This is the best summary I could come up with:

The suit, which was joined by 17 state attorneys general, alleges the company illegally used its monopoly power to stamp out rivals, which ultimately hurts consumers.

The FTC says Amazon punishes third-party sellers that offer lower prices on other sites, strong-arms them into using its shipping service and hikes up fees indiscriminately.

William Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University and a former chair of the FTC, says the commission’s case is similar to those brought against railroad monopolies a century ago.

Amazon could sell it for cheaper, put itself at the top of search queries and not pay the fees for shipping and delivery since it owns those networks, Parks says.

Lindsay Windham, who co-founded the high-end leather accessory brand Distil Union and has a shop on Amazon, says her listings were shuttered twice on the site.

The company has also built one of the largest delivery systems in the country, with an extensive network of warehouses, air hubs and trucking operations.

The original article contains 1,185 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 86%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

Late stage enshitification

That’s how we know Amazon. Wonder if they can change anything

A few years ago, I worked interim at two logistics companies. At both companies, Amazon was a pain in the ass of a customer, demanding special treatment and behaving like a jackass, if anything wasn’t quite right.

One of these companies was selling parasols, which really doesn’t seem like a typical product to order online. And yet, one of the higher-ups there told me around two thirds of their orders come in via Amazon. As a result, even though they would absolutely prefer to not do business with Amazon, they cannot afford to do so.

That was 2016. I have to assume that power dynamic only got worse…