Tag: Monopolies

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.

Relevance Today of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”

Smith’s book gives insight today into competition and monopolies.

The Book

The year 1776 brought forth our Declaration of Independence.  It was also the same year Adam Smith, an English professor of moral philosophy, published his book on economics of his day.  Officially entitled, “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations,” it is still in print and most copies run close to 1000 pages.

Smith wrote this in response to the behavior of the mercantilists of his day, whom he despised.  Mercantilists were business owners who favored government protection from foreign imports and pursued market domination.  He believed a country’s wealth should be based on the amount of consumption produced and not accumulation. 

He divides his work into five “Books”, each with multiple “chapters.”  Book I deals with the powers of labor, Book II focus on the role of stock, Book III on the opulence found in different nations, Book IV on the political economy and Book V on the role of the Sovereign.

What He Says

He describes many scenarios involving daily business dealings to prove points, but only in general terms.  In other words, he doesn’t mention any specific business by name and thus no case studies to independently verify.

At the end of chapter II of Book II he talks about the benefit of free competition vs. monopoly:

“By dividing the whole circulation into a greater number of parts, the failure of any one company, an accident which, in the course of things must sometimes happen, becomes of less consequence to the public.  This free competition too obliges all bankers to be more liberal in their dealings with their customers, lest their rivals carry them away.  In general, if any branch of trade or any division of labor be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so.”

In chapter II of Book IV he argued that protectionism of home markets from foreign products may be counterproductive.

“To give the monopoly of the home market to the produce of domestic industry, in any particular art or manufacture, is in some measure to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, and must, in all cases, be either a useless or hurtful regulation….It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.”

Smith mentions laborers but does not get into the area of worker organization, employee safety or what specific amount is considered fair wages.  He does mention that those who labor are also consumers, and as consumers should earn enough to provide adequate sustenance to contribute to the economy:

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.  It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.”

He believed that business should be allowed to pursue their own interest.  Government should not place itself in the position of favoring specific merchant classes.

“Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men.  The sovereign is completely discharged from … the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of society.”

Conclusion

Adam Smith was of a different era in terms of commerce.  His generation did not have to deal with international corporations, labor unions, and Big Tech.  It is difficult to know what he would think of the influence of merger and acquisitions on commerce.  He did have to deal with monopolies, favoritism, and inequality.  In his book Smith covered a great deal of economic territory.  As a result, some can get lost trying to find a clear, concise message from it.  Today people with different economic views can find support from Smith.  Nevertheless, his work is still considered a pioneer in the history of economic thought.

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. 

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.