this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
1682 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

81908 readers
3459 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
[–] blankwire@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

The Valve example sounds similar, but I think Amazon is comparably more nefarious:

  • Valve chargers developers $100 per title, and a revenue sharing fee that starts at 30%
  • in exchange, devs must follow Valve’s content and pricing policies (which requires developers not to undercut Steam’s prices

Amazon has a few different tiers for sellers, but in general, they charge:

  • Monthly fees ($39.99 / mo)
  • Referral fees (8-15%)
  • Fulfillment and refund fees, which includes additional storage fees
  • Advertising fees (for keyword bids or sponsored products)

Valve is kind enough to offer free promotion on the home page (if your game is popular, or has a sale), and digital games are much easier to scale, versus manufacturing and holding physical inventory. They also do a lot of nefarious shit (loot boxes..), but I’d argue at least their partners aren’t being squeezed quite as much.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

This is exactly my point; it’s easy to jump in and defend Valve for their good points when, at the end of the day, they take a third of all profits for themselves and have a pseudo monopoly with their platform, just to start.

One can make similar positive points about Amazon, about how much they can save retailers and consumers, especially before they enshittified so significantly.