Facebook Dark Patterns - Deception and Trickery - Facebook Antitrust Lawsuit
FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization
December 9, 2020
Agency challenges Facebook’s multi-year course of unlawful conduct
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. Following a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy—including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers—to eliminate threats to its monopoly. This course of conduct harms competition, leaves consumers with few choices for personal social networking, and deprives advertisers of the benefits of competition.
The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook is the world’s dominant personal social networking service and has monopoly power in a market for personal social networking services. This unmatched position has provided Facebook with staggering profits. Last year alone, Facebook generated revenues of more than $70 billion and profits of more than $18.5 billion.
Anticompetitive Acquisitions
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook targeted potential competitive threats to its dominance. Instagram, a rapidly growing startup, emerged at a critical time in personal social networking competition, when users of personal social networking services were migrating from desktop computers to smartphones, and when consumers were increasingly embracing photo-sharing. The complaint alleges that Facebook executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power.
The complaint alleges that Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own offerings, but Facebook ultimately chose to buy Instagram rather than compete with it. Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012 allegedly both neutralizes the direct threat posed by Instagram and makes it more difficult for another personal social networking competitor to gain scale.
Around the same time, according to the complaint, Facebook perceived that “over-the-top” mobile messaging apps also presented a serious threat to Facebook’s monopoly power. In particular, the complaint alleges that Facebook’s leadership understood—and feared—that a successful mobile messaging app could enter the personal social networking market, either by adding new features or by spinning off a standalone personal social networking app.
The complaint alleges that, by 2012, WhatsApp had emerged as the clear global “category leader” in mobile messaging. Again, according to the complaint, Facebook chose to buy an emerging threat rather than compete, and announced an agreement in February 2014 to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion. Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp allegedly both neutralizes the prospect that WhatsApp itself might threaten Facebook’s personal social networking monopoly and ensures that any future threat will have a more difficult time gaining scale in mobile messaging.
Anticompetitive Platform Conduct
The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
The lawsuit follows an investigation by the FTC’s Technology Enforcement Division, whose staff cooperated closely with a coalition of attorneys general, under the coordination of the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Participating Attorneys General include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was 3-2. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no.
NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint.
Betsy Lordan elordan@ftc.gov - Office of Public Affairs 202-326-3707
December 9, 2020
Agency challenges Facebook’s multi-year course of unlawful conduct
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. Following a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy—including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers—to eliminate threats to its monopoly. This course of conduct harms competition, leaves consumers with few choices for personal social networking, and deprives advertisers of the benefits of competition.
The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook is the world’s dominant personal social networking service and has monopoly power in a market for personal social networking services. This unmatched position has provided Facebook with staggering profits. Last year alone, Facebook generated revenues of more than $70 billion and profits of more than $18.5 billion.
Anticompetitive Acquisitions
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook targeted potential competitive threats to its dominance. Instagram, a rapidly growing startup, emerged at a critical time in personal social networking competition, when users of personal social networking services were migrating from desktop computers to smartphones, and when consumers were increasingly embracing photo-sharing. The complaint alleges that Facebook executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power.
The complaint alleges that Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own offerings, but Facebook ultimately chose to buy Instagram rather than compete with it. Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012 allegedly both neutralizes the direct threat posed by Instagram and makes it more difficult for another personal social networking competitor to gain scale.
Around the same time, according to the complaint, Facebook perceived that “over-the-top” mobile messaging apps also presented a serious threat to Facebook’s monopoly power. In particular, the complaint alleges that Facebook’s leadership understood—and feared—that a successful mobile messaging app could enter the personal social networking market, either by adding new features or by spinning off a standalone personal social networking app.
The complaint alleges that, by 2012, WhatsApp had emerged as the clear global “category leader” in mobile messaging. Again, according to the complaint, Facebook chose to buy an emerging threat rather than compete, and announced an agreement in February 2014 to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion. Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp allegedly both neutralizes the prospect that WhatsApp itself might threaten Facebook’s personal social networking monopoly and ensures that any future threat will have a more difficult time gaining scale in mobile messaging.
Anticompetitive Platform Conduct
The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
The lawsuit follows an investigation by the FTC’s Technology Enforcement Division, whose staff cooperated closely with a coalition of attorneys general, under the coordination of the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Participating Attorneys General include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was 3-2. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no.
NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint.
Betsy Lordan elordan@ftc.gov - Office of Public Affairs 202-326-3707
California Bans Deceptive “Dark Patterns” With Update To State Privacy Law, Dark patterns no longer welcome in California
The term describes a design practice that makes navigation to elements that publishers would prefer users not access, like account deletion or requests for personal information, intentionally opaque and confusing. A change to California’s state privacy law is the first regulation to directly take on this practice, threatening civil penalties brought under the state’s existing unfair competition laws.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that the change was part of a set of new regulations developed for the existing California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The new regulations forbid publishers from using “confusing language,” “unnecessary steps” or requirements that they listen to a sales pitch to change their mind about opting out before they’re allowed to access the relevant function. In a statement to the press, Becerra said that the new addition to the state privacy law would “ensure that consumers will not be confused or misled when seeking to exercise their data privacy rights.”
If the state identifies a dark pattern, the organization will be given a 30 day cure notice in which the situation must be remedied. If the offending element is not brought back into compliance in that time, the state threatens civil fines (of unspecified amounts) brought under the authority of anticompetition laws.
The CCPA now specifies that consent obtained via dark patterns is not legally valid. Businesses must also now count the steps it takes to opt in to a service, as the amendment requires that there is not a greater amount of steps to opt out.
On social media and on shopping and search websites such as Amazon, Facebook and Google,and even childrens’ apps, companies are using deceptive user experience design techniques to trick us into giving away our data, sharing our phone numbers and contact lists, and submitting to fees and subscriptions. Everyday, we’re exploited for profit through “dark patterns”: design tactics used in websites and apps to manipulate you into doing things you probably would not do otherwise. Dark Patterns are tricks used in websites and apps that make you do things that you didn't mean to, like buying or signing up for something. When you use websites and apps, you don’t read every word on every page - you skim read and make assumptions. If a company wants to trick you into doing something, they can take advantage of this by making a page look like it is saying one thing when it is in fact saying another. You can defend yourself by learning about Dark Patterns on this site.
Dark patterns can be deceptive in a variety of ways. For example, a website may trick visitors into submitting to unwanted follow-up emails by making the email opt-out checkbox on a checkout page harder to see: for instance, using a smaller font or placing the opt-out in an inconspicuous place in the user flow.
Consider Amazon. The company perfected the one-click checkout. But canceling a $119 Prime subscription is a labyrinthine process that requires multiple screens and clicks.
Amazon, Facebook and Google are some of the most egregious perpetrators of "Dark Patterns" and they must be stopped at all costs!
Examples of “dark patterns,” the techniques that companies use online to get consumers to sign up for things, keep subscriptions they might otherwise cancel or turn over more personal data. They come in countless variations: giant blinking sign-up buttons, hidden unsubscribe links, red X’s that actually open new pages, countdown timers and pre-checked options for marketing spam. Think of them as the digital equivalent of trying to cancel a gym membership.
There are plans in both the House and Senate to tackle dark patterns. And there’s movement at the state level, too. California strengthened its data privacy laws to include certain dark patterns.
Enforcement against dark patterns has been uneven, and generally left to the Federal Trade Commission under its rules prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts.” But those unfair and deceptive acts can be hard to identify, or even to notice — which is, of course, precisely as practitioners intend. Without a clear baseline of federal enforcement, they have flourished. Yet stronger rules defining the extent of the problem and addressing the more egregious tricks could help to curtail the practice.
Parting consumers from their money is as old as retail itself. But with the benefit of real-time user data and the ability to quickly change online interfaces, dark patterns can be far more effective — and diabolical — than offline tricks.
“While there’s nothing inherently wrong with companies making money, there is something wrong with those companies intentionally manipulating users to extract their data,” said Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Delaware Democrat, at the F.T.C. event. She said she planned to introduce dark pattern legislation later this year.
At the state level, California has addressed some of the more unscrupulous dark patterns. It prevents companies from using design tricks to dupe Californians out of exercising their right to prohibit their data from being sold, for instance. The state’s privacy laws, due to be updated in 2023, will include further consumer protections.
The requirement that end users not be forced to “listen to reasons why they shouldn’t opt out” could prove to be relevant to Facebook’s current plans to counter Apple’s new privacy requirements. Reports are that Facebook plans to have users view a video extolling the virtues of opting in to targeted advertising prior to the mandatory pop-up that will soon be in every app on the Apple Store. If Facebook forges ahead with this plan, it will be interesting to see if California considers it a violation of the new privacy law amendments.
That’s a start. But there are many other common practices that must still be addressed for all consumers, like obscuring or burying unsubscribe buttons, fake sales countdown clocks, forcing users to file multiple requests to end a service, inoperable links, intentionally confusing choices and miniature or obscured fonts.
A federal bill that named dark patterns was introduced to the Senate in 2019; it would have banned them from any platform with over 100 million users.
The term describes a design practice that makes navigation to elements that publishers would prefer users not access, like account deletion or requests for personal information, intentionally opaque and confusing. A change to California’s state privacy law is the first regulation to directly take on this practice, threatening civil penalties brought under the state’s existing unfair competition laws.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that the change was part of a set of new regulations developed for the existing California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The new regulations forbid publishers from using “confusing language,” “unnecessary steps” or requirements that they listen to a sales pitch to change their mind about opting out before they’re allowed to access the relevant function. In a statement to the press, Becerra said that the new addition to the state privacy law would “ensure that consumers will not be confused or misled when seeking to exercise their data privacy rights.”
If the state identifies a dark pattern, the organization will be given a 30 day cure notice in which the situation must be remedied. If the offending element is not brought back into compliance in that time, the state threatens civil fines (of unspecified amounts) brought under the authority of anticompetition laws.
The CCPA now specifies that consent obtained via dark patterns is not legally valid. Businesses must also now count the steps it takes to opt in to a service, as the amendment requires that there is not a greater amount of steps to opt out.
On social media and on shopping and search websites such as Amazon, Facebook and Google,and even childrens’ apps, companies are using deceptive user experience design techniques to trick us into giving away our data, sharing our phone numbers and contact lists, and submitting to fees and subscriptions. Everyday, we’re exploited for profit through “dark patterns”: design tactics used in websites and apps to manipulate you into doing things you probably would not do otherwise. Dark Patterns are tricks used in websites and apps that make you do things that you didn't mean to, like buying or signing up for something. When you use websites and apps, you don’t read every word on every page - you skim read and make assumptions. If a company wants to trick you into doing something, they can take advantage of this by making a page look like it is saying one thing when it is in fact saying another. You can defend yourself by learning about Dark Patterns on this site.
Dark patterns can be deceptive in a variety of ways. For example, a website may trick visitors into submitting to unwanted follow-up emails by making the email opt-out checkbox on a checkout page harder to see: for instance, using a smaller font or placing the opt-out in an inconspicuous place in the user flow.
Consider Amazon. The company perfected the one-click checkout. But canceling a $119 Prime subscription is a labyrinthine process that requires multiple screens and clicks.
Amazon, Facebook and Google are some of the most egregious perpetrators of "Dark Patterns" and they must be stopped at all costs!
Examples of “dark patterns,” the techniques that companies use online to get consumers to sign up for things, keep subscriptions they might otherwise cancel or turn over more personal data. They come in countless variations: giant blinking sign-up buttons, hidden unsubscribe links, red X’s that actually open new pages, countdown timers and pre-checked options for marketing spam. Think of them as the digital equivalent of trying to cancel a gym membership.
There are plans in both the House and Senate to tackle dark patterns. And there’s movement at the state level, too. California strengthened its data privacy laws to include certain dark patterns.
Enforcement against dark patterns has been uneven, and generally left to the Federal Trade Commission under its rules prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts.” But those unfair and deceptive acts can be hard to identify, or even to notice — which is, of course, precisely as practitioners intend. Without a clear baseline of federal enforcement, they have flourished. Yet stronger rules defining the extent of the problem and addressing the more egregious tricks could help to curtail the practice.
Parting consumers from their money is as old as retail itself. But with the benefit of real-time user data and the ability to quickly change online interfaces, dark patterns can be far more effective — and diabolical — than offline tricks.
“While there’s nothing inherently wrong with companies making money, there is something wrong with those companies intentionally manipulating users to extract their data,” said Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Delaware Democrat, at the F.T.C. event. She said she planned to introduce dark pattern legislation later this year.
At the state level, California has addressed some of the more unscrupulous dark patterns. It prevents companies from using design tricks to dupe Californians out of exercising their right to prohibit their data from being sold, for instance. The state’s privacy laws, due to be updated in 2023, will include further consumer protections.
The requirement that end users not be forced to “listen to reasons why they shouldn’t opt out” could prove to be relevant to Facebook’s current plans to counter Apple’s new privacy requirements. Reports are that Facebook plans to have users view a video extolling the virtues of opting in to targeted advertising prior to the mandatory pop-up that will soon be in every app on the Apple Store. If Facebook forges ahead with this plan, it will be interesting to see if California considers it a violation of the new privacy law amendments.
That’s a start. But there are many other common practices that must still be addressed for all consumers, like obscuring or burying unsubscribe buttons, fake sales countdown clocks, forcing users to file multiple requests to end a service, inoperable links, intentionally confusing choices and miniature or obscured fonts.
A federal bill that named dark patterns was introduced to the Senate in 2019; it would have banned them from any platform with over 100 million users.
Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right. Collusion is not always considered illegal. It can be used to attain objectives forbidden by law; for example, by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.
Amazon and Google are engaged in a collusion which is a secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose and have illegally conspired together, in violation of both state and federal antitrust laws, to prevent this website, and the 200+ websites listed herein, from appearing in their appropriate locations within the Google search because they don't want the public to learn about their many illegal activities. The website domain names contain very specific keyword phrases for the express purpose of being located in the first or second pages on Google, based upon the algorithms utilized, yet most do not show up at all or are deliberately relegated to the last or next to last pages so the general public will never be aware of their existence thereby accomplishing Amazon and Google's goal of not allowing the content to be viewed considering that the majority of internet visitors rarely search for anything beyond the very few pages at the beginning regardless of what they search for. Amazon nor Google should be allowed to participate in illegal censorship.
Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos and the incoming CEO Andy Jassy along with Google's CEO Sundar Pichai are not honest people and the owner of these websites anxiously anticipate the time when the three of them can be questioned at length on the witness stand regarding their unlawful actions in conjunction with the documentation to verify their respective crimes.
Both Amazon and Google consistently engage in "antitrust evils", to coin a phrase used by numerous states Attorneys General in the current Antitrust lawsuits against Google and soon to be Amazon, for their flagrant abuses of the law. These individuals are criminals in the purest sense and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and should be incarcerated in prison for decades because they are "criminal sociopaths" and will never act honestly towards the millions of people who use their services! They are no better than your common street thugs stealing purses from the elderly or mistreating young children, these individuals have no morals nor a conscience.
Amazon and Google are engaged in a collusion which is a secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose and have illegally conspired together, in violation of both state and federal antitrust laws, to prevent this website, and the 200+ websites listed herein, from appearing in their appropriate locations within the Google search because they don't want the public to learn about their many illegal activities. The website domain names contain very specific keyword phrases for the express purpose of being located in the first or second pages on Google, based upon the algorithms utilized, yet most do not show up at all or are deliberately relegated to the last or next to last pages so the general public will never be aware of their existence thereby accomplishing Amazon and Google's goal of not allowing the content to be viewed considering that the majority of internet visitors rarely search for anything beyond the very few pages at the beginning regardless of what they search for. Amazon nor Google should be allowed to participate in illegal censorship.
Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos and the incoming CEO Andy Jassy along with Google's CEO Sundar Pichai are not honest people and the owner of these websites anxiously anticipate the time when the three of them can be questioned at length on the witness stand regarding their unlawful actions in conjunction with the documentation to verify their respective crimes.
Both Amazon and Google consistently engage in "antitrust evils", to coin a phrase used by numerous states Attorneys General in the current Antitrust lawsuits against Google and soon to be Amazon, for their flagrant abuses of the law. These individuals are criminals in the purest sense and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and should be incarcerated in prison for decades because they are "criminal sociopaths" and will never act honestly towards the millions of people who use their services! They are no better than your common street thugs stealing purses from the elderly or mistreating young children, these individuals have no morals nor a conscience.
The Laws governing the American people are derived from the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which includes one of the most important, the First Amendment, allowing Free Speech which means we can all speak our voices without fear of prosecution.
This website is a repository to disseminate and publish important information regarding any potentially illegal or unethical activities by the leadership management of the Amazon (dot com) Inc. organization and will be constantly updated as facts become known and available.
Amazon is Notorious for being involved with intolerable actions within its ranks and the company should be broken up into numerous different and smaller parts or eliminated completely due to them allowing despicable acts to occur and Amazon has been accused by several governmental agencies for deplorable activities such as Anti Competitive Business, Antitrust Concerns, Bribery, Counterfeit Products, Defective Products, Discrimination, Fake Product Reviews, Illegal Insider Stock Trading, Intellectual Property Piracy, Market Dominance, Predatory Pricing, Price Fixing, Price Gouging, Racism, Retaliation, Receiving and Selling 'Stolen Goods', Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Social Injustice, Unethical Practices and Unsafe Working Conditions just to name a few.
This website is a repository to disseminate and publish important information regarding any potentially illegal or unethical activities by the leadership management of the Amazon (dot com) Inc. organization and will be constantly updated as facts become known and available.
Amazon is Notorious for being involved with intolerable actions within its ranks and the company should be broken up into numerous different and smaller parts or eliminated completely due to them allowing despicable acts to occur and Amazon has been accused by several governmental agencies for deplorable activities such as Anti Competitive Business, Antitrust Concerns, Bribery, Counterfeit Products, Defective Products, Discrimination, Fake Product Reviews, Illegal Insider Stock Trading, Intellectual Property Piracy, Market Dominance, Predatory Pricing, Price Fixing, Price Gouging, Racism, Retaliation, Receiving and Selling 'Stolen Goods', Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Social Injustice, Unethical Practices and Unsafe Working Conditions just to name a few.