this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
1139 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

81863 readers
5043 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta last night filed a request for a preliminary injunction in California’s existing case against Amazon for price fixing. Attorney General Bonta’s 2022 lawsuit alleged that the company stifled competition and caused increased prices across California through its anticompetitive policies in order to avoid competing on price with other retailers. New evidence paints a clearer and more shocking picture. The motion for a preliminary injunction comes after a robust discovery process where California uncovered evidence of countless interactions in which Amazon, vendors, and Amazon’s competitors agree to increase and fix the prices of products on other retail websites to bolster Amazon’s profits. Time and again, across years and product categories, Amazon has reached out to its vendors and instructed them to increase retail prices on competitors’ websites, threatening dire consequences if vendors do not comply. Vendors, bullied by Amazon’s overwhelming bargaining leverage and fearing punishment, comply — agreeing to raise prices on competitors’ websites (often with the awareness and cooperation of the competing retailer), or to remove products from competing websites altogether. Amazon’s goal is to insulate itself from price competition by preventing lower retail prices in the market at the expense of American consumers who are already struggling with a crisis of affordability.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JDPoZ@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

My biggest problem is that very specific niche products that also have no direct sale options from the supplier / manufacturer tend to only be available on Amazon.

Like there’s a specific caramel sauce I like to put in my coffee that is made from real caramel and not “caramel flavored corn-syrup” and the company that makes it is great and based out of the US, but they have no direct-sale option on their website nor any place that says “where to buy.”

The only place I’ve found it to be reliably sold from is Amazon, because I’m not a small coffee business. As far as I can tell, unless I order massive quantities via some sort of scheduled contract ordering agreement, I don’t think I can order direct from the manufacturer.

I hate Amazon and would rather not give them money, but they have effectively created a de-facto monopoly for certain products… whether they are the actual only major supplier that has both a web storefront and that will ship around the US… or they are the only web storefront that yielded search results for specific products when consumers are combing the web marketplace for them.

Until the US govt or other entities with regulatory teeth willing to prosecute them for monopolistic practices and maybe even break them up some day, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect even the most savvy consumers to fully remove themselves from purchasing at least some number of very specific goods form Amazon.

[–] upandatom@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Your point is valid and definitely a concern.

But how are people so basic.

You hate Amazon, but just have to have your caramel syrup? Doesn't really sound like hate.

Sounds more like you do not want to have to make sacrifices to the things you like.

Wonder why bad things continue to happen.

I use Amazon too. Not trying to be too judgy, but come on. Accept some personal responsibility for your actions.

[–] JDPoZ@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Ah yes - the “personal responsibility” argument… 🙄

Whatever product it is isn’t really the point.

There are certain things that people either need or want and if Amazon is the only place to get them and your solution is, “well, just sacrifice” is fine if it’s a luxury good like stupid caramel sauce, but what if it’s something like vacuum cleaner bags for the vacuum you use are only sold now via Amazon?

What if it’s a specific chewable version of a vitamin your kid’s doctor suggested for your child who has a specific deficiency and can’t swallow pills and the only maker of the kids chewable of it sells on Amazon?

Should the parent just “take responsibility” and not give them that vitamin their pediatrician suggested they need?

…or maybe we should just be okay with criticizing the fucking trillion dollar company that gets to have a monopoly, and maybe think of other suggestions to give other than a “Ben-Shapiro tier” canned response. 😑

[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world -2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

$1000 says you're, at best, a college kid. Probably a teenager.

Why? People with actual life experience in this shitty system don't make the personal responsibility argument because they've lived enough to know that's bullshit.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

Companies like Amazon can't exist if people don't buy from them. The fact that you think people have to buy from them is the problem.

No one has to spend their money with Amazon. There's always going to be a personal responsibility aspect when people willingly do something they know is wrong.

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

How about... you do what you want with your own money and let other people do the same?

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I do. It's just the claim that people aren't personally responsible for where they choose to spend their money is preposterous.

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, free will sucks like that...

[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

So you think people aren't responsible for where they choose to spend their money? Is Amazon holding a gun to their head?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

But how are people so basic.

I would like a thing. All retail commerce has been monopolized by a handful of big box storefronts. One of those storefronts sucks marginally less than the others, such that I can actually find what I want to buy and expect it to be delivered in a timely fashion.

But I shouldn't shop there because... ???

Wonder why bad things continue to happen.

Damn, so true. We should never have quit shopping at ~~Target~~ ~~Walmart~~ ~~Sears~~ Woolworths. Now we live in Capitalist Hell and its all our own fault.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 2 hours ago

You shouldn't shop there because of their blatantly anti-consumer monopolistic practices.