Hart says "Amazon served me with a lawsuit,"[0] but it was Amazon who was sued by California citing Hart as a witness to support the lawsuit. Hart is having to go through discovery as part of that.[1][2] Amazon is allowed to do this discovery, on the theory it should be able to scrutinize claims being made against it, particularly when billions of dollars are at stake.

Hart's estimate for the fees Amazon charges him seem approximately the same as the fees Amazon estimates it would charge for products like his.[3] Given that, perhaps he shouldn't matter much for the lawsuit. But the law is vague, often saying something is prohibited only when it is bad for competition. So vague claims of what helps vs hurts competition matters, which is why Hart's testimony matters.

Most stores choose not to feature items that one can readily buy cheaper elsewhere. So what exactly is the state's theory about when that is legal or not in such a way it is illegal for Amazon to be doing -- and is the state's theory here supported by the laws?

The problem really is the laws around what is anti-competitive are vague & subjective. As a result, everyone has to spend a ton of money on lawyers (and lobbyists) to figure out an outcome. Instead of this, the legislature should revise the law to be clear. I assume this is not done because the lawyers and lobbyists like the flow of money to them created by vague laws, but it also might be because vague laws are easier for the legislature to write.

[0] https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663582603906088961

[1] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2022-...

[2] https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1663601424226189315

[3] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/revcalpublic look up "B06XJCKS46"