this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
1467 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

81869 readers
4738 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
[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

Okay. Here's my story. I have been looking for a 4K 32 to 43 inch monitor for my PC. TV or monitor, I just wanted 4k 120hz minimum. Didn't really care about IPS or VA panels. Both have their pro's and con's.

So I ended up getting a Philips Google TV 43" 4K Gaming TV with native 144Hz refresh rate. The asking price from Amazon was 450 CAD. everywhere I looked online It was 50 bucks more OR they were the same price, but charged 50 bucks in shipping.

THAT'S why I use Amazon. IF I can find it cheaper elsewhere, I'll buy it somewhere else. For me price is everything since I'm on a fixed income.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Okay, but have you considered that Amazon is the reason prices are high?

Obviously, none of these other retailers had a hand in it.

[–] Dr0l3aN@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

Exactly what they got "busted" for

[–] Ruxias@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You're not alone in that. A lot of people's care for ethics ends where a good deal begins.

What you should know is that these companies offer these good deals for a variety of reasons, but usually involving shady or borderline illegal business practices in one way or another.

I understand you're on a fixed income - I sympathize with that and I don't want to be rude to a stranger - but is the deal on a particular item you want worth the cost of endorsing what these companies do and stand for?

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world -5 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

That 50 bucks means I only eat rice for a week. I've done it before, but I do not enjoy it.

[–] No_Bark@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

$50 is the difference between having to eat only rice for a week, but you absolutely NEED a gaming monitor thats 32-43 inches with 4K resolution and 120hz refresh rate?

The only person your justifying your continued use of amazon to is yourself, and you're doing a poor job.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works -1 points 15 hours ago

Average Lemmy user 😅

[–] Ruxias@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think I'm expressing myself clearly. I understand the fixed income part and what 50 bucks can do to a person's living situation. No issue there.

On the front end of your decision, you're starting with "I need X with Y and Z". None of these variables are negotiable? The "need" isn't negotiable? Or are they not as negotiable as the care for the company's awful business practices?

The systemic issues are the primary concern, but it is worth thinking about and examining within ourselves. We are ill-equipped to make informed decisions prior to every purchase. However, once we know how a particular purchase supports degrading the world around us, where is the line we won't cross for a good deal?

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world -5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I"m sorry my horse apparently doesn't go as high as yours... 🙄

[–] Ruxias@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

That's needlessly insulting after I've been nothing but cordial with you. Me bringing up things that bring you discomfort to think about doesn't mean I'm the bad guy here. Have a nice day, and enjoy your TV.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 6 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Aren't most people on a fixed income?
Is such a TV... necessary?
Have you considered saving some for a few months and then buy the TV?

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

What do you think I've been doing? That took me four months.

[–] nickiwest@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

There are a lot of people online who think that 100% abstinence from The Bad is the only way to be good.

But if you can shift 10% of your former Amazon spending, do it. And keep looking for a way to get to 15%, then 20%, and so on.

Like, I'm probably never going to be a strict vegetarian. I love a good burger, or a nicely-cooked steak, or a big bowl of chicken and dumplings. But I eat vegetarian for more than 75% of my meals. And that's good enough for me.

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

It was also the implied "Poor people shouldn't have nice things" That ticked me off.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

Aren’t most people on a fixed income?

No, most people are on broken incomes.

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Not to leave out they're easy to return stuff too.

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world -1 points 17 hours ago