truth” about Amazon FBA.

Why Amazon? Pros and Cons

Amazon FBA has democratized the e-commerce space, allowing sellers to leverage Amazon’s massive logistical advantages. Over 43% of Amazon sellers rake in upwards of $100,000 annually, a success rate Travis suggests is more promising than other online business models like Shopify or drop shipping.

The platform’s expansive reach is undeniable, with over 300 million Prime customers globally and continuous growth in marketplace spending—projected sales hit $700 billion in 2024. Yet, this growth comes with heightened competition. The platform has become a battleground where longstanding and new merchants vie for consumer attention amidst a daily addition of sellers.

The Hidden Truths of Amazon FBA

Travis underscores several “big truths” or cons about Amazon that potential sellers must consider:

• Market Saturation: With millions of active sellers, the market is crowded. Strategies that worked years ago may no longer yield success unless innovatively adapted.
• Account Vulnerability: Amazon’s control can be a double-edged sword. The ease of setting up shop is counterbalanced by the platform’s ability to suspend sellers abruptly.
• Operational Challenges: While the FBA model offloads logistical burdens like storage and shipping, it requires meticulous inventory management and adherence to Amazon’s stringent policies.
• Despite these challenges, Travis points to the unique advantages of the FBA program. “The freedom it offers is unparalleled. You can manage your business from anywhere in the world,” he explains. This freedom, however, is not devoid of effort. Establishing a profitable Amazon business necessitates a robust strategy and an initial investment of time and resources.

Strategic Insights for Aspiring Sellers

For newcomers, Travis offers strategic insights:

• Product Selection: Leveraging tools like Helium 10 can significantly enhance product discovery and validation processes.
• Retail Arbitrage: Though viable, this method demands constant deal-hunting and isn’t conducive to passive income.
• Wholesale and Private Label: These traditional approaches, including intense price competition and market entry barriers, are increasingly challenging.
• Alternatively, Travis champions creating ‘passion products.’ This involves developing unique products that cater to specific consumer needs—a strategy less susceptible to saturation and potentially more rewarding.

Financial Considerations

Launching on Amazon isn’t inexpensive. Sellers must account for various fees:

• Referral Fees: Amazon charges a standard 15% on every sale, which can be reduced for brand-registered sellers.
• Fulfillment Fees: These vary by product size and weight but typically include packing and shipping costs handled by Amazon.

Looking Ahead

As 2024 unfolds, Amazon FBA remains a potent platform for e-commerce but requires a nuanced understanding of its dynamics. Travis concludes, “Success on Amazon is achievable with the right approach—meticulous planning, a strategic understanding of the marketplace, and a commitment to continual learning and adaptation.”

For those considering Amazon FBA, the journey is complex and challenging but equally ripe with opportunity for those who navigate it wisely. As the digital marketplace evolves, so must its merchants’ strategies.

The setback for some merchants is their failure to find the right mobile app developer when they initially launched. As their brands grow, their mobile stores’ needs become more specific. Retail brands with apps that directly fulfill the experience that shoppers desire are on a solid path to success; this is why finding the right app developer is imperative.

Find the right mobile app developer for brand needs

Third-party developers like Tapcart, the no-code app developer for Shopify, allow merchants to customize their checkout settings to create a frictionless checkout experience while enabling tools to help increase conversions. With the aid of these third-party developers, merchants can implement features like single-page checkouts and pre-filled shipping forms that allow for a quick checkout experience. Conversion features including checkout navigation, which automatically navigates customers to checkout when they add products to their cart, have contributed to Tapcart’s popularity amongst retail giants like Fashion Nova and Pier 1 Imports. 

Reduce the number of form fields

Over 18 percent of shoppers will abandon their cart if the checkout process is too long or complicated. In order to combat this, merchants should reduce the number of form fields so that shoppers have less to fill out. Fewer form fields ensure a frictionless checkout experience that increases conversion rates up to 160 percent. 

On average, merchants include 2 times more form fields than necessary. With these large amounts of forms, it can be tedious for a shopper to complete them for just one or two items. Reducing the typical number of checkout form fields can result in fewer abandoned cart rates, a checkout process that takes just  5 seconds to complete, and ultimately a significant jump in sales.

Accept various payment methods

With the rise of alternative payment methods, shoppers are no longer solely opting for credit and debit cards. In fact, 31 percent of shoppers say that they are more likely to use alternative payment methods (APMs) since the start of the pandemic. Providing APMs, like buy-now-pay-later (BNPL), which can be implemented through companies such as Affirm and Quadpay, allow eCommerce customers the freedom to choose their preferred payment method, ultimately resulting in a more streamlined checkout experience that caters directly to consumers.

Adding various payment methods is a simple way to attract new customers who, on other eCommerce apps, might not be able to use their preferred payment method. As a result, customers will flock to merchants’ mobile apps with the knowledge that they don’t have to change their choice of payment and instead can focus on their excellent shopping experience. 

Allow customers to shop as guests or create accounts

Having a customer account on an eCommerce website can provide prefilled shipping info, order history, and real-time order tracking, making a customer’s shopping experience optimal for quick and simple transactions. However, some customers prefer the guest checkout experience, as it requires less commitment and leads to faster first-time purchases. With a guest checkout feature, a shopper doesn’t have to fill out forms and create an account to purchase on a website, allowing a swift shopping experience without all of the extra steps involved.

Implementing an expedited checkout will increase customer loyalty to eCommerce mobile apps  and further success by decreasing cart abandonment rates. If the conversions aren’t meeting the quota initially intended, effectuating one or more of these tips is a great way to begin boosting numbers and meeting eCommerce goals.
To ensure your eCommerce store is having all of its needs met for maximum success, it is imperative that merchants find the right mobile app builder. Launching a high-converting mobile app can be easy with the right mobile app builder that offers features to ensure the most frictionless checkout experience.

Amazon has been increasing the amount of services it provides sellers, greatly simplifying the logistics involved in running an online store. The company’s newest expansion of services is one of its biggest yet and will help sellers ship faster at lower costs:

Sellers can now benefit from Amazon’s advanced logistics, warehousing, distribution, fulfillment, and transportation capabilities to keep products in stock, ship faster and more reliably, and significantly lower costs.

The company says Supply Chain by Amazon will help sellers focus on what they do best while leaving the logistics to Amazon:

With Supply Chain by Amazon, Amazon will pick up inventory from manufacturing facilities around the world, ship it across borders, handle customs clearance and ground transportation, store inventory in bulk, manage replenishment across Amazon and other sales channels, and deliver directly to customers—all without sellers having to worry about managing their supply chain. The new solution allows sellers to spend more time building great products, delighting customers, and growing their business, while Amazon handles the logistics, improves delivery speed, and reduces costs for sellers.

In combination with Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA), the service will allow sellers to rely on Amazon for inventory replenishment:

In addition to the cost savings through AWD, sellers will now have the opportunity to leverage Amazon’s advanced machine learning and supply chain optimization capabilities to automatically replenish inventory into the optimal Amazon fulfillment centers. This better supports expected customer demand, and allows sellers to benefit from even faster speeds from FBA and deliver customer orders for off-Amazon channels through Multi-Channel Fulfillment (MCF). Placing sellers’ products in the right quantities at the right locations to meet customer demand increases the potential for Same-Day Delivery and Next-Day Delivery speeds, which in turn drives an average 15% increase in FBA unit sales.

Sellers can learn more on the Supply Chain by Amazon page.

Seth Freeman, Chief Marketing Officer of Buffalo Wild Wings, was recently interviewed on Adweek’s CMO Moves podcast with Nadine Dietz. Freeman discussed their new “game on” brand architecture that defines not just their new marketing strategy but really the heart of the business. “The purpose ultimately is really about inspiring legendary experiences between friends,” noted Freeman:

Turning Good Times With Friends Into Great Times With Brothers

When I think of brand architecture it really gets to the essence of the brand. There are three components to it in the way we framed it up.  They are the promise, the essence, and the purpose. We identified an insight out there that guys want to turn good times with friends into great times with brothers. More accurately, legendary experiences with brothers. That was the cultural insight that really framed our brand architecture.

When we think about our purpose we defined our promise as the great American sports bar that turned game time into stories worth telling. It wasn’t just about inviting folks to watch a game. It was about translating that into an experience worth telling. That’s what folks are really looking for. That’s the promise that we deliver on every single day. That’s why we get up. That’s why folks are going out there and doing the job that they do and delivering a great experience.

It’s “Game On” for Buffalo Wild Wings

Our purpose ultimately is really about inspiring legendary experiences between friends. The essence of the brand is around this idea of camaraderie and ritual and something that we like to call “game on.” It’s our ability to make sure that when folks come in to experience Buffalo Wild Wings that we have a game on mentality and that we bring them the very best of who we are. We have 80,000 folks out there working across Buffalo Wild Wings and they bring it every single day.

As we were talking to consumers, one of the things we learned was that some of the most impactful experiences that they talked about was with the bartenders and servers. They are influencing whether or not those folks come back. For instance, one of the most memorable experiences they talked about was the bartender remembering them when they came back.

That is our brand architecture, but it also lends itself to things we have done in rolling out this purpose to the broader community through our Brand Champ Initiative. That really is a cultural movement that we are employing across our franchises and corporate stores. We have over 1,200 locations where folks are trained to make sure that the brand architecture is translating to a way that is meaningful to the consumers and also meaningful to the folks that are on the front lines every single day.

Vice President, Ryan C. Baker, posted a message on the company’s website:

As previously announced, Zulily, LLC and its parent Zulily Group LLC (collectively, “Zulily”) made the difficult but necessary decision to conduct an orderly wind-down of the business to maximize value for the companies’ creditors. This decision was not easy nor was it entered into lightly. However, given the challenging business environment in which Zulily operated, and the corresponding financial instability, Zulily decided to take immediate and swift action. 

Baker says the company will fill as many order as possible within the next two week. Orders that cannot be fulfilled will be canceled and refunded. Baker says the company has a team in place to answer questions from customers, vendors, and others.

We realize that this news comes with many questions, and we have put a team in place to address customer, vendor, and other interested party inquiries. The Zulily ABC hotline can be reached at 888-202-5829 or (+1) 747-288-6406 outside the U.S., or visit https://omniagentsolutions.com/ZulilyABC for more information and additional support. In addition, customers can send email inquiries to ZulilyCustomersABC@OmniAgnt.com, while vendors and other parties of interest can email ZulilyABCInquiries@omniagnt.com.

Zulily will strive to continue to provide everyone with the best service possible during the holiday season. We appreciate yourpatience as we move through this process as swiftly and efficiently as possible.

According to GeekWire, the retailer announced the layoffs Tuesday, although it is unclear how many employees were impacted. The news comes on the heels of CEO Terry Boyle announcing his resignation.

The company appears to be going through financial issues, with GeekWire previously reporting that Zulily was not paying some of its vendors after being purchased by Regent in May.

GeekWire reports, that Amazon “confirmed that it recently began testing a partnership with pet giant Petco, which will accept returns from customers who purchased items on Amazon.com.”

Amazon already has partnerships with Kohl’s and Staples. The partnerships are a win-win, giving Amazon’s customers a convenient option for returns while driving traffic to the partner chains.

There is no word on how long the test phase will last.