Monopolies Surge as Consumer Safeguards Lessen

Multinational corporations pick American consumers' pockets, while the Trump administration eliminates consumer protection measures to "free" business from restraints.

My insurance company recently refused to cover a prescription.

The cost to fill the medication, manufactured by Bausch Health of Canada, ranged from $240 (Amazon, online) to $347 (through my insurer).

Yesterday, I drove about an hour to Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, and purchased the medication in generic form for $3. If I had gotten the brand name, it would have cost $47.

I recount this incident only to illustrate the power dynamics of corporate / consumer relations. Government oversight is the only realistic restraint on monopolies. Without such oversight, anything goes.

In recent decades, 75 % of industries in America have become more concentrated, including retail sales, cell phones, banks, internet providers, beer sales, and pharmaceuticals.

Yet, the Trump administration appears intent on eroding the limited consumer protections that exist in America today.

Trump is trying to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was established in 2011 in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to oversee financial products like credit cards, mortgages, and loans. Enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB is an independent agency funded through the Federal Reserve to shield it from political interference.

Acting CFPB Director Russell Vough, in February, ordered CFPB staff to cease investigations and rule-making unless approved by him or required by law. Vough tried to cut 90% of the CFPB’s 1,700 employees but was stalled by an April court ruling and a union lawsuit. This may yet occur.

At the request of the Trump administration, a federal court threw out a CFPB regulation passed during the Biden administration capping credit card late fees at $8. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce had claimed the rule was illegal.

The CFPB was never a Marvel superhero, but it was an important counterbalance, alongside the Federal Trade Commission (which began challenging Big Tech monopolization during the Biden administration) and state attorneys general.

The Monopolization Of America

Market concentration has exploded in recent decades, with just a few companies controlling vast markets.

Statista reports, for example, that in 2023, Amazon had a 36.7 % share of retail e-commerce sales in the U.S., making it the largest retailer in the world, followed by Walmart, which had a meager 6.4 % market share.

Consider also:

• Three corporations -AT&T Mobility, Sprint Nextel, and Verizon Wireless- control 80 % of the U.S. mobile cellular market, compared to 48 % in 2000.

• Four banks -JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citibank-control 47 % of the total assets of the entire U.S. banking system.

• Two telecom corporations, Comcast and Charter Communications, control more than half of the broadband market in the U.S., with 54 million subscribers.

• Four global companies produce 79 % of beer sold in U.S. grocery stores -Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors, Constellation Brands, and Heineken.

No Justice

It would be one thing if a monopoly violated a consumer’s rights and there was recourse for justice, but there is very little recourse in reality.

Many corporations require consumers to arbitrate disputes, rather than litigating them in court, to minimize potential liability. The New York - based American Arbitration Association (AAA) reportedly enjoys nearly 90 % of the market share in private consumer arbitrations. Several lawsuits have been filed against the AAA in recent years, alleging it is a monopoly that favors corporate defendants, who are often repeat clients.

David A. Chami, of Consumer Justice Law Firm based in Scottsdale, AZ, alleges the AAA operates “a monopolistic second-tiered justice system that provides consumers with no choice in the forum, the arbitrator, or rules. Instead, there is only one consistent rule: consumers lose 76 % of the time in arbitrations they initiate."

Chami represents plaintiff Stephanie Stephens in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in Arizona earlier this year. She claims she was denied a fair resolution when she was forced to use the AAA in a dispute with an Experian affiliate.

Chami said the AAA panders to businesses “intentionally through draconian rules, cut-rate arbitrations, and the selection of predominantly corporate defense counsel, as opposed to retired judges, to act as arbitrators.”

Even without arbitration, the legal system is heavily stacked against consumers.

Most consumer disputes involve damages of less than $5,000, and the vast majority of Americans cannot afford to hire an attorney. Individuals are at a disadvantage when the defendant is represented by an attorney but they are not.

Meanwhile, federal courts in particular discourage individuals from representing themselves by requiring adherence to indecipherable rules, payment of high fees, and undisguised disdain from judges who feel they are too important for small matters.

A law firm may waive fees upfront and take a case on a contingency basis, where the attorney agrees to recover fees from the settlement of the case or an award by the court. However, these are typically high value cases.

In rare instances, a state attorney general may prosecute a lawsuit that involves outright consumer fraud.

The bottom line is that we live in an age where a multinational corporation in Canada is free to charge Americans 11,466 % more for its product than it charges Mexican consumers. And banks are free to set outrageous overdraft fees. The cost of an internet connection or cell phone service bears no relation to the cost to provide the service. Meanwhile, the average cost of a six-pack of beer ($6.50 in 2019) had increased by 21 % in 2024 ($7.88).

Consumer protections are more important than ever today, and protections should be increasing, not decreasing.