[nielsbot]

> this is meant to be pro-consumer

it's pro-Amazon and anti-competition, surely. (Amazon doesn't care about consumers except as profit sources)

> The sellers don't HAVE to sell to Amazon, but then they'd miss out on giant POs from Amazon at good terms.

So they have to sell to Amazon?

> I'm not sure if calling it a "widespread scheme to inflate prices" is the fairest thing.

It's fair if it's true, effectively or otherwise.

[ToValueFunfetti]

The word 'scheme' means that it isn't true if it's only true effectively. If you concede that Amazon didn't deliberately work towards this outcome, you concede that it's unfair to call it a scheme.