this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
1556 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
 

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
[–] LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world 37 points 22 hours ago (61 children)

I've been telling people to stop supporting amazon for years, but everyone seems to have their reason to keep supporting them. This hopefully will be a good enough reason for people to finally stop shopping on amazon.

I haven't bought anything from amazon in over 12 years. I find everything on the manufacturer's website or eBay. No need to ever use amazon for anything.

[–] JDPoZ@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (21 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 2 points 21 hours ago (20 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.

[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world -2 points 20 hours ago (3 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.

[–] JDPoZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I bet they're in their early-20s and either are done with college or didn't attend so they'll respond with "HA. Wrong!"

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (3 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.

[–] JDPoZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

You don't have to use Facebook... but if you have a kid... - guess where almost every school seems to post EVERYTHING you would want to know about?

Like upcoming charity events, extra-curricular club sign-ups, campus event pictures (none of which I would want of my kid being posted, but they will do anyway), important announcements about the next school dance, or anything else you might give a shit about if you're a parent who wants to do more than the bare minimum?

Do you have a choice then NOT to use Facebook? Yeah... but it's kind of shit to suggest since it then would mean not realistically having access to a bunch of stuff a parent would want to have.

Even the ones that DON'T use Facebook use some other dog-shit app with ads and monthly "premium" features they put behind paywalls.

So the real answer instead of the Ben Shapiro-tier response of "just take responsibility" is "Hey maybe we should have publicly funded applications and privacy laws that help stop schools from putting shit up on Facebook w/o legal consequences... maybe we should have an app without ads and spyware that allows public schools to safely and securely put this kind of stuff up so that parents can participate without having to use Facebook or the hit mobile app - "DefinitlyNotKIDZAdvertisingSpamSpyware2026."

Do you get what I mean? You don't HAVE to use Amazon is the same sort of silly-seeming argument where the real solution can be crafted using legislation NOT drafted by barely-lucid octogenarian luddites. We could treat them like a hostile monopoly and break them up or something, and that would actually SYSTEMICALLY fix the issue.

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

We're not talking about Facebook. We're talking about buying things.

[–] JDPoZ@lemmy.world 1 points 56 minutes ago

Jesus Christ... Can you not understand the relevance of using that in my point? 🤣

I'm using another massive monopolistic company (Amazon = Facebook) who has pretty much cornered a market (shopping online = social media) - thereby making the only options for most Americans wanting to have access to something said company has a monopoly on (caramel sauce, niche healthcare product, etc. = school communication) being "A - don't use the thing" and "B - stop your bitching and use it?" and how terrible it is that we don't instead go with "C - do a legislation to make it so we can still do the thing we want or need, but we don't have to let the shitty monopolistic company continue to have carte blanche to do whatever they want in that space?"

Is that really lost on you?

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world -4 points 19 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 6 points 19 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 -2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, free will sucks like that...

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What, taking responsibility for your choices?

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yes. Because heaven forbid someone does something you don't like.

People REALLY need to mind their own business. 🙄

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 1 hour ago

Bro, I'm not denigrating anyone for spending money on Amazon. I'm guilty of forgetting the moral and ethical implications for a short term dopamine rush too.

But I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I had to spend money with them.

My problem is with people using flimsy excuses trying to assuage their guilt for doing something they knew was wrong.

[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world -4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 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?

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

Lol, I'll take my $1000.

Sorry that you lack logical thinking. Enjoy your coffee.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (55 replies)