First, price fixing is usually about raising prices - a bunch of vendors get together and say "we agree not to sell for less than $20". That would harm consumers.
Here, you have a third party (yes, just a minute on that) who says "I'm only going to list offers that are $7 or less". That is not price fixing. It'd be like if I set up a car review site and said I'd only review cars that sold for less than $15,000 and told manufacturers they could only advertise cars for less than $15,000. No one would say "and therefore we can sue Ford".
Vendors can still sell for more or less in the marketplace, advertise wherever they want, etc. LEB/LET is just a review site with a forum.
I'm aware that CC owns LET, but the LET policies were in place pre-CC, and more importantly, CC does not control all the providers who advertise there.
Price fixing is an interesting topic and one that will probably be discussed more in coming months.
By limiting the price to $7 it by default limits the available pool of companies who can or will sell at such a price. Now couple that with a provider CC owning the place who funds/supplies to a great number of the companies... and bundle their "friend's" company which has too close ties and that company's propensity towards outlandish and unsustainable market disruptors --- 2GB @ $7, now 2GB $2~... and the choice to publish many offers (disproportional number I argue) that directly benefit them (customers or investment interest).
Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.
The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all sellers but may also have the goal to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices. The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether expressed or implied.
Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers.
^--- sounds umm in multiple places applicable.
I'm aware that CC owns LET, but the LET policies were in place pre-CC,
That's funny sort of (good point BTW). Here's the deal, LET and LEB fail to disclose their ownership to the public on said sites. Maybe I am blind. I don't see ToS, Privacy policy, About Us, etc. So very bad to start with. Again, like the HVH debacle, the only way to know about the ownership is to linger and read or make mistake of spending money and note who ate your money. Deceptive.
Just because policies pre-date their acquisition doesn't make those policies legitimate. In fact the former owner was Australian, and such price capping/fixing might have been illegal under law in Australia. But you have to remember, LET/LEB was a community and NOT-FOR-PROFIT, so while such may have been illegal both the size of the site then (smaller) and non-commercial operation made it an uninteresting target.
Contrast that to the whole takeover, deceptive BS, and their clear intentional milking of the market as a FOR PROFIT investment. FOR PROFIT and manipulating the manipulated capped marketplace. Operating in New York State (which has gone after price fixers) in the United States (which goes after price fixer).
Place your bets...
