It reminds me of an analogy I read a while ago in an article critiquing keyword based online advertising (can't find the article unfortunately). A restaurant wants to drum up new business, so the owner tasks three employees with handing out flyers with coupons attached. The coupons are marked to identify which employee passed them out, and each week the owner gives a bonus to the employee whose coupons get redeemed the most. Week after week, the same employee keeps getting the bonus. The other two get more and more suspicious. Is he some kind of marketing genius that's able to get tons of people to use his coupons? Finally, they ask him how he does it. He says, "I stand in the waiting area of the restaurant".

This guy's publisher is paying Amazon $1/click to show the book to people who are already going to buy the book. It's basically the same thing.

Burnt myself on this in Google Maps just this week. I had an appointment in my calendar with the location set to "Dr Firstname Lastname, 123 Main St, 12345". I clicked through it into Google Maps and since it had the full address specified I just trusted it. Well, it turned out that the first result was actually an ad for a competing doctor 20 minutes in the wrong direction.

To Google's credit, they did drop the "Don't be evil" slogan many years ago...

These are creative, but you haven’t thought them through. Do you really want brands to own trademarks on their keywords? So that when, to pick a random example, you search the internet for “1-800 Contacts,” nobody else is allowed to show an ad that says “Hey Amluto! We sell the same thing cheaper!”[1]

2 is just being bad at business. Which is why I’m skeptical it happens.

3, I hate to break it to you, basically happens in every major store you walk into in America. Google “slotting fees.” If you think customers want an alternative, apply to YC!

[1] The FTC (on your behalf) sued 1-800 contacts for trying this. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/08/...

Can we make a class action lawsuit target multiple storefronts? Apple and Google desperately need to be gently reminded of this less. With a power drill attached dildo. Their searches are trash, first hit is always an ad.

> Someone should file the multi-hundred-billion-dollar class actions

Incidentally, last week Amazon changed their TOS [0] and now all disputes with them are to be resolved via Arbitration; class action waiver when you use their services, etc.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/amazon-reinstates-b...

I don't want any of your arguments to be supported in law.

The day someone can sue me because they searched for something on my web site and what they expected didn't come up, my web site is effectively legally prevented from having a search box.

The action needed here is anti-trust style / monopoly action. If there were viable competitors it wouldn't matter what Amazon's search box does. The fact the US government is in denial about the whole principle of the need for robust anti-trust / competition enforcement that is the core issue here.

The reason this is a thing is that other people can bid on your product (Amazon has an entire sponsored product category for this reason). So the reason for Seth Godin to bid on ads for "Seth Godin The Knot" is to try to crowd out other people bidding on the same term (eg another book on the same topic). Can be smart but you don't have to play this game if you don't want to, and the ACOS will tell you if it's worth playing. Even if you don't bid on those ads your own product will be the first result. It's just whether you want to bid up the price for competitors -- if you don't bid on your own product someone else can come in and buy the ad spots cheaply.

Hopefully Seth's publisher knows this?

1. If you get banned from Amazon largely this is very bad for business. They can find a reasonable excuse I’m sure!

2. Fraud is a stretch, these things are labelled even if it’s deliberately designed to be difficult to understand. The discovery on this would be fascinating though because I can guarantee you there’s records somewhere of a ticket to make things more deceptive…

3. I don’t think the fraud thing will get you the results you want (I guess this is a slightly ironic statement given what we’re talking about). According to Claude it’s more likely deception under “FTC Act §5” but you can’t directly do this anymore and apparently “Amazon reinstated binding individual arbitration with a class-action waiver in its Conditions of Use, effective 14 August 2026.” So even taking them to court got much much more difficult.

I think unfortunately until a different administration (maybe one less motivated by billionaire donors) comes in, we are stuck with this type of practice.

This is terrible behavior and it should be condemned, but I see no reason it should be illegal. There’s no deception in any of this. It’s like going to a store and asking an employee where the Widgets are, and they show you the Doodads instead because they’re more profitable. This is scummy but by no means illegal. The Doodads are labeled as Doodads. The advertisers know where their ads can be shown and under what conditions they’ll be charged for a click. It’s all dickish but it’s not fraud.

unless the othet sellers are selling counterfeit books, you have zero grounds for any of those.

worked in advertisement, and there's legal precedent to allow bidding on competitor brands (for every advertising network joy).