Hope this suit succeeds
Why does 3M have any standing? That article mentions “resellers” repeatedly, so this isn’t about pirated/counterfeit 3M goods; it’s about re-sold 3M goods. Not sure 3M has standing to complain, if it’s their own, legitimate stuff.
FWIW, price gouging is good. Research it.
Really? Got a credible cite for that?
Actually some of the goods were counterfeit and others were altered or damaged. The article quotes the complaint, “operated an illegal scheme to advertise and sell counterfeit, damaged, deficient, or otherwise altered respirators”.
I think if they were selling first-rate goods, even at a crazy markup, 3M would have no cause for complaint.
Will you accept John Stossel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqMFBdWkfo0
Libertarian people think gouging is a great idea but there are still many laws against it . Don’t know if any of the laws were repealed or thrown out in court.
There’s a saying that just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right. A corollary would be just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Libertarians want destructive and freedom-stifling laws repealed.
Libertarians want all laws repealed.
Libertarians are OK with many criminal laws such as laws against rape, murder, robbery, etc. Anarchists want no laws.
Libertarians only want the freedom-stifling laws repealed, but they think that almost all laws are freedom-stifling. The only way to reach the libertarian conclusion is to start by defining “free” as “lack of laws”.
There are degrees of libertarianism, thank you very much. “No laws” is anarchy, and groups naturally develop rules. My point was neo-liberal, which is often confused with libertarianism.
In any case, I still don’t see standing. If I sell my shoddy Chrysler, FCA doesn’t have standing.
Saying price gouging is good is saying that the poor deserve to not get things when supplies are short. There are better tactics, like quotas, to manage low supplies, which don’t favor the rich. If someone buys something at low supply for cheap and resells it for a lot more, they haven’t added that much more value into the system. They’re just leeches that keep those who actually need it from getting it. The idea that people who need it most will be able to pay the most money is ridiculous.
And 3M has standing because they were marketing fake or damaged goods as 3M goods. That’s a trademark violation. Of course they have standing–just like Rolex could sue someone for selling fake Rolexes.
Not that I wouldn’t be for them being able to sue for gray market price gouging directly. Like I said, it only causes harm to those who need it most and enriches people who provide no economic value.
Masks are not nothing, but people have even price-gouged insulin, something Banting worked hard to try to prevent. It is hard to argue that people deserve to get ripped off on medical supplies. That article raises the important point that excessive prices in general, not only in an emergency, have often been legal and are also the subject of legal challenges related to price-gouging statutes.
You’re forgetting about geography, though. If there’s no toilet paper available here in Michigan, someone might be able to bring it from somewhere else. But it will cost them, and they’ll need to make up that expense for the arbitrage. But they can’t, because it’s price-gouging.
If you let everyone price gouge, you know what happens? Competition, and price equalization. Early adopters might have overpaid, but they are the ones who valued it more. Perfectly reasonable.
For fake, then I agree they have standing. I’ve not read in depth, which is why I keep asking. Damaged goods? I refer you back to my Chrysler example.
You haven’t read in depth? Did you even read any of the article linked to in the OP? The first couple of sentences makes clear why they have standing.