this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
1299 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

81907 readers
3905 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
[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 144 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Bezos explicitly undercut the competition for years to drive all of the competition out of business. Amazon took as much time from 1997-2016 to make as much profit as they did in 2017, which is also (not) coincidentally when they hit peak market saturation and were able to start raising their prices.

So what you're talking about was real, but it wasn't like, "back when Amazon was good", they were just preparing for what they are now. Having a huge monopoly on just about everything has always been their win condition, and they're no where near done winning.

[–] octobob@lemmy.ml 58 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah. It's the same thing Uber did with pushing cab services out of business.

Not only that, but AWS is the real money maker for them. Not that retail and gaming and prime and whatever don't also make boat loads of cash, but it doesn't even graze AWS. The scale of these data centers is unreal and most of the internet runs on AWS.

I'm an industrial electrician with background on what they're ordering and installing in terms of control panels and if you saw the weekly shipments it'd make you sick. And we're only one supplier, they have others.

[–] Sineljora@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 day ago

I think it’s worse because Bezos (ex-wallstreet) had his buddies at Bain Capital short-and-distort competing companies into bankruptcy, which has the added bonus of clearing the tax burden from the gains on those shorts.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And that is why I no longer buy anything from them. I'm just embarrassed it took me as long as it did to realize what they were really doing.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The frustrating thing is we can't boycott AWS since so many of the sites we use run on it. But yes, we absolutely shouldn't buy things through Amazon or any of the other web stores Amazon owns.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

we absolutely shouldn't buy things through Amazon or any of the other web stores Amazon owns.

I try to use eBay as an alternative, though i find every 3-4 orders i place there, i get one in an Amazon box that by all rights appears to have been shipped by Amazon. I swear people are drop-shipping stuff from Amazon to their eBay buyers.

[–] SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

They are doing exactly that for a sometimes hefty markup. I got something like that with a gift receipt, so ultra lazy, looked up the item and it was $11 cheaper. Like that totally defeats the purpose of going elsewhere.

I reported the seller then returned it.

[–] swampdownloader@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They are. If it has free returns and thousands of feedback it’s probably a drop shipper. Return it and use the eBay label it ends up costing them money.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Go figure the margins are that thin.

[–] pomegranatefern@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have often wondered whether targeted internet boycott days would shake up AWS, but I don't know enough about their billing structure to run the numbers to see how much that would dig into AWS profits + how much of their income is flat subscription fees vs. billing on number of calls and haven't had a chance to dig into it yet.

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You would basically have to convince a few hundred million people to not use the internet for months at a time with out a single percentage of them breaking the boycott to actually even start to hit aws.

Countless things have to start failing before aws even starts to feel it since it's not a consumer product. You basically have the drive all the companies using it to near bankruptcy so they can't afford to pay for aws anymore.

Frustrating, but I appreciate your answer; thank you.

[–] ramasses@social.ozymandias.club 1 points 22 hours ago

Use vercel instead

/s

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] NannerBanner@literature.cafe 1 points 6 hours ago

Walmart didn't even touch amazon on this. There were articles for years about how mind boggling (and the articles were praising, not even critical of) it was that amazon's investors were content to let bezos run amazon on a net zero or even negative profit model. I don't think I've ever heard of walmart not pulling a profit.

[–] LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can't really compare online book retailer Amazon to global online marketplace Amazon. Your underlying point is still mostly correct, but I would exclude the years that they were primarily focused on books. From my lived memory they didn't really become the online retail juggernaut until a few years after the launch of Prime. Free shipping turned them into what it is today. So maybe the best comparison would be from like 2006-2016? Or maybe I'm wrong and thebl distinction isn't necessary. Idk. I'm just trying to foster conversation

[–] waddle_dee@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, I remember Amazon the book store. I still had my mom take me to the local bookstores, cause I knew them and the people, so I was comfortable lol. I remember when Prime launched. I don't think anyone was expecting that, at the time. Free 2-day shipping on so many products was insane. And all for $89?/yr? Especially, when everywhere else online charged anywhere from $5-10. It was truly the Walmart of the online world. They ate shipping costs, which killed them, and put hurt their competition until AWS became such a powerhouse and they had a monopoly on online marketplaces.

[–] LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's what's crazy to me, they survived the dot com crash and were so diversified that I have no idea how they stayed afloat. I would think that all of the combined expenses across all of their ventures without a true cash cow would sink them. Instead they survived and became the trash heap of consumer rights violations that they are.

Prime launched after the dot com crash. The reason Amazon survived is because they WEREN'T running a dozen different ventures. They were an online bookstore and people kept buying books. Amazon benefited from the crash because that was when they started buying up servers to build AWS.