The issue here wasn't that they were just using Amazon's API and then lost access. The Amazon TOS says don't store and display our old prices and, per the post, that's what PriceZombie was doing.
The lesson is that if you're doing something in violation of a partner's TOS and start to negatively effect their business, the partner is well within their rights to cut off access. Whether other businesses have or haven't been slapped down is only a secondary question.
You miss the point. PriceZombie was above board with what they were doing at all times. Amazon TOLD THEM that as long as their latest price was within 24 hours they could display price history like dozens of other price trackers were doing. PZ was reviewed three times, not just by low level people but higher up in the chain, and each time there was no question they were within the TOS so long as they displayed the current price along with price history. This is why PZ's Reddit bot always pulls up and displays the current price when queried. After three years, Amazon changed their mind - but not for everyone, just PZ.
Many of the shoppers using Price Zombie likely relied on Price Zombie's historical pricing data and notifications of price drops to delay purchases until prices for items were relatively low. The affiliate link gave Amazon data on which shoppers were using Price Zombie. Maybe someone at Amazon used their data to estimate the decrease in margins from that, causing Amazon's leadership to change its mind.
Oh man, I remember a few years ago I wrote a Python script that used CCC data to help flip seasonal items on Amazon's own marketplace. The idea being that I would buy low from a third party seller and sell high later using FBA. Kind of a fun experiment but kind of a time sink.
Generally speaking, graduate-level textbooks (which release new editions at a far slower pace) had the largest and most predictable margin. That said, I hated that fact, since I think textbooks are also the biggest racket in the education universe, and its one of the other reasons that I stopped.
Amazon collected their fees in both directions, so I always assumed that if they realized what I was doing, they had little incentive to care.
That's because the agreements don't say that anywhere that I can find. Both the affiliate agreement and the advertising api have no mention of not displaying historical prices. The advertising API even suggests it's OK if you display the date with the price.
edit: This is the section that Amazon must be referring to
"You may store other Product Advertising Content that does not consist of images for caching purposes for up to 24 hours, but if you do so you must immediately thereafter refresh and re-display the Product Advertising Content"
They probably just haven't been caught yet. Amazon is massive and has tons of people who use their Affiliate API. There's probably a small enforcement team that looks at stuff like this. Price Zombie might have just gotten large enough to show up on their radar.
CCC makes money off of Amazon links. Other ways price trackers make money is to sell personal shopping habits, and other data they gather. PriceZombie's developer has always stated they would not do that which is why they relied wholly on affiliate fees.
Unless they signed a legally binding contract that obligates them to continue the arrangement, they can terminate it at any time for any reason. Avoiding ToS violations does not prevent that.
I'm the owner of PZ. I spoke to the associates team for technical workarounds, including not using the API at all (e.g; purchasing the data from a 3rd party), in order to retain associate's status. The manager said it wouldn't matter if we abided by the ToS or not, Amazon did not want PZ.
Yep, or they can even shut you out by mistake and there's nothing you can do about it except send emails and hope someone woke up on the right side of the bed that morning.
I can't imagine a massive Associates Program user like, say, Gizmodo, doesn't have some kind of internal connection.
Every business is 100% on other companies. Everyone uses electricity, has to ship product, buy resources, use devices to transform those resources etc.
The problem here only really exists in these silly other parasitical web-only businesses. Yes, if you track Amazon's prices and Amazon makes that harder then you'll be on trouble. So probably best to set up 20 or so companies/services in your spare time and not take any of them too seriously.
No, the problem here is that the power company can't unilaterally decide you don't get power anymore and turn it off without warning. Your shipping carrier can't suddenly decide they don't serve you anymore, and by the way we're keeping all the packages you have en route.
But Amazon can. They also pay a few months in arrears, so one day you may wake up to a form email that says essentially, "adios, and I'm keeping the money". In fairness, I believe all affiliate programs are like that.
These are called carriers and utilities. There ar generally laws requiring them to offer the same business opportunities to everyone. Common carrier laws originated in England to regulate shipping carriers. I am not sure to what extent they exist in the US due to the federal postal service, but I understand that they are applied to telecommunications and more recently, the Internet via Title II.
"But Amazon can..... In fairness, I believe all affiliate programs are like that."
My point is that most other companies are like that, and the difference is just the extent to which these parasitical "internet businesses" are coupled to their host.
They're not `keeping the money`, they're just not paying you stuff that's not covered by the contract, TOS etc.
It's not `without warning` by the same token; unless the warning they were expecting was to hear about other companies who play fast and loose with the rules getting caught first.
No, most other companies are certainly not like that; you may not understand exactly what Amazon can do:
Amazon pays ~2 months after Affiliate fees are earned, so at any given time you may have 2 months of fees waiting to be paid. If today they decide that they're done with their affiliate relationship with you -- for good reason or for no reason -- they can (and do) close your account with no explanation, AND they keep those 2 months of fees you already earned legitimately with no recourse except your suing them (good luck with that).
It's a bit like being a commissioned salesperson, getting fired, and the company keeps all your pending commissions. Totally illegal in that context, but the Affiliate program is not an employer in that way. It still sucks just as much.
A lot of companies warn you if they think you're in violation of their TOS: internet providers, game companies, cell phone companies, on and on. I don't think it's unreasonable to use a 'strikes' system or provide an avenue for appeal.
Right, but those other business have alternatives if the relationship with one fails (with the exception of electricity, which is regulated and therefore a bit different.)
It doesn't matter how they scrape. They could continue scraping prices if they wanted to. The problem is they lost access to the Affiliates API -- which is how they make money.
Most Terms of Use contain language that states that automated access is unauthorized, and most companies allege you've agreed to their Terms of Use by accessing any page other than their front page (or accessing the front page more than once). Furthermore, even if this is lacking, once a company provides notice that you are no longer authorized to access their computers, it doesn't matter what the Terms of Use may say or whether the ToU is considered a binding contract; you've received notice that your access is unauthorized.
The CFAA generally applies to any computer access, as the Commerce Clause has been interpreted as applying to completely intra-state transactions (ignoring the fact that most computer access crosses state lines, which would make it a federal issue anyway), and thus, effectively all computers attached to the internet are "protected computers". Even if you're able to prevail in the argument that the CFAA is not applicable, there are similarly-worded state statutes, and as mentioned, other issues may federal matters, like alleged copyright and trademark infringement (which is usually alleged in such cases).
The CFAA is somewhat grey so if you have a few hundred k or more to flush on your lawyers, go ahead, it's possible that you may win. For most people, it's not relevant, because they can't afford to go head-to-head against a major global corporate entity like Amazon. One of the main goals of such a company is to make the lawsuit as costly as possible for the opposing party, since they have infinity money and they know that their opponent likely doesn't.
If you're interested, there have been a handful of cases already litigated on the CFAA. The scrapers usually get smoked hard. Look up Ticketmaster v. RMG Technologies, Craigslist v. 3Taps, Register.com v. Verio, and Facebook v. Power Ventures to get started.
The lesson is that if you're doing something in violation of a partner's TOS and start to negatively effect their business, the partner is well within their rights to cut off access. Whether other businesses have or haven't been slapped down is only a secondary question.