Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Amazon has been accused of listing products from independent retailers without their consent, even as the ecommerce giant sues start-up Perplexity over its AI software shopping without permission.
The $2.5tn online retailer has listed some independent shops’ full inventory on its platform without seeking permission, four business owners told the Financial Times, enabling customers to shop through Amazon rather than buy directly.
Two independent retailers told the FT that they had also received orders for products that were either out of stock or were mispriced and mislabelled by Amazon leading to customer complaints.
Advertisement
“Nobody opted into this,” said Angie Chua, owner of Bobo Design Studio, a stationery store based in Los Angeles.
Tech companies are experimenting with artificial intelligence “agents” that can perform tasks like shopping autonomously based on user instructions.
Amazon has blocked agents from Anthropic, Google, OpenAI and a host of other AI start-ups from its website.
It filed a lawsuit in November against Perplexity, whose Comet browser was making purchases on Amazon on behalf of users, alleging that the company’s actions risked undermining user privacy and violated its terms of service.
In its complaint, Amazon said Perplexity had taken steps “without prior notice to Amazon and without authorisation” and that it degraded a customer shopping experience it had invested in over several decades.
Advertisement
Perplexity in a statement at the time said that the lawsuit was a “bully tactic” aimed at scaring “disruptive companies like Perplexity” from improving customers’ experience.
The recent complaints against Amazon relate to its “Buy for Me” function, launched last April, which lets some customers purchase items that are not listed with Amazon but on other retailers’ sites.
Retailers said Amazon did not seek their permission before sending them orders that were placed on the ecommerce site. They do not receive the user’s email address or other information that might be helpful for generating future sales, several sellers told the FT.
“We consciously avoid Amazon because our business is rooted in community and building a relationship with customers,” Chua said. “I don’t know who these customers are.”
Several of the independent retailers said Amazon’s move had led to poor experiences for customers, or hurt their business.
Advertisement
Sarah Hitchcock Burzio, the owner of Hitchcock Paper Co. in Virginia, said that Amazon had mislabelled items leading to a surge in orders as customers believed they were receiving more expensive versions of a product at a much lower price.
“There were no guardrails set up so when there were issues there was nobody I could go to,” she said.
Product returns and complaints for the “Buy for Me” function are handled by sellers rather than Amazon, even when errors are produced by the Seattle-based group.
Amazon enables sellers to opt out of the service by contacting the company on a specific email address.
Amazon said: “Shop Direct and Buy for Me are programmes we’re testing that help customers discover brands and products not currently sold in Amazon’s store, while helping businesses reach new customers and drive incremental sales.
Advertisement
“We have received positive feedback on these programmes. Businesses can opt out at any time.”
In a year, the president has altered 10 spaces in the White House.
For generations, each American president has left his stamp on the White House. But in just a year of his second term, President Trump has overseen a collection of changes that is unprecedented in scale, speed and cost.
Some changes are cosmetic, while others are structural. As with his executive style, he has broken long-held norms in his makeover of the “People’s House.” Critics have questioned Mr. Trump’s demolition of the East Wing before gaining approvals, and the administration is under legal pressure over plans to build a ballroom in its place.
Advertisement
It is difficult to know the full price tag of the renovations, but they come at a time when cost of living and inflation are top of mind for many Americans. Mr. Trump has said that he is personally paying for some projects, and that he and his donors would foot the bill for the $400 million ballroom.
Here are the 10 areas he transformed.
Advertisement
Mr. Trump is not done yet.
In an interview with The Times this month, he said that designs were being drawn up for a second level on top of the West Colonnade. Called the “Upper West Wing,” it would hold offices for West Wing aides and “future first ladies.”
Advertisement
Photo credits
Advertisement
Cover: Doug Mills/The New York Times
Cabinet Room: Drew Angerer/The New York Times and Doug Mills/The New York Times
Advertisement
Oval Office: Dirck Halstead/Getty Images, Eric Draper/The White House, via National Archives, Doug Mills/The New York Times and Bruce White, via White House Historical Association
Oval Office study: David Valdez/The White House, via National Archives, Pete Souza/The White House and Doug Mills/The New York Times
West Colonnade: Doug Mills/The New York Times and Elizabeth Frantz for The New York Times
Advertisement
Rose Garden: Doug Mills/The New York Times and Todd Heisler/The New York Times
Palm Room: Jack E. Boucher/Historic American Buildings Survey, via Library of Congress and Doug Mills/The New York Times
Advertisement
Flagpoles: Doug Mills/The New York Times
Lincoln Bathroom: Andrea Hanks/The White House and Doug Mills/The New York Times
Entrance Hall: Doug Mills/The New York Times and Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Advertisement
East Wing Ballroom: Detroit Publishing Co., via Library of Congress, Kevin Carter/Getty Images, Doug Mills/The New York Times, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images and Bettmann Archive, via Getty Images
Donald Trump has said UK soldiers who fought in Afghanistan were “among the greatest of all warriors” after previously drawing criticism for his claims that Nato troops stayed away from the frontlines during the conflict.
In a post on social media on Saturday, the US president said: “The great and very brave soldiers of the United Kingdom will always be with the United States of America.
“In Afghanistan, 457 died, many were badly injured, and they were among the greatest of all warriors.
“It’s a bond too strong to ever be broken. The UK military, with tremendous heart and soul, is second to none (except for the USA). We love you all, and always will!”
The post came a day after Trump was criticised for his remarks that Nato allied troops “stayed a little off the frontlines” in Afghanistan.
Advertisement
Keir Starmer raised the comments directly with the US president in a conversation on Saturday, No 10 said.
A Downing Street spokesperson said:
“The prime minister spoke to the president of the United States, Donald Trump, this afternoon.
“The prime minister raised the brave and heroic British and American soldiers who fought side by side in Afghanistan, many of whom never returned home. We must never forget their sacrifice, he said.
“As Ukraine approaches the fourth year of war since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the leaders agreed on the need to see progress towards a sustainable ceasefire.
Advertisement
“Whilst diplomatic efforts continue, the prime minister reiterated that international partners must continue to support Ukraine in its defence against Putin’s barbaric attacks.
“The leaders also discussed the need for bolstered security in the Arctic, and the prime minister said it was an absolute priority for his government.
“The leaders discussed the importance of the UK-US relationship, which continues to stand the test of time.
Clockwise from top left: Monica Bicking, via Storyful; Status Coup News, via Storyful; Brendan Gutenschwager, via Storyful; and Level Up with Gene and Jay, via Facebook.
Advertisement
Federal immigration agents have broken windows and dragged occupants out of their vehicles. They have forcefully tackled people to the ground. They have pushed and shoved protesters, and deployed pepper spray directly in their faces.
For weeks, residents have documented the scenes unfolding as federal agents pursue President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. The videos have circulated widely and intensified outrage and fear among many Minnesotans.
Marty Kurcias, 76, who was protesting at the airport on Friday, said the aggressive treatment he has seen of Minnesotans was jarring. “It can’t go on like this,” he said, adding, “We don’t abide by cruelty or violence.”
Advertisement
Trump administration officials have defended the tactics as necessary in the face of widespread protests. But the heavy-handed use of force has drawn mounting scrutiny.
The New York Times reviewed dozens of videos taken in recent weeks and identified multiple aggressive tactics that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents used during immigration arrests and in encounters with protesters.
Advertisement
Officers forcibly entered homes without a judge’s warrant.
On Sunday, federal agents were seen dragging a man from his home in St. Paul. The man was later identified as ChongLy Scott Thao, a Hmong immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen with no criminal record, according to his family. Mr. Thao and his family said that the armed agents did not present a warrant or allow him to show identification at the time of arrest.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Mr. Thao refused to be fingerprinted or facially identified and that he had matched the description of two sex offenders they were seeking.
Advertisement
An internal memo, leaked by a whistle-blower group, showed that ICE officials had drafted guidance saying that their officers could enter homes without a judicial warrant and that they could rely instead on administrative warrants that are issued by a government agency and do not go through the federal court system.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the department, acknowledged that officers had relied on administrative warrants to enter homes to conduct arrests.
Advertisement
John Sandweg, who served as an acting director of ICE under President Barack Obama, said the practice of entering homes without a judicial warrant would be a significant departure from decades-old ICE policies and procedures.
They interrogated people because of their ethnicity or accents.
Administration officials have repeatedly said that the operations in Minnesota have targeted violent criminals and people who pose a serious threat to the community. But immigration agents have confronted and interrogated people because of what they assumed their race or ethnicity to be.
Advertisement
A video posted on social media and additional footage provided to The New York Times show one man, Ramon Menera, questioned by immigration agents who told him they were asking for documentation because of his accent.
Mr. Menera told The Times that he is a U.S. citizen and that the agents released him after he provided them with his passport card.
Advertisement
In July, a federal judge prohibited immigration agents in the Los Angeles area from targeting people based on assumptions about their race or ethnicity, but the Supreme Court lifted the order in September.
They broke windows and dragged occupants from their cars.
Immigration agents are taking sharp measures to detain and arrest people. That includes people who do not appear to be a danger to the community and in some cases people who are not the targets of immigration enforcement operations at all.
Advertisement
A widely shared video taken in Minneapolis shows immigration agents dragging a woman, later identified as Aliya Rahman, from her car, after one agent shattered the window on the passenger side.
Advertisement
Brendan Gutenschwager, via Storyful
The Homeland Security department later said that the woman was an “agitator” who ignored multiple commands to move her vehicle away from the scene. Ms. Rahman told CNN that she was not there to protest, and that she had received conflicting commands.
Advertisement
Another video shows one agent breaking the window of a car after a man inside refuses to open the door. Multiple agents then tackle the man, later identified as Orbin Mauricio Henriquez Serrano, to the ground.
Advertisement
Status Coup News/Jon Farina, via Storyful
Shattering a window and pulling someone out of their car can escalate an encounter significantly, said Geoffrey P. Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. It would be suitable only in a situation in which the federal agents had probable cause to suspect that the target had committed a violent crime like murder, rape or robbery, he said.
It was not immediately clear whether the man fit that description. The Homeland Security Department said only that he was an undocumented immigrant from Honduras who failed to obey officers’ orders.
Advertisement
They used force on people who were already restrained.
The Times found multiple instances of several agents tackling someone to the ground and proceeding to handle that person aggressively, in one instance placing a knee on the person’s neck.
Advertisement
In another case, video shows five immigration agents holding a man to the ground as one agent repeatedly strikes the man in the face with his knee.
Advertisement
Monica Bicking, via Storyful
A strike to the head is generally considered deadly force, justified only to defend against imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person, said Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown Law. “There was nothing in that video that indicated that was the situation,” she said.
The available video does not show what led up to the encounter. Ms. McLaughlin said in a statement to The Times that the man had violently resisted arrest. She added that officers are trained to use the minimum necessary amount of force.
Advertisement
They met protesters with force.
Immigration agents have increasingly clashed with protesters in recent weeks after a federal officer shot and killed a woman, Renee Good, on Jan. 7. Protesters have gathered in small groups and in large crowds, honking car horns, blowing whistles and yelling at and filming ICE agents. Immigration agents have been filmed exchanging insults and jeers with the protesters.
Advertisement
Videos showed multiple cases when agents were quick to use physical force with protesters, shoving or tackling them. In one instance, an agent gets out of a car, walks up to a protester who is standing in front of the agent’s car and shoves him into the middle of the street.
Advertisement
Level Up with Gene and Jay, via Facebook
Ms. Lopez said that the First Amendment gives people the broad right to protest, record and yell things, even profanity, at officers.
In a statement to The Times, Ms. McLaughlin characterized the protesters as “rioters and terrorists,” and said that they had assaulted law enforcement and vandalized federal vehicles.
Advertisement
They deployed chemical irritants at close range.
Videos also documented multiple occasions when, in confrontations with protesters, immigration agents deployed chemical irritants with little to no warning — firing directly in people’s faces.
Advertisement
A federal judge in Minneapolis cited several episodes of “gratuitous deployment of pepper spray” in a ruling last week that ordered agents not to retaliate against peaceful protesters. A federal appeals court temporarily lifted those restrictions on Wednesday.
In a video of a protest taken on Jan. 7 near where Ms. Good was killed, federal agents can be seen on multiple occasions hitting protesters in the face with pepper spray and other irritants at close range. Earlier in the video, one of the protesters throws a snow ball at one of the agents, and some protesters are blocking an agent’s vehicle.
Advertisement
Status Coup News, via Storyful
They continued to operate with anonymity.
Advertisement
In many of the videos The Times reviewed, immigration agents drove in unmarked cars, and wore ski masks, neck gaiters or other face coverings. Many also wore a cap and shades, further obscuring their identities, a practice that has been common in immigration operations across the country.
Federal officials have said that face coverings protect the agents and their families from retaliation, such as having their home address or contact information shared online.
Advertisement
But the practice runs counter to protocols for most other law enforcement personnel, like police officers whose uniforms include badge numbers. And critics have suggested that the agents have been emboldened to act with impunity, knowing that their identities are hidden and that it would be difficult to hold them accountable.
