agriculture – Institute for Local Self-Reliance: Recent Episodes
agriculture – Institute for Local Self-Reliance
This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Password:
YOU CAN FIND A RECAP AND VIDEO OF OUR TOWN HALL EVENT HERE.Join independent businesses from across the country for a virtual town hall event to mark our progress and build momentum to rein in monopoly power and level the playing field for small, independent businesses. FTC Chair Lina Khan will join advocates and small businesses to provide a glimpse into today’s most important anti-monopoly actions and hear directly from small business owners.Small businesses are in crisis. Decades of pro-monopoly policies have allowed a few giant corporations to consolidate control of many industries. The results are fewer choices for consumers, inflated prices, supply chain vulnerabilities, and “Anywhere, USA” communities.
But small businesses are fighting back and seeing results. Federal, state, and local policymakers have been taking action to level the playing field. The FTC filed a major antitrust case to break Amazon’s grip on e-commerce. The agency has vowed to dust-off a long-dormant law to rein in the predatory practices of big retail chains. States are considering new antimonopoly laws. And much more.
Register now to join a nationwide conversation about how independent businesses can keep this momentum going!
Monday, March 4, 20241:30 – 2:30 pm ETZoom event — REGISTER HEREAdditional speakers and co-hosts, will be announced as they are confirmed.
Hosted by Small Business Rising Coalition Partners:American Booksellers AssociationAmerican Independent Business AllianceAmerican Specialty Toy Retailing AssociationCambridge Local FirstGo Local AshevilleIndependent Natural Food Retailers AssociationIndependent Restaurant CoalitionInstitute for Local Self-RelianceLocal First ArizonaLocal ReturnLouisville Independent Business AllianceLove Live LocalLowcountry Local FirstMain Street AllianceNational Community Pharmacists AssociationNational Grocers AssociationNorth American Hardware and Paint AssociationProvender AllianceSoutheast Michigan Sustainable Business ForumWorkplace Solutions Association
In October 2023, Alderman Matt O’Shea, who represents Chicago’s 19th Ward, introduced an ordinance that would limit chain dollar store expansion in the city. It would also give the city the ability to suspend the business license of a dollar store that racks up two or more nuisance violations, such as overflowing trash dumpsters, unsafe working conditions, or excessive scanner errors. O’Shea initially had support from a majority of his fellow city council members — but Dollar Tree/Family Dollar quickly deployed lobbyists to line up opposition to the proposed ordinance from the Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Retail Merchants Association, and Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, which advocated watering down the ordinance.
Tulsa City Council Member Vanessa Hall-Harper and ILSR Senior Researcher Kennedy Smith testified for a hearing on the proposed ordinance, then wrote the following letter to the editor of The Chicago Tribune rebutting a Tribune editorial that criticized the proposed dollar store restriction.
Read their letter here or below.
Proliferation of dollar storesThe Tribune Editorial Board gets it right when it says that dollar stores tend not to be beloved. But it gets it wrong when it says that if shoppers didn’t like chain dollar stores, they wouldn’t walk through their doors (“Dollar stores deserve scrutiny, not targeting,” Jan. 29). If shoppers don’t have the benefit of a full-service grocery store nearby, they have little choice but the dollar store. The more dollar stores the city permits, the fewer full-service grocery stores there will be.
Eliminating food deserts requires many solutions. But there is one absolutely essential action: preventing dollar stores from proliferating. By oversaturating neighborhoods, they leech sales away from existing food stores. Grocers report losing as much as 40% of their sales when a dollar store opens nearby. Shaving off even a small percentage can kill a grocery store — and, when it closes, the neighborhood loses a crucial anchor, setting off a chain reaction of challenges.
When one of us, Tulsa, Oklahoma, City Councilor Vanessa Hall-Harper, tried to recruit a national grocery chain to her district, every single company turned her down. Why? Because her district was overrun with dollar stores, and none of the grocers believed there would be enough unmet market demand for one of their stores to survive there.
She didn’t give up. She successfully pushed for an ordinance mandating a minimum 1-mile distance between new and existing dollar stores. Then she launched an initiative to create a full-service grocery store. Partnering with the Tulsa Economic Development Corp., the city and others, she helped raise the money to build a grocery store building and find someone local with the skills needed to own and operate the business. Oasis Fresh Market opened more than two years ago. It’s a unique hybrid for-profit store and nonprofit community hub — and it’s building local wealth, rather than sending profits off to distant shareholders.
Every city can do what Tulsa has done. But it requires the political will to do the hard work needed to create the options the city’s neighborhoods really need, rather than giving in to dollar stores’ relentless push to put a store on every street corner.
Relegating neighborhoods to dollar stores sends a message that residents don’t deserve better. We believe that the city of Chicago wants better options for its residents — and, with every new dollar store that enters a neighborhood, those options slip further away.
— Vanessa Hall-Harper, city councilor, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Kennedy Smith, senior researcher, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Arlington, Virginia
If you like this post, be sure to sign up for the monthly Hometown Advantage newsletter for our latest reporting and research.
On Tuesday, February 6th from 1:00 – 4:30 p.m., ILSR will host a pre-conference workshop, Community Composting Systems: New Projects and Scaling Up Existing Projects, as part of the US Composting Council’s 2024 Conference and Tradeshow in Daytona Beach, FL. The workshop will cover composting systems for farm and community settings from DIY solar-powered systems to branded ASP systems. Small- to medium-sized equipment providers will guest speak. Also featured will be screeners for community compost sites such as the Lower East Side Ecology Center’s new electric trommel design (in collaboration with Bruno Navarro). The cost of the workshop is $260 for USCC members / $292 for non-members. You do not need to attend the rest of the conference. Learn more about the workshop here, register here.
Agenda12:45 – 1:00 p.m.Check-in
1:00 – 1:30 p.m.Introductions
1:30 – 1:45 p.m.Overview of community-oriented and farm-scale composting systems (ILSR)
1:45 – 3:00 p.m.Panel 1: Systems and Scaling Up – Deep Dive on Three Community Composters
- Khari Diop, Think Green / Truly Living Well Center for Natural Urban Agriculture (solar ASP hexagonal bin system and ASP bunker system)
- Domingo Morales, Compost Power (Passive Aerated Systems)
- Michael Martinez, LA Compost (urban farm scale systems)
3:00 – 3:15 p.m.Break
3:15 – 4:25 p.m.Panel 2: Systems and Scaling Up – Roundtable w/ Systems Providers & Designers
- Jennifer Perry, ADK Action / Compost for Good (farm-scale in-vessel rotating drum)
- Brian Jerose, Agrilab Technologies (AGT Mini System)
- Betsy La Force, Green Mountain Technologies (Earth Flow in-vessel system)
- Bruno Navarro, Nexusbau (DIY electric trommel screeners)
4:25 – 4:30 p.m.
Wrap-up
Lead Instructors
| Brenda PlattDirector, Composting for Community Initiative, ILSRBrenda directs ILSR’s Composting for Community project, which is advancing locally based composting in order to create jobs, enhance soils, sequester carbon, reduce waste, and build more resilient and healthy communities. She has worked 33 years fighting trash burners and promoting waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, particularly recycling-based jobs. | | Linda Bilsens BrolisAssociate Director for Education & Advocacy, Composting for Community Initiative, ILSRLinda manages ILSR’s Neighborhood Soil Rebuilders Composter Training Program and led the development of ILSR’s new Community Composting 101 Online Certificate Course. She also leads ILSR’s work advancing on-farm composting and its participation in the Million Acre Challenge, a collaborative focused on expanding the implementation of regenerative soil health practices in Maryland and the Chesapeake Region. | | Khari DiopFounder & CEO, Think Green Inc.Khari is an environmental educator, food security activist, and fifth-generation food grower from Atlanta. Khari is the founder and CEO of Think Green Inc. and the Community Compost Learning Lab Manager at the Truly Living Well Center for Natural Urban Agriculture. Khari designed a solar-powered ASP hexagonal bin system that is being built at sites around Atlanta, and manages the TLW ASP bunker system which processes more than 200 tons of material annually. |
Panelists
| Domingo MoralesFounder, Compost PowerDomingo Morales, a NYC native, Green City Force (GCF) alumnus and inaugural winner of the David Prize, is the founder of Compost Power and serves as a compost consultant. His leadership and passion for a healthier and more environmentally-just city was born out of lived experience. As a former public housing resident, he saw first-hand how residents of underserved neighborhoods and public housing suffered from poor access to healthy food and a lack of sustainable infrastructure. Today, Domingo manages 9 community composting sites, supports GCF and the NYC Housing Authority as an expert on composting and waste diversion programs, and coaches’ others to implement best practices across the city. Domingo is laser-focused on making composting cool and accessible for everyone. | | Michael MartinezFounder & Executive Director, LA CompostMichael is a former elementary school teacher, a father of two. He has grown LA Compost from a group of volunteers collecting organics using bikes, to a decentralized network of community compost hubs that span across the most populated county in the country. LA Compost has supported over 50 compost hubs over the past 10 years, all in partnership with existing communities, nonprofits, and organizations committed to healthy ecosystems inclusive of food access and healthy community engagement. The mission of LA Compost is to restore lost connections to the soil and one another. | | Jennifer PerryADK Action / Compost for Good (farm-scale in-vessel rotating drum)Jennifer Perry wears multiple hats in the community composting world. She is a cofounder of the Compost for Good (CFG) initiative which provides responsive support for a broad range of community scale composting efforts through technical assistance, microscopy consultations, guidance documents, educational videos, peer to peer connections, grant assistance, and more. CfG is part of the Adirondack North Country Association (ANCA) – a rural community development organization in the NY North Country. She recently transitioned from a 12 year position promoting clean energy programs, creating ANCA’s Organics Recycling Coordinator position, which is her forever home. Additionally, Jennifer owns and operates River Valley Regeneratives – a food scrap hauling, composting, and market garden business in the Adirondack Mountains. | | Brian JeroseAgrilab Technologies (AGT Mini System)Brian Jerose has been President of Agrilab Technologies Inc. (AGT) since 2012. Based in Vermont, Brian works on a range of environmental and agricultural projects, with a focus on compost aeration and heat recovery (CAHR) systems. AGT has equipment installations in VT, NY, NH, MA, CT, CA and MI, and has provided technical and consulting services to national and international clients. Brian is a founding Board member of the Composting Association of Vermont and currently serves at VP. He has a BA from SUNY Geneseo and a MS in Environmental and Resource Engineering from SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Brian lives in Fairfield, VT with his wife Joanna and daughters Maya and Lucy. | | Betsy La ForceGreen Mountain Technologies (Earth Flow in-vessel system)Betsy La Force is a Sales & Business Development Manager for GMT. She has nearly a decade of compost industry experience from the realms of hauling, environmental advocacy, and project management. Betsy is a longtime compost enthusiast and passionate home gardener. A native of South Carolina, she is a graduate of the College of Charleston, Betsy has since earned relevant certifications in Permaculture Design from the Occidental Arts & Ecology Center in California, Master Naturalist training from Clemson University, and & Climate Leadership training from the Al Gore Climate Reality Project. Outside of work, you can find Betsy at the beach, doing yoga, or riding her bike to the farmers market and local breweries. Her favorite compost recipe is a 2:1 C:N ratio using bagged leaves at the curb and/or wood chips from local tree care companies layered with kitchen food scraps in her backyard pile. | | Bruno NavarroNexusbau (DIY electric trommel screeners)Bruno Navarro is a New York-based maker, designer, and video producer. He enrolled in The Cooper Union 2003 and graduated in 2008 with a B.S.Arch degree. In 2010, he formed a design/build company called “NexusBAU” in Bedford Stuyvesant Brooklyn which focuses on unique and singular custom works. Since then he has worked not only with private clients but nonprofit organizations, community gardens, The New York City Department of Parks and Recreations, and taught classes on “How To” to individuals who have been marginalized in our society. |
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Third-party sellers and small business leaders joined the Institute for Local Self-Reliance at a virtual press briefing to applaud the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, hailing the action as a critical step to ending Amazon’s abuses and opening the online market to competition.
At the press event, ILSR Co-Executive Director Stacy Mitchell was joined by third-party sellers and small business owners who spoke to the importance of this case and took questions.
You can watch the recording here and below.
Speakers from the press event include:
- Stacy Mitchell, co-executive director of ILSR and a leading expert on Amazon’s monopoly power and impact on small businesses. “Today’s action to break Amazon’s monopoly control over online commerce is great news for Americans. For too long Amazon has been allowed to maintain a stranglehold on the online market. It’s used its power to thwart competition, bleed small businesses dry, exploit workers, and take advantage of consumers.”
- Jason Boyce, founder of the seller consultancy Avenue7Media, and author of The Amazon Jungle.
- Nicholas Parks, president of Snob Foods: “Amazon owns the platform, so they pay nothing for ad space and assess nothing toward logistics fees. Meanwhile, third-party sellers spend fifty percent or more of revenue for those items. This is why it’s impossible to compete head-on with Amazon.”… “I’m not sure another example exists of a retailer operating at a gross loss for more than a few months. Amazon can only afford to do this by charging ever more fees to third-party sellers and customers of AWS. This case from antitrust authorities is critical to ensuring businesses like mine can sell fairly online.”
- Lindsay Windham and Nate Justiss, co-founders of Distil Union: “More and more of Distil Union’s dollars go to Amazon fees. In a way, we fund their lobbying efforts – including those that make it harder for us to maintain a profitable business. We are thrilled regulators are taking action to make Amazon more fair for small businesses.”
- Doug Mrdeza, a former Amazon third-party seller and owner of Top Shelf Brands: “Amazon presents itself as a partner, but in reality, it’s a competitor that steals proprietary information and uses it to put third-party sellers out of business. The company’s ‘blending’ of its various lines of business lies at the root of all the problems small businesses have with Amazon. I would still be in business if it wasn’t for Amazon. I applaud the FTC for finally taking action.”
- Danny Caine, co-owner of Raven Book Store in Lawrence, Kansas: “Amazon’s anti-competitive tactics disrupt nearly every part of my industry, and that’s unfair. It makes it harder for a bookstore like The Raven to compete. At times, it’s impossible. We need vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws so small businesses like mine can compete, thrive, and enrich the lives of their workers and their communities. We support the FTC’s case.”
Reactions from additional sellers and business owners:
- Michael Wiesel, founder and CEO of Earthy Good & Kiss Naturals: “Amazon recently suspended three of my most popular items. They often ‘suspend’ items waiting for test reports. We send them the reports, then an AI-generated reply comes rejecting the reports. This can go on for months. Our Amazon U.S. sales have evaporated and put many of the small retailers we sell to out of business. They are the only show in town. It is critical for someone to take action and we strongly support the FTC bringing this lawsuit.”
- Bill Stewart, owner of Long Island Toy & Game: “It’s near impossible to measure exactly how much Amazon has cost my business. They have pushed my listings off their marketplace. They are also ‘stealing’ business from my physical retail store, website, and other online marketplaces by using unfair and anti-competitive practices. Yes, we need regulators to act. It is about time.”
- Gina Schaefer, co-owner and founder of A Few Cool Hardware Stores: “Amazon controls the infrastructure that businesses must rely on to communicate with their customers and the market Amazon bullies small businesses, steals their best ideas, and saddles them with exorbitant fees. The FTC’s case is a critical step to ensure we have a digital marketplace that works for small businesses.”
- Kimber Lanning, founder and CEO of the independent business group Local First Arizona and member of Small Business Rising: “Amazon penalizes businesses who try to sell for a lower price on other platforms and imposes ever-growing fees on its sellers. I’ve heard directly from an Amazon seller in Tempe. He asked not to be identified for fear that Amazon would retaliate against his company. He described the crushing weight of Amazon’s fees, which is capsizing his and many businesses that sell on Amazon’s marketplace. We applaud this step from the FTC.”
ILSR released an explainer looking at why the lawsuit was filed and what it seeks to accomplish. This follows new research from Stacy Mitchell, Amazon’s Monopoly Tollbooth in 2023, exposing the steep and rapidly growing fees Amazon extracts from the businesses that have little choice but to rely on its site to reach customers — a striking measure of its monopoly power. These exorbitant fees are crushing many sellers, raising consumer prices, and funding Amazon’s expanding empire.
To speak with any of the above, please contact Reggie Rucker.
If you like this post, be sure to sign up for the monthly Hometown Advantage newsletter for our latest reporting and research.
Download the Explainer Here.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed suit against Amazon for monopolizing e-commerce in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. This explainer looks at why the lawsuit was filed and what it seeks to accomplish. To read more about Amazon’s dominance and its consequences, visit ilsr.org/amazon.
Download the Explainer HereThis lawsuit seeks to open the online market to competition. The goal of the FTC’s case is to open the online market to much-needed competition, which would create major benefits for Americans. More competition would lead to more choices, lower prices, greater innovation, and fairer terms for everyone — the consumers who shop online, the small businesses who sell online, and the workers who handle the orders. * E-commerce should be a dynamic industry with many competing retail marketplaces.* Because of Amazon’s anticompetitive tactics, e-commerce is utterly dominated by a single corporation. In two-thirds of major product categories, Amazon captures more than 70 percent of online transactions. Overall, Amazon accounts for about half of the online shopping market in the U.S. If it weren’t for Amazon’s stranglehold on e-commerce, there would be far more competition, with numerous marketplaces vying to serve sellers and consumers.
Amazon’s monopoly harms consumers, small businesses, and workers. Amazon has sharply degraded its shopping experience and inflated its prices. In the absence of competition, Amazon is taking advantage of consumers. It’s converted most of its search results pages to paid product ads. Shoppers have also been subjected to confusing and useless search results, fake reviews, and fraudulent products. Amazon’s exorbitant seller fees have led to inflated consumer prices, both on Amazon and across the web. Surveys show customer satisfaction with Amazon has fallen sharply. Indeed, online shopping overall has stagnated: We’ve seen little in the way of innovation and Amazon’s own site has remained largely unchanged for years. * Amazon has exploited independent businesses and brands, including by imposing predatory fees that allow Amazon to pocket nearly half of their revenue. Amazon’s dominance allows it to function as a gatekeeper: retailers and brands must sell on its site to reach much of the online market. Amazon has exploited this position to bully and steal from these businesses, including by imposing steep and rapidly rising fees on every sale they make. Through these fees, Amazon is now taking a 45 percent cut of sellers’ revenue in the U.S., up from 19 percent in 2014. On top of this, Amazon’s abrupt and opaque algorithm changes and suspensions can capsize a business overnight with no warning or recourse. * Amazon has used its market power in e-commerce logistics to drive down wages and inflict dangerous conditions on workers. Amazon has leveraged its monopoly over online selling to build a massive logistics and shipping operation. It’s used its power as dominant buyer of labor in this sector to drive down wages and subject workers to unsafe conditions. Amazon workers face markedly higher injury rates. Labor standards have deteriorated as a result of Amazon’s consolidation of the market and the lack of competing alternatives for workers. * Amazon’s stranglehold has weakened the U.S. economy*. By squeezing independent businesses and thwarting their ability to compete online, Amazon has impeded innovation, weakened entire industries, and drained many communities of their economic vitality. Amazon’s outsized power is one of the leading factors contributing to a decline in small and medium businesses. Between 2007 and 2017, the number of independent retailers in the U.S. fell by 65,000, and about 40 percent of the nation’s small apparel, toy, and sporting goods makers disappeared.
The FTC’s case targets the core strategies Amazon uses to block competition and preserve its control over e-commerce. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon uses its market power to lock businesses into its platform and hinder their ability to compete via other sites and marketplaces. In a healthy, competitive market, Amazon’s high fees and abusive policies would lead sellers to migrate to selling on their own web sites or other marketplaces. Indeed, most sellers, including both small businesses and major consumer brands, have tried to reduce their dependence on Amazon by selling through other online channels. But, as the FTC’s case details, Amazon has flexed its power over sellers to impede this strategy and ensure they can’t grow their sales elsewhere. * One way Amazon does this is by punishing sellers that offer lower prices on other sites. Given Amazon’s high fees, the obvious way for businesses to lure shoppers elsewhere is by offering lower prices on their own sites and other platforms. But Amazon retaliates against sellers who attempt this. If Amazon’s pricing bots detect that a seller has a lower price elsewhere, Amazon wipes out the seller’s sales by demoting the item in search results or making the seller ineligible to win the Buy Box. Most sellers can’t risk this because Amazon accounts for 80-90 percent of their revenue. So they keep their prices inflated on other sites, even those that charge much lower selling fees. This shields Amazon from competition and preserves its dominance. * Another way Amazon impedes sellers’ ability to grow their sales elsewhere is by compelling them to use its fulfillment service. To qualify for Prime, sellers must use Amazon’s warehousing and shipping service (“Fulfillment By Amazon” or FBA). But using FBA hinders their ability to grow their sales on other sites, because FBA charges higher fees to ship non-Amazon orders and delivery times are slower. Amazon used to allow sellers to use a neutral logistics provider and still qualify for Prime (so long as they met the delivery speeds). But in 2019, Amazon curtailed “Seller Fulfilled Prime,” (SFP) because it recognized that sellers with an effective multi-channel fulfillment strategy threatened to erode its dominance in e-commerce. (Under scrutiny, Amazon recently reintroduced SFP, but tacked on additional fees that deter its use.) * The FTC*’s case echoes the conclusions of a Congressional investigation, a California lawsuit, and actions by other governments. In 2020, the House Judiciary Committee concluded, after a bipartisan, 15-month investigation, that Amazon “has monopoly power over many small- and medium-sized businesses.” The committee recommended that Amazon be broken up and regulated. Amazon’s monopoly is also the subject of an antitrust case filed by the state of California and multiple cases brought by various European governments.
Breaking Amazon up into multiple companies is the right solution. * Spinning off Amazon’s major divisions into stand-alone companies would neutralize the tactics Amazon uses to monopolize e-commerce. Separating Amazon’s third-party marketplace from its own retail division, and spinning off its logistics operation, to form several stand-alone companies would remove Amazon’s ability to exploit the interplay between its major divisions to impede competition. Indeed, all of Amazon’s anticompetitive tactics rely on leveraging the ways these different divisions intersect. Rather than attempt to monitor and police its behavior going forward, a simpler, more effective, and less heavy-handed approach would be for the court to order a breakup. * As separate companies, each of Amazon’s divisions would have to compete on the merits. Its package delivery operation would need to vie with other carriers, rather than simply strong-arming sellers. Its retail spin-off would no longer be able to mine sellers’ data to inform its own products or tax their sales to subsidize its own operations. And its marketplace platform would face much needed competition from other shopping sites offering lower fees and better service to attract both sellers and consumers.
What will change if the FTC’s case succeeds? * Amazon will face growing competition — and that will be a boon to consumers. If the FTC succeeds in stopping Amazon from using illegal tactics to monopolize e-commerce, Amazon will face growing competition from other online retailers and platforms, including new entrants. This will create options for shoppers, opening the way for competing sites and marketplaces to offer different approaches, more innovation, and a better shopping experience. * Competition will compel Amazon to continuously improve, rather than degrade, how well it serves consumers. Absent competition, Amazon has steadily degraded its search algorithm, steering shoppers to products that generate higher returns for Amazon, rather than those best-matched to a customer’s needs. It’s also failed to rid its site of fraudulent and even harmful products. Ending Amazon’s monopolization of e-commerce would force it to compete for customers, disciplining its bad behavior and recklessness. * Competition will benefit independent businesses selling online by creating options for sellers and putting an end to Amazon’s longstanding abuses. Hosting a marketplace is the most profitable part of Amazon’s business. If this case results in a breakup of the company, Amazon Marketplace will continue to operate successfully as a stand-alone entity. What will change is that other marketplaces will emerge, giving sellers options. This newfound ability to sell elsewhere will put pressure on Amazon Marketplace to end its abusive practices and be more responsive to sellers, including by reducing its sky-high fees. * Breaking Amazon’s monopoly grip will lead to lower prices across the web. As noted above, Amazon effectively prohibits sellers from offering their products at lower prices on other sites. If the government succeeds in persuading the court that this tactic is illegal, sellers will be able to reduce their prices on other platforms whose fees are lower than Amazon’s. This will open the way for real competition and put pressure on Amazon to cut its own fees, ultimately leading to lower consumer prices across the web. * Breaking up Amazon would help protect the ideas and intellectual property of independent businesses. Multiple investigations have found that Amazon has used seller data to identify popular products, rip off those ideas, and sell its own versions. By separating Amazon’s retail business from its third-party marketplace, independent brands and retailers can ensure that their data and market insights remain safe from Amazon’s spying. * Amazon will no longer be able to compel sellers to use its fulfillment service, opening the way for competition in package delivery, to the benefit of sellers, consumers, and, importantly, workers. The FTC’s case aims to stop Amazon from tying its online marketplace to its fulfillment service. If the case leads to a spin-off of Fulfillment By Amazon into a separate company, it would expose FBA to competition, ensuring that other carriers have a chance to compete and that businesses can choose the carrier that best meets their needs. Workers would benefit. UPS and USPS would be able to win more business from online sellers, expanding their unionized workforces and putting pressure on FBA to increase pay and benefits.
David can take on Goliath. This case represents a major victory for small businesses, working people, and citizens. The resistance to Amazon’s dominance began years ago when researchers, organizers, and everyday people started speaking out and demanding that elected officials and regulators take action to check Amazon’s outsized power and stop its many abuses. Join us in the fight to rebuild our communities and safeguard our democracy!
If you like this post, be sure to sign up for the monthly Hometown Advantage newsletter for our latest reporting and research.
In Nonprofit Quarterly, ILSR Senior Researcher Kennedy Smith describes the federal Equitable Lending Leaders program and some of its biggest lessons.… Read More
Stacy Mitchell writes in an essay for the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement that it is an extraordinary time in antitrust. Her piece is part of a series on the antitrust revolution in the U.S. that includes FTC Chair Lina Khan and the Department of Justice's Jonathan Kanter. Her piece details the broad changes in American thought and politics that have brought us to this extraordinary moment.… Read More
Communities are adopting innovative strategies to sustain their grocery stores or create new ones amidst the challenges posed by grocery sector consolidation. Some local governments are even creating a public option by operating grocery stores themselves. Here's how these places are ensuring access to fresh, healthy food. … Read More
Co-hosted by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Open Markets Institute, this is the antimonopoly, pro-democracy event you don't want to miss!… Read More
The new guidelines will likely make it harder for large corporations to amass power by buying other companies and will over time shape how judges understand and apply the antitrust laws in their rulings.… Read More
In a statement, ILSR’s Co-director Stacy Mitchell responded to the New York Senate's passage of the 21st Century Antitrust Act. “The New York Senate’s passage of the 21st Century Antitrust Act is a win for New York’s small businesses, working people, and communities. For too long, dominant corporations have been allowed to corner markets and rig the game in their own favor."… Read More
A new report endorsed by state legislators highlights the urgency of the 21st Century Antitrust Act for New York small businesses. As high inflation rages on, dominant corporations threaten the ability for New York small businesses to compete. Legislature can reverse this 40-year trend by passing the 21st Century Antitrust Act. … Read More
This past summer, the Institute for Local Self Reliance in conjunction with Matt Rantanen and Internet Society convened the first ever Tribal Broadband Bootcamp in California.… Read More
ILSR's research into waste disposal surcharges was featured in BioCycle Magazine. … Read More