It would be more reliable if they had similar incidents with other sellers, but as others have mentioned, it definitely has made me more aware in watching pricing whenever I shop on Amazon

When first reading this article I wished the author, Jade Scipioni, provided additional reliable sources other than Remodeez to help solidify that this was an event seen across the board. However, when continuing to read this article Jade clearly began stacking the deck to support the clickbait headline. Testimonies from Remodeez and two attorneys who defend Amazon sellers were stacked against the vague responses from the Amazon representative. I'd appreciate a well-balanced version of this story to obtain the correct stance.

The article is newsworthy and should hopefully lead to a greater speculation on the power of corporations, however the author's arguments lack any verifiable source.

The article only provides evidence from one disgruntled seller. It's disappointing to think a company could be doing this, and they might be, but the author doesn't provide sufficient evidence to back it's claim. The article does make you think 'what if?'.

No evidence at all is provided to prove the statements of the company Remodeez, that comes across as an angry seller in search of approval. Even Consumer Watchdog's paper and spreadsheet could have been completely made up and there is no way to fact check their accusations. To make a claim this big there needs to be not only proof of the price change, but also clear evidence that in the contract there's no trace of this price behaviour whatsoever.

This article relies on one companies story about changing prices. Their graphs even show previous price hikes that they do not discuss at all.

As far as business goes this is not a new strategy. The fact that it would violate the FTC act is a different story. But the use of one vendor's experience does not provide enough reliable evidence. A more balance article could have been written and taken into account more vendors as well as unbiased statements on why or why not they violated the FTC.

A story where both sides are given the option to state their case. The only missing aspect is an non-biased observation by a third party. This would have been a good opportunity to get a quote by a representative from the Consumer Watchdog group, but a lack of an objective observation causes more confusion than understanding. This is a polarizing piece that does not attempt to find common ground.

This article covers Amazon.com's pricing strategy on Prime Day and in general. There are some lofty accusations made by a disgruntled Amazon seller, displaying pricing graphs of company Remodeez. The graphs appear to be provided to the seller and clearly display price changes over time. The fact this the price changes are so easy to see and track leads me to believe that everything Amazon is attacked for in the article is likely somewhere in the seller's contract. Apart from two graph snapshots, there isn't much evidence provided. The piece also completely avoids any argument in defense of Amazon which is why I reviewed this piece as 'Stacking the Deck'. FOX Businesses' headline reads as a claim rather than the issue being looked into in the article. I find this misleading and irresponsible, so I reviewed the headline as click bait. If the article sufficiently proved such a claim, I'd have no problem at all with it. However, this article barely provides evidence in support of its aggressive headline.

Not very newsworthy, but it is trustworthy. No shenanigans from what I can tell.

Article headline is super clickbaity, however in the actual article they make sure to cover their ass. The majority of all claims are direct quotes, they talk to both sides, as well as getting quotes from two lawyers and referencing a consumer watchdog. Of course, by the end of the article it's much less clear that there was any wrongdoing, so the article started out a little misleading.

The article represents the experience of one company and clearly states that that is really all they are reporting on. To the extent that it makes a bigger representation about Amazon, it refers to the Consumer Water report which is credible.

Article is mainly based on one angry seller, but it does open my eyes to the possibility of unfair practices on Amazons part. As an avid Amazon user I will look more closely at pricing going forward.