Comment by throwaway823882

If they're giving you free coffee, and you sell the coffee you got for free... where's the harm? Starbucks is giving it away. Why would anyone buy your coffee rather than get it for free from the source?

Now, assuming Starbucks charged you for the coffee, and you then re-sold it, this should also be fine. Starbucks is charging you presumably a rate with which they can recoup their costs. But if they are selling it below cost, they are clearly putting themselves at risk. A lot of businesses take this kind of risk as a strategic part of their business, like with making the coffee free. But you have to do it in a way that a competitor can't turn around to their advantage, or you're screwing yourself.

Enter the concept of "not for resale". If a seller enters into a contract with a buyer, that contract can stipulate that the buyer can't resell the goods. Starbucks could theoretically require you to sign a contract saying you will not resell their coffee. That's pretty standard with licenses, even software licenses.

ES must have known that their license did not forbid reselling. Yet they based their business model on this resellable coffee that they were giving away in order to make money on cookies.

Is it Amazon's fault that ES chose a business model where they were selling coffee at a loss? Does Amazon have an ethical responsibility to keep ES's business afloat? Should we find any business unethical that tries to undercut the customer base of a rival, or take advantage of a rival's shaky business model?

I think you have to come up with a whole framework for ethical competition, because one rule at a time isn't gonna capture it. (But I also think Capitalism is inherently unethical)