this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
1541 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

81869 readers
4565 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
1541
Amazon BUSTED for Widespread Scheme to Inflate Prices Across the Economy— Amazon, its vendors, and competing retailers are price fixing, hiking up prices for consumer products, making Amazon richer (oag.ca.gov)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
312 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Valve states you can’t sell a steam key in another platform for cheaper than in steam, not that you can’t sell your game anywhere else at a lower price. That’s slightly different than here. Not defending it just saying that it is actually different than here.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I just want to add in that what Valve has as official policy and what they actually practice differ in this case. Because yes, their policy states it's for keys only. However, they have admitted in court that if the publisher has it as a cheaper price elsewhere, they will delist your game

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Source?

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

The Wolfire versus Valve antitrust case.

They submitted evidence of email chains from Valve customer support stating that they want Valve to have the best deal available and that they will not choose to do business with companies that do not give them the best deal.

On top of that, they also went on record stating that the steam product key page under the Steamworks area is meant to be intended for all products on Steam, not just keys.

It's a textbook example of, hey look, this is our policy that's written down, but we don't actually follow it.

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Thx, I'll look it up

[–] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is good to know. Can you provide a link to that court case or anything?

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I have the docket link which is here but its a mess because the original case was dismissed back in 2021, but then amended and merged to contain a larger case.

I used to have the actual document number somewhere if i can find it I will let you know as well. Sadly when the case started getting media attention valve started filing for seal motions on newer evidence, but I don't /think/ they retroactively sealed anything.

The case is well worth a read, the intent on it is of course valves potential monopoly on video game storefront but it goes into detail about other providers as well. It aims to focus on the valve 30% cut system they use and whether valve uses their market position to abuse or not. I don't personally think they do, because I feel their choices are fair in a business mentality, but it's cool reading about others POV's on it.

[–] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Thank you! This is really good info. I’ll take a look!