Category: Big Tech

Alternatives to Using Amazon

Online shopping alternatives available while Amazon is pursued for monopolistic practices

Over the last three decades the retail side of Amazon has grown to where you can buy almost anything through them.  I have bought stuff through them and probably so have you.  While this one-stop shopping may be convenient for customers, it has the added effect of creating a monopoly—posing problems for smaller retailers, communities and even Amazon employees. 

Legal Challenge to Amazon

Small Business Rising, an online support organization for small businesses, is currently seeking signatures by small business owners/management for a petition to support an effort to reign in the breadth and depth of Amazon’s influence. 

Posted in May, 2026, on the website they state:

We’ve seen Amazon use their influence to skirt accountability before. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity — we must show our support for this lawsuit and trial to discourage the FTC and states from backing down — either through settlement or dropping the case. Don’t let Amazon get away with a slap on the wrist.

Their effort stems from the Federal Trade Commission September 2023 lawsuit accusing Amazon with monopolistic practices.

The FTC position on its website begins as follows:

The Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general today sued Amazon.com, Inc. alleging that the online retail and technology company is a monopolist that uses a set of interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power. The FTC and its state partners say Amazon’s actions allow it to stop rivals and sellers from lowering prices, degrade quality for shoppers, overcharge sellers, stifle innovation, and prevent rivals from fairly competing against Amazon.

In her December 20, 2019 article, New York Times columnist Karen Weise gives a background scenario in how Amazon puts the squeeze on the businesses that it contracts with on its website.

Alternatives to Amazon

In the meantime, this brings the question to the surface, “are there alternatives to Amazon when it comes to shopping online for a variety of product categories?” 

Several large retailers have opened their websites to third-party sellers, the latest being Best Buy.  A few months ago I was searching for a musical recording console and found one pictured under Macy’s.  Other retailers like Walmart, Target, Kohl’s and others have done it.  These items, like the console, are not sold in stores.  They are stored with the supplier and are shipped from them directly to the customer.

In this case, there is no fulfilment center, and thus can be a cheaper alternative than going the Amazon route.  Also, it means the land where a fulfillment center is built can be used for other purposes.  Communities are realizing this now with Big Tech data centers.

Customers also have alternatives available—perhaps with not as large a selection but also not as controversial.  An example is eBay.  Once again, items are shipped directly from the supplier.  Another is Etsy.  This site specializes in various handmade household items that can be monogrammed.

Rolling Stone magazine recently posted 21 Amazon Alternatives and what each focuses on.  The website GoodGoodGood also has an alternative list, including reasons why each is better than Amazon.

Radio Shack

Finally, if you are looking for electronics supplies there is…Radio Shack!  Seems like the retailer that was a go-to place in the 1970s-90s still exists online.  They once again sell only their own products.  And they have retail stores available—but with a twist.  They are located only in small towns and partner with local shop owners as resellers to sell their products.

What the F.T.C. Can Learn from Al Capone

F.T.C. needs broaden anti-trust laws to better insure convictions.

Al Capone

A century ago, gangster Al Capone was alleged to have been involved with prostitution, illegal gambling and murder, including the St. Valentine’s Day murder.

I say alleged, because Mr. Capone was tried but never convicted of any of the above.  In 1931 the Justice Department changed its strategy and convicted him of tax evasion.  He was given an 11-year sentence and was released early, in 1939.  His health subsequently declined and he died in 1947.

Had there not been laws on tax evasion that could land a person in jail, Mr. Capone may very well have continued his crime spree.

Failed Attempt

The New York Times reported on January 20, 2026 that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it will reopen its pursuit of anti-trust charges against Meta, parent of Facebook, regarding its acquisition of both Instagram and What’s App.

The judge in the original case, Judge James E. Boasberg, ruled that Meta did not violate anti-trust law with the two acquisitions. 

Judges should interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.  If Judge Boasberg believes that Meta did not violate anti-trust law with these acquisitions, it is important to know where in federal law he justifies his position.  The F.T.C. originally sought charges that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1927 was violated.  Meta argued that it faces competition from apps like You Tube and Tik Tok. 

There is a video on YouTube from 2010 where Mark Zuckerberg states at a company address that Facebook does not acquire companies for the company itself, but to acquire the individual or individuals behind it.  In other words, he explained this as his method of acquiring top talent.  However, as a result, the companies these people started, all tech companies, simply disappeared.  Nice way to quietly get rid of any rising competition, isn’t it? 

Analysis

If the F.T.C. is serious about revisiting this, the people there really need to look at why they lost the first time.  If they apply the same evidence, they may get a similar result, even if ruled by a different judge.  Perhaps looking at Meta’s (previously Facebook) ENTIRE acquisition history may provide additional evidence of anti-trust, monopolistic behavior.  If they feel they still have a weak case, perhaps amending federal law to provide them with a wider net would bring Meta, and possibly others, to justice. 

The Victor May Now Be the Vanquished

Why is Warner Brothers for sale at all?

David Dayden, executive editor of The American Prospect, raises a question on the website, “Why is Warner Brothers For Sale At All?”

I have been wondering the same thing.

The Irony of it All

Dayden answers his own question by saying,

“The simplest answer for why Warner Bros. wants a merger is to cover for other failed mergers….These mergers created a horrific financial legacy: “$53 billion in debt as of 2022.”

He also lists the acquisitions that have led to the debt, including Time Magazine, America Online (AOL), Time Warner then being bought by AT&T, and Discovery Media.

What is ironic here is that Warner Bros. Discovery finds itself now as a victim of its own previous acquisition frenzy.

He adds that Warner recently received Golden Globe nominations for the films “One Battle After Another,” and “Sinners.”  Also for the television series “The White Lion.”  So it’s not like the company is in a downward spiral with new releases.

Dayden ends his article promoting separate companies between production and distribution. 

What to Do

Why is Warner Brothers for sale at all? In this case, because there are more than one potential buyers. As far as I know it was not looking for a buyer. And each buyer feels confident that another big dollar acquisition will get approved by regulators.

In this chess game I have yet to read about what employees think of all this.  Nor is there any input from customers. 

IMO, federal anti-monopoly, anti-trust law violations should include a buyer’s acquisition history, including input from both employees and customers.  Have previous acquisitions resulted in immediate mass layoffs?  Is there documented evidence of customer dissatisfaction with either the product or service?  Has money been invested in the acquisition or has it been ignored and left to die on the vine?  Violations of these should also be codified to give judges broader reason for denying an acquisition.   A company dying resulting from an acquisition is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole.  This should be a bigger priority than one company’s private benefit.

I Fought the Law and the … Law Lost

Federal antitrust law needs to be further defined and expanded

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 U.S. Federal Judge James Boasberg dismissed the anti-trust case against Meta, parent company of Facebook, saying there was no “monopoly” conducted on their part.  The case centered on Meta’s previous acquisitions of What’s App and Instagram and whether this violated anti-trust federal law.

Meta

In his article entitled, “The Bad Reasoning in the Meta Antitrust Ruling Isn’t Even the Worst Part,” New York Times reporter Tim Wu writes:

The government charged that Meta, then called Facebook, broke the law when it bought its competitors Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014. Judge Boasberg threw out the case by concluding that Meta lacks monopoly power now, when the relevant question should have been whether it had monopoly power at the time.

In my opinion, it comes down here for both sides is the law needs to exactly define what is a “monopoly.” 

Apparently Judge Boasberg was reading current federal law and concluded with what he read that Meta was not in violation.  He pointed out the existence of Tik Tok and You Tube as significant competition to Meta.  Wu mentions that we need to look at the marketplace over 10 years ago to accurately define monopoly in this case regarding What’s App and Instagram. 

History

A point that Wu seems to overlook, and I feel is relevant, is the number of acquisitions by Meta, not just a few.  According to Wikipedia, Meta has acquired just over 90 companies and has spent around $30 Billion to do so—that’s B as in Billion.

In addition, they have a history of acquiring small companies and then dissolving them and retaining their employees.  I have a previous post that highlights a 2010 YouTube video of Mark Zuckerberg stating this at an event.

Wu further states in his article:

“Does anyone seriously doubt that Meta is the kind of company that antitrust laws were designed to restrain?”

Well, if that’s the case, perhaps the “antitrust laws” need to be expanded.   They should include other criteria such as the number of acquisitions and specific monopolistic “behaviors”, such as acquiring firms and dissolving them and pursuing hostile takeovers. Convenient way to eliminate the competition, isn’t it? Is this not monopolistic behavior?

Does this make sense?  Why has it not been done up to now?  If this were enacted into law it could give other judges a clearer path towards determining and proving monopoly.  The definition specifics would need to be worked out.  It could also be used to fight private equity.

Budget Deficit:  How Big Tech Can Help

Make Big Tech Help Fund the Three Percent Solution

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times in a recent DealBook post recently highlighted activity by Ray Dalio.  He reports Mr. Dalio, Chief Investment Officer of Bridgewater Associates, has been making the rounds in Washington talking about the budget deficit.

RAY DALIO

Dalio has been discussing what he calls the “Three Percent Solution.”  Simply put, the goal is to reduce the deficit to Gross Domestic Product (GPR) ratio to 3%.  This can be done by 1) cutting spending, 2) raising tax revenue and 3) lowering interest rates.

Sorkin adds, “A fiscally responsible budget would ease volatility in the bond market. Any economic slowdown caused by reduced spending could be offset by lower interest rates, which is what a heavily indebted nation needs most.”

He follows by saying “All three levers need to work in tandem.”

ANALYSIS

In my opinion, the three percent solution idea makes sense.

Spending by Congress is something I cannot control, nor do I have any quick fix ways to do this.

SOLUTION

There is an idea to raise revenue: place an acquisition tax on the Big Tech firms (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook) for every company they have acquired. 

Since they have all have over 80 acquisitions each, why not tax them on it, per acquisition, and make them pay for creating this situation.  Make it an annual tax so they would pay it every year. 

Big Tech seems to be averse to paying fines, both here in the United States and in Europe.  They seem to complain more about being broken up.  Well, if federal efforts at breaking them up do not work, why not at least profit from the status quo?

It would then need to be determined how much per acquisition they would have to pay.  It could also be applied to companies in other industries such as Big Pharma.  It would be based on the number of acquisitions made at the current moment.  It could also apply to future acquisitions.  It could also be graded, such as paying a higher rate the larger number of acquisitions or the price.  The more the merrier.

Such a tax, no matter how widespread, is not a “solution” to the deficit problem.  But it would be additional source of revenue.  Yes it is a tax increase.  However, it is not an income tax increase to the average citizen. 

But what about if Big Tech threatens to raise prices to offset this tax?  Well, to paraphrase President Trump:

“Make them eat it.”

Google Draws the Justice Department on Monopoly Chance Cards

Judge rules with the Justice Department on Google Advertising Practices

On Friday, April 17, 2025 a Judge ruled with the Justice Department on Google advertising practices.

United States District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in favor of the Justice Department on charges against Google involving creating a monopoly with publisher ad servers and ad exchange markets.  Judge Brinkema also ruled that Google did not create a monopoly in ad markets. 

An excerpt from her ruling is as follows:

With the benefit of a three-week bench trial and extensive post-trial filings, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that there is a relevant market for open-web display advertiser ad networks, but have proven that Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, and has unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act.

Google has been previously pursued for having a monopoly with its Chrome browser, primarily by being a default browser in phones, tablets, and computers.  The Justice Department has asked Judge Amit Mehta to divest Chrome from the parent company. 

ANALYSIS

I do not place ads with Google so it is harder for someone like me to determine if there is a true monopoly in this case.

As for Chrome, if competition with other browsers is the goal, this could be worked out without divesting something which they themselves created.

A stealth way Google, as a whole, operates a monopoly is through its acquisitions.  Google purchases companies that they could simply work with as a customer or create a partnership project.  By going the route of purchasing a company they prevent that company working for a rival or working with a third party against Google’s interests.  This is a higher priority over their argument that their company benefits from the acquisition

SOLUTIONS

Judge Brinkema ruled with the Justice Department on Google Advertising Practices on two of three charges.  Now the Judge will decide what action to take against Google.  In my opinion, if the goal is to create more competition, what is needed is for ad customers to have not only choices available but also be consciously aware of the choices and be allowed to select options.

As for the Chrome browser, an alternative to divesting would be to allow device owners to pre-select a browser from a list with brief descriptions of each.  Moving away from having the browser both pre-determined and nearly impossible to replace would be in the best interest of consumers. 

As for the monopoly with its acquisitions, here is a list of companies acquired by Google.  Look at the names, focus on what they do, and determine for yourself whether markets would be better off if these companies were once again independent and free to pursue their own customers. 

Zuckerberg May Have Meta’s Match

Meta may have tried to neutralize a potential competitor

META

The Federal Trade Commission is beginning an anti-trust suit against Meta.  This time it involves its owning What’s App and Instagram.  Their argument is a monopoly exists with owning these acquisitions, they wanted to neutralize a potential competitor, and they should be spun off.

BACKGROUND

A report on National Public Radio gives a background of the government’s case against Meta:

“The government contends that a “buy or bury” strategy propelled Meta’s acquisitions, leading Meta to gobble up competitors it viewed as threats, or to squash the rivals out of business altogether.”

It adds that an internal Meta email says they purchased Instagram to “neutralize a potential competitor” and the FTC believes this is against federal law.

The report says that Meta will summarize its argument that it is being punished for being innovative and aggressive, in other words…. successful.

According to Wikipedia, Meta/Facebook has acquired 91 companies, including What’s App and Instagram.  They have also acquired an interesting company—Onavo.  Onavo was an Israeli company in business to acquire and analyze data on a client’s competitors.  Facebook has apparently used this to track successful startups for acquisition.  The website www.onavo.com has a Facebook message that says something has gone wrong.  Facebook changed it to Facebook Israel, which promotes travel to Israel.  It has also apparently deleted numerous posts about Palestinians. 

In 2010 Facebook posted a video available on YouTube.  In it Mark Zuckerberg talks about the theory behind Facebook acquisitions.  He says that Facebook, up until then, had acquired companies not to keep the company but to acquire the talent behind it.  In other words, the owners become employees (once again) and the startup disappears.  The official line is that this is growth to them.  However, it is entirely possible to acquire good talent through direct hire, including through employee search, instead of going the acquisition route.

WHAT’S APP

According to Wikipedia What’s App was founded in 2009 by two individuals, Brian Acton and Jan Koun, previously with Yahoo! They received venture capital backing.  They sold the company to Facebook in 2014.  Acton left What’s App in 2017 over disagreements with Facebook.  Later that year he founded the competing app Signal.  Koun left the following year, also with conflicting issues with Facebook. 

ANALYSIS

FACEBOOK

There is nothing wrong with companies like Facebook/Meta with being successful.  This is Meta’s argument.  However, the end does not justify the means in this case.  Defining success through innovation – that which you started yourself from scratch – is not the same as defining it via acquisition.  And if you have acquired 91 companies, that in and of itself should warrant charges of being a monopoly.  I am not sure if people in the FTC under the Trump administration have a true anti-trust focus.  Trump supporters seem to be focused more on going after the social media apps more for suppressing freedom of speech.

SOLUTION

Breaking up the acquisitions and returning them to independent status is, IMO, a good solution.  This would return them to a position again of charting their own course. Meta will present their arguments, and some may have some weight.  It really comes down to balancing the arguments and determining which has a greater priority. 

The FTC’s argument is that Meta seeks to neutralize a potential competitor.  If judicial decisions like this fail in the courts, federal law would need to be strengthened to make the anti-trust arguments more airtight.  The law, for federal judges to agree, should be written such that it promotes what is in the best interest of the country as a whole, and not one just for individual business.