Which means that they're using profits from an unrelated market to undercut and push out / destroy any competition in their storefront market. Not a good situation for future competition.
The Argument is that it's bad for the market, as it makes it hard for competitors which aren't part of such a large company and hence need to make profit.
If the other company can also do the same, why would they piss into their own cereal by reducing their profit?
And if the other company is a newcomer looking to gain market share by undercutting, they'll likely find themselves strongarmed or bought out of the market.
I think the implication may be swaying over into the box store segment. Meaning, while they may not be battling other online entities, they are doing a lot of pushing against the online presence of several box retailers.
Under a dumping accusation, their competitors are the victims here. Operating at a substantial loss as a strategy to expand your market footprint is pretty textbook anticompetitive.
Exactly what I was thinking while reading this article. Taking advantage of control of one market to push it's own products in favor of competitors in another market.
the other way to see this is that the "new companies" are doing loss leading, do not actually make a profit on their retail businesses, are trying to gain an illegal monopoly by putting competitors out of business by doing illegal business practices and dumping not just products and services but dumping entire industries on the market for below cost.
Because they’re no longer competing. They wield monopoly power that is anticompetitive, and it’s bad for everything else you value. (Assuming you value more than streaming media, two retailers, and ads.)
reply