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.
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.
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. 😑
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… ???
Damn, so true. We should never have quit shopping at
TargetWalmartSearsWoolworths. Now we live in Capitalist Hell and its all our own fault.You shouldn’t shop there because of their blatantly anti-consumer monopolistic practices.
$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.
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.
How about… you do what you want with your own money and let other people do the same?
What a facile argument.