However, there may be situations when there is no fraud or coercion, but there is deception, collusion, manipulation and lack of transparency which may put one side in disadvantage in the transactions.
I agree, in part.
Deception of any kind, as part of a financial transaction, is fraud.
Collusion is generally illegal, unless it’s collusion with the government (collusion with the government is legal, but represents the worst type of collusion, imho).
Manipulation in a financial transaction would generally be fraud or coercion.
Lack of transparency would be a gray area. If there’s a defect in my product that I know about but don’t disclose, that’s fraud. If I know that my competitor is about to release a new product that’s going to make mine obsolete, I might slash my prices to reduce my inventory, but I have no duty to disclose my reasons for doing so.
BTW, I am not defending or accusing Amazon in any way, shape, or form. I’m just trying to provide some clarity about terminology.
I always bristle when I hear the term “price gouging” (because it generally implies a falsehood about free exchange). That’s why I usually take the opportunity to explain free exchange (and the fact that both parties are better off, if the exchange is truly free of fraud or coercion).
Thank you for explaining in details! I understand better now. Makes perfect sense.