by eesmith | 2026-03-02 09:08:55+00:00
> As I’m sure you’re aware

Please do me the honor of remembering that I gave examples of monopolies and near monopolies which are not considered abusive, and linked to https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly with more details.

Now I'll quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_...

"However, the existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share firm's price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices"

> Why is Amazon a “near monopoly”?

Again, the lawsuit is that Amazon is abusing their power as a "high-market-share firm". This is widely characterized as Amazon being a monopoly. I have provided many links which support my interpretation.

> I deny that claim.

I can't help but conclude you are being obstinate. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly : "A monopoly is when a single company or entity creates an unreasonable restraint of competition in a market."

If you want to argue over what "unreasonable" means, go ahead. But denying terms which date back to the 1800s[1] is parading your own stubbornness.

What do you define as "monopoly" or "near monopoly", and when should the law step in to restrain a monopolist? Can you demonstrate external support for your interpretation?

Because as it stands, it seems like you don't understand the basics of the topic, but believe you do, and are doubling-down, unwilling to consider that you don't.

> I believe California is alleging Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive behavior that would be anti-competitive behavior whether they’re a monopoly, near monopoly, or no monopoly at all.

I assume you read how California claims Amazon violated the Cartwright Act. This requires an ability to harm market-wide competition, in a properly defined relevant market. That's why the complaint goes through the effort of defining the market, and presents evidence of market-wide harm to that market. This is why I've been careful to insist that being a monopoly isn't the problem - abusing monopoly power is the problem.

If Amazon had no monopoly at all, which I'll interpret as having little market power, then it does not have that ability, so cannot violate the Cartwright Act, so would not be in the complaint, which again tells me that you need to learn more about antitrust law. (Note that I am specifically addressing the part of the complaint which can be regarded as relevant to explaining how "near monopoly" is a correct characterization.)

[1] I'm wrong. That definition dates back to at least the 1600s! Digging around (via the OED) I found Misselden used this definition in "Free Trade" (1622), at https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1475-164... :

"That is, Monopoly is a kind of Commerce, in buying, selling, changing or bartering, usurped by a few, and sometimes but by one person, and forestalled from all others, to the gaine of the Monopolist, and to the Detriment of other men."

"The parts then of a Monopolie are twaine, The restraint of the liberty of Commerce to some one or few: and the setting of the price at the pleasure of the Monopolian to his private benefit, and the prejudice of the publique. Upon which two Hinges every Monopoly turneth."

California claims that Amazon restrains the liberty of third-party sellers to set prices which do not benefit Amazon, and which prejudice the public, making Amazon a monopolist even when using a 400 year old definition.