Table of Contents
My name is Alex, and for five years, my team and I poured everything we had into an app called “Scribe.” It was a productivity tool, but to us, it was Art. We obsessed over every line of code, every pixel, every user interaction.
And it worked.
Our users loved it.
Tech blogs gave us rave reviews.
We had a genuinely superior product, and by every rule of business I had ever learned, we should have succeeded.
Instead, we were slowly suffocated.
Our business lived and died on the dominant mobile app store, a platform that was both our only path to customers and our fiercest competitor.
To exist there, we were forced to use the platform’s proprietary payment system, which skimmed a crippling 30% off every subscription we sold.1
This wasn’t just a fee; it was a tax that made it impossible to compete on price or reinvest in our growth.
When we tried to direct users to our own website for a more affordable subscription, we were blocked by “anti-steering” rules that forbade us from even mentioning an alternative.2
We were, as other small business owners have described, treated like “second-class citizens”.3
We had a better product, but we were trapped in an unwinnable game, one where the rules were designed by our opponent to ensure we could never score.
My company’s failure wasn’t a market outcome; it was an architectural one.
This frustrating, heartbreaking experience forced me to question everything I thought I knew about competition and to search for an answer to a single, burning question: How can a system that claims to foster innovation be so ruthlessly effective at crushing it?
The Epiphany: From Marketplace to Ecosystem
My initial search for answers was fruitless.
I read business books and articles on strategy, but they all assumed a level playing field that simply didn’t exist for me.
The standard advice was useless because the problem wasn’t my product or my strategy; it was the environment itself.
The real turning point came from the most unexpected of places: a nature documentary about the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park.
As I watched, I learned about the concepts of ecosystem management 4 and
keystone species.6
A keystone species, the narrator explained, is an organism that has a disproportionately large and positive effect on its environment relative to its abundance.9
The wolf, by preying on elk, prevented overgrazing, which allowed willows and aspens to grow back.
This, in turn, stabilized riverbanks, brought back beavers, and created habitats for songbirds and fish.9
The wolf didn’t command the ecosystem; it kept it in balance, ensuring its health and diversity.
In that moment, a new paradigm clicked into place.
A healthy market isn’t a machine; it’s an ecosystem.
It’s a complex, dynamic, and interconnected system that requires diversity and resilience to thrive.10
And in this economic ecosystem, dominant platforms like app stores and online marketplaces are the keystone species.
Their role isn’t just to exist; it’s to maintain the balance that allows the entire ecosystem—all the smaller businesses, developers, and innovators—to flourish.
The problem, my epiphany revealed, was that modern digital platforms had stopped acting like stabilizing keystone species.
They had become something more like an invasive species, engineering the environment solely for their own benefit, reducing biodiversity (competition), and threatening the long-term health of the entire system.
They were a keystone predator that had also decided to eat all the grass, dam all the rivers, and poison the soil.
This reframed my entire understanding of the law.
Antitrust law, I realized, is not about punishing size or success.
It is society’s form of ecosystem management.
It is a set of tools and principles designed to ensure that the economic ecosystem remains healthy, diverse, and sustainable for all participants, not just the keystone species.
Its purpose, as the Supreme Court once stated, is “to protect the public from the failure of the market”.11
To make this new paradigm clear, I began to map the concepts directly.
Table 1: The Economic Ecosystem Analogy
| Ecological Concept | Ecological Definition | Economic/Antitrust Parallel |
| Ecosystem | A community of living organisms interacting with their physical environment.12 | The Market: The entire system of producers, consumers, suppliers, and infrastructure where commerce occurs. |
| Biodiversity | The variety of life in a particular habitat or ecosystem. High biodiversity leads to resilience.6 | Competitive Diversity: A market with many different companies of various sizes competing on quality, price, and innovation. |
| Keystone Species | A species whose presence has a disproportionately large and stabilizing effect on its ecosystem.9 | Dominant Platform/Firm: A company whose platform or service is critical for the functioning of a larger market (e.g., an app store, search engine, or e-commerce site). |
| Ecosystem Engineer | An organism that creates, significantly modifies, maintains or destroys a habitat (e.g., beavers building dams).9 | Market-Shaping Innovator: A company that creates a new market or fundamentally changes how an existing one operates. |
| Invasive Species | A non-native species that outcompetes native organisms for resources, causing ecological harm and reducing biodiversity. | Predatory Monopoly: A dominant firm that uses its power to unfairly eliminate competitors, reduce choice, and harm the market’s health. |
| Monoculture | The cultivation of a single crop in a given area, which is highly vulnerable to disease and pests. | Market Consolidation: An industry dominated by one or a few large firms, leading to a lack of innovation and resilience. |
| Trophic Cascade | When a predator’s removal or addition triggers a chain reaction that affects species across multiple ecosystem levels.9 | Ripple Effects of Anti-competitive Behavior: When a dominant firm’s actions (e.g., blocking a competitor) cause widespread harm to suppliers, complementary businesses, and consumers. |
| Ecosystem Health/Integrity | The ability of an ecosystem to maintain its structure and function over time in the face of change.10 | Fair and Free Competition: A market where success is determined by merit, providing strong incentives for efficiency, low prices, and high quality.14 |
The First Unbalanced Ecosystem: Robber Barons and the Gilded Age
Armed with this new lens, I looked back in history and saw the same patterns.
The late 19th century in America, known as the Gilded Age, was an era of profound ecosystem disruption.15
The Second Industrial Revolution saw the rise of industrial capitalism, where small, locally owned businesses—the “native species” of the economy—were systematically supplanted by massive, nationwide corporations that controlled entire industries.15
These were the “trusts”: powerful cartels and monopolies in oil, steel, and railroads that behaved like invasive species, transforming a diverse economic landscape into a barren monoculture.18
Figures like John d+. Rockefeller of Standard Oil were not just successful entrepreneurs; they were aggressive ecosystem engineers who warped the environment to their sole advantage.
They used tactics like predatory pricing, industrial espionage, and secret, preferential rebates from railroads to drive competitors out of business and consolidate control.18
This concentration of power became so extreme that it sparked a nationwide public outcry, with many fearing the nation was falling into a “new kind of slavery” under the control of these vast aggregations of capital.20
Faced with a collapsing economic ecosystem, Congress intervened.
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first major federal attempt at ecosystem management.14
It was a radical assertion of federal power, using the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to create a national mandate for managing the health of the interstate economy—a system that had grown too large and interconnected for state-level laws to handle.18
The act was hailed as a “comprehensive charter of economic liberty,” which in our paradigm, means a charter for economic biodiversity.14
Its two core provisions were powerful, if general, management tools:
- Section 1 outlawed “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade”.11 This was a tool to break up the unnatural pacts and cartels that allowed invasive species to hunt in packs and dominate the landscape.
- Section 2 made it illegal to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize” any part of commerce.11 This was a tool to directly address the oversized, ecosystem-distorting entities themselves.
However, the first attempt at stewardship was imperfect.
The Act was “loosely worded” and failed to define its critical terms.22
This ambiguity was exploited, and in an early test case,
United States v.
E.
C.
Knight Co. (1895), the Supreme Court severely limited the Act’s reach, arguing that manufacturing was a local activity, not interstate commerce, and thus beyond the law’s scope.22
It was a stark lesson in ecosystem management: the first tools often need refinement and a stronger will to wield them.
The First Intervention: Taming the Titans with the “Rule of Reason”
The true test of the Sherman Act, and the moment antitrust law gained its teeth, came in 1911 with Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v.
United States.
By then, John d+. Rockefeller’s trust controlled nearly 90% of the U.S. oil refining market, a classic invasive monoculture.19
The federal government sued, seeking to use the Sherman Act to dissolve this behemoth.25
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision did more than just break up Standard Oil into 34 competing companies.19
It established the single most important doctrine in antitrust law: the
“Rule of Reason”.25
The Court reasoned that the Sherman Act’s prohibition of “every contract…
in restraint of trade” could not be taken literally, as even a simple business partnership technically restrains trade.14
Therefore, the Court decided the Act only outlaws contracts and combinations that
unreasonably restrain trade.25
This was a profound step in the evolution of economic ecosystem management.
The goal is not to eliminate all large or dominant species.
The “Rule of Reason” is the legal equivalent of an ecologist determining whether a keystone species is beneficial (maintaining balance) or harmful (unreasonably destroying diversity).
It shifts the focus from size to behavior and impact.
The Court examined Standard Oil’s conduct—its history of predatory pricing, espionage, and secret deals to crush rivals—and found it was an unreasonable and harmful restraint on the health of the economic ecosystem.19
The Court reinforced this principle that very same year in United States v.
American Tobacco Co..27
James B.
Duke’s “Tobacco Trust” had similarly used aggressive tactics to monopolize the industry.28
Again applying the “Rule of Reason,” the Court found its behavior unreasonable and ordered it dissolved to restore competitive diversity.28
This new approach was not without controversy.
Justice John Marshall Harlan, in a famous dissent in the Standard Oil case, argued that the Court had engaged in judicial activism, inventing the “Rule of Reason” to weaken the absolute prohibition written by Congress.20
This introduced a critical tension that persists to this day: should antitrust be a bright-line rule against certain structures, or a flexible, effects-based analysis? Is it “all wolves are bad,” or “let’s see what this particular wolf pack is doing to the deer population”?
The “Rule of Reason” created a powerful but complex legacy.
It made antitrust law flexible enough to adapt to a changing economy, but it also created a double-edged sword.
By requiring a complex, fact-specific analysis of market power, intent, and effect, it placed an enormous evidentiary burden on those trying to enforce the law.24
A large corporation could afford armies of lawyers and economists to argue its conduct was “reasonable,” creating a massive barrier to entry for enforcement that continues to affect small businesses like mine today.
Refining the Toolkit: Proactive Stewardship with the Clayton and FTC Acts
The Sherman Act, even when enhanced by the “Rule of Reason,” was largely a reactive tool.
It could only be used to clean up an ecosystem that was already severely damaged.
In 1914, Congress decided to shift toward a more proactive and preventative model of stewardship, passing two new laws to complement the Sherman Act.
The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 was designed to “capture anticompetitive practices in their incipiency”—that is, to spot and stop them early.31
It functioned like a field guide for park rangers, identifying specific behaviors that were known early warning signs of ecosystem decline.
Unlike the Sherman Act, it sought to prevent harm before it became a full-blown crisis by outlawing specific conduct:
- Price Discrimination (Section 2): Prohibits selling the same product to different buyers at different prices if the effect is to substantially lessen competition.33 This prevents a predator from selectively weakening one rival while leaving others alone.
- Tying and Exclusive Dealing (Section 3): Prohibits conditioning a sale on a buyer also purchasing a different product (tying) or forbidding them from dealing with competitors (exclusive dealing).33 This directly relates to my experience being forced to use a platform’s payment system. It’s the ecological equivalent of a dominant tree poisoning the soil around it so no other plants can grow.
- Mergers and Acquisitions (Section 7): Prohibits mergers that “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly”.33 This is a crucial tool for preventing a single species from consuming all its rivals.
- Interlocking Directorates (Section 8): Forbids a single person from serving on the boards of directors of two competing companies.33 This stops the formation of secret, coordinated herds.
At the same time, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which created the Federal Trade Commission, an independent agency to serve as the economy’s full-time stewards.35
The FTC was empowered to prevent “unfair methods of competition,” investigate businesses, and issue “cease and desist” orders.35
If the antitrust laws are the rules of ecosystem management, the FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are the park rangers who patrol the landscape, study its health, and intervene to keep it in balance.
Table 2: The U.S. Antitrust Toolkit: A Steward’s Guide
| Act | Ecological Purpose | Key Prohibitions | Enforcement Type |
| Sherman Act (1890) | Reactive Intervention (Stopping existing crises) | Broadly outlaws conspiracies in restraint of trade (Sec. 1) and monopolization (Sec. 2).11 | Civil & Criminal (DOJ) |
| Clayton Act (1914) | Proactive Prevention (Spotting early dangers) | Specifically targets price discrimination, tying/exclusive dealing, anti-competitive mergers, and interlocking directorates.33 | Primarily Civil (DOJ, FTC, Private Parties) |
| FTC Act (1914) | Continuous Stewardship (Ongoing monitoring & maintenance) | Broadly outlaws “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices”.35 | Administrative & Civil (FTC) |
The Digital Jungle: A New Ecosystem with Familiar Threats
This brings me back to my own struggle, and to the present day.
The digital economy is a new kind of ecosystem, one defined by powerful network effects, zero-price products, and the immense value of data.38
Yet, for all its novelty, the threats to its health are eerily familiar.
The Gilded Age titans have simply been replaced by the giants of Big Tech.41
Modern Case Study 1: The Amazon Marketplace – The Hijacked Ecosystem
For millions of small businesses, the Amazon marketplace is the entire ecosystem.
But Amazon is both the ecosystem owner and a dominant competitor within it, creating a fundamental conflict of interest.43
The stories from sellers are a litany of modern-day robber baron tactics:
- Self-Preferencing: Amazon has been found to give its own house brands and exclusive products preferential placement in search results, even over competitors with higher ratings and more sales.44 This is the keystone species clearing out the best nesting spots for itself.
- Data Exploitation: Amazon uses the sales data from third-party sellers on its platform to identify popular products, which it then copies and sells under its own brand.44 This is the ecosystem owner stealing the evolutionary adaptations of its inhabitants to outcompete them.
- High Fees and Tying: Sellers report losing an average of 30% of each sale to Amazon’s fees and feel pressured to use Amazon’s fulfillment and advertising services (Fulfillment by Amazon) to get better placement.44 This amounts to a tax for existing in the ecosystem, with extra fees for access to sunlight.
- Sabotage and Unfair Enforcement: The marketplace is rife with sabotage, where “evil sellers” hijack competitors’ listings with counterfeit goods, leave false negative reviews to trigger automatic suspensions, and tie up inventory with fake orders.45 Meanwhile, Amazon’s enforcement is often slow, opaque, and difficult for legitimate sellers to navigate, leaving them vulnerable.45
Modern Case Study 2: The Apple App Store – The Walled Garden
My own experience with Scribe is a textbook example of an unbalanced digital ecosystem.
The App Store is not a wild jungle but a meticulously managed “walled garden” where the gardener controls every aspect of life for its own benefit.
- Commissions and Tying: The mandatory 15-30% commission, combined with the requirement that developers use Apple’s In-App Purchase system for all digital goods, is a classic “tying” arrangement.1 This tactic, potentially illegal under the Clayton Act, prevents developers from competing on price and severs their direct financial relationship with their customers.
- Anti-Steering Rules: The rules that prevent developers from informing users about cheaper purchasing options on their own websites were the subject of a major lawsuit that resulted in a court injunction against Apple.2 However, developers allege that Apple engaged in malicious compliance, creating “scare screens” and imposing new fees designed to make linking out economically non-viable, thereby circumventing the spirit of the court’s order.2
- Opaque Governance: The App Review process is a black box. Rules can be vague and arbitrarily enforced, creating an environment of uncertainty and fear that chills innovation and gives the platform owner absolute power.46
- The Security Justification: Apple argues that its strict controls are necessary to protect users from fraud and ensure a safe experience, pointing to billions in fraudulent transactions it has prevented.48 While security is a legitimate goal, critics argue it also serves as a convenient justification for a system that locks in a multi-billion dollar revenue stream and stifles competition.2 This is the keystone predator claiming it must eat everything to “protect” the other animals from harm.
The parallels between the tactics of the Gilded Age and the Digital Age are not just striking; they are direct.
Table 3: Anti-competitive Tactics – Gilded Age vs. Digital Age
| Anti-competitive Goal | Gilded Age Tactic (e.g., Standard Oil) | Digital Age Tactic (e.g., Amazon, Apple) |
| Control Distribution | Securing secret, preferential rebates from railroads to lower shipping costs below rivals’.19 | Self-preferencing own products in search results; designing algorithms that favor platform services.44 |
| Eliminate Rivals (Predation) | Using predatory pricing in specific localities to drive local competitors out of business.19 | Selling products below cost to bankrupt a competitor (e.g., the Diapers.com case 44); using platform data to copy and undercut successful third-party products. |
| Exploit Dependencies (Tying) | Forcing retailers to exclusively stock Standard Oil products and not those of competitors. | Forcing app developers to use a proprietary in-app payment system with a high commission; tying marketplace visibility to the use of platform advertising and fulfillment services.2 |
| Leverage Data Advantage | Employing industrial espionage to gain intelligence on competitors’ operations and pricing. | Using proprietary data from third-party sellers to inform the launch of competing first-party products.44 |
Conclusion: Towards a Healthier Digital Ecosystem
Viewing antitrust law through the lens of ecosystem management has been a revelation.
It transforms a dry, legalistic subject into a vital, intuitive mission.
The goal is not to punish success, but to preserve the underlying conditions for economic biodiversity: fairness, resilience, and the opportunity for new ideas to take root and grow.
It is about ensuring that the keystone species of our economy play their crucial, stabilizing role, rather than distorting the environment to the point of collapse.
The current wave of antitrust lawsuits and proposed legislation targeting Big Tech is not an attack on technology or innovation.39
It is a modern, necessary effort in ecosystem management.
It is an attempt by society’s stewards to rebalance a digital ecosystem that has become dangerously top-heavy, concentrated, and uncompetitive, threatening the very innovation it was built upon.
My personal story did not end with Scribe becoming a billion-dollar company.
It ended with something more valuable: empowered understanding.
By seeing my struggle not as an isolated business failure but as a symptom of a systemic imbalance, I found a new purpose.
I realized I was not alone.
I joined with other developers in class-action lawsuits and began advocating for reform.2
My success is this transformation—from a powerless victim of a rigged game to an informed advocate for a healthier, more equitable digital ecosystem for the next generation of innovators.
The fight is not over, but now, at least, I understand the map of the jungle and the tools we have to restore its balance.
Works cited
- Developers sue Apple amid ongoing battle over app store commissions – Texas Standard, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/apple-in-app-commissions-lawsuit/
- Apple App Store Injunction Violation Class Action – Hagens Berman, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/apple-app-store-injunction-violation
- SMBs’ Pain Points In Working With Big Tech (And How To Fix Them), accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/05/02/smbs-pain-points-in-working-with-big-tech-and-how-to-fix-them/
- Ecosystem management – Wikipedia, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_management
- Ecosystem Management – Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory – Colorado State University, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.nrel.colostate.edu/research/ecosystem-management/
- www.ebsco.com, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/environmental-sciences/keystone-species#:~:text=Keystone%20species%20are%20essential%20organisms,often%20resulting%20in%20decreased%20biodiversity.
- What are Keystone Species | Prairie Nursery, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.prairienursery.com/resources-guides/what-are-keystone-species/
- Keystone species | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/environmental-sciences/keystone-species
- Keystone species – Wikipedia, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species
- A Framework for Ecosystem Management In the Interior Columbia …, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr374.pdf
- Sherman Antitrust Act – Wikipedia, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
- What is Ecosystem Management? – National Service Training Program (NSTP), accessed on August 11, 2025, https://trees4life181194531.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/ecosystem-management-2/
- Seven Pillars of Ecosystem Management – AWS, accessed on August 11, 2025, http://osu-wams-blogs-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs.dir/2961/files/2017/07/37.-Seven-Pillars-of-Ecosystem-Management.pdf
- The Antitrust Laws | Federal Trade Commission, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
- www.rbhayes.org, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.rbhayes.org/research/hayes-historical-journal-the-gilded-age-in-american-history/#:~:text=The%20most%20important%20and%20most,economy%20had%20hitherto%20been%20constructed.
- Hayes Historical Journal: The Gilded Age in American History, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.rbhayes.org/research/hayes-historical-journal-the-gilded-age-in-american-history/
- Overview of the Gilded Age – Digital History, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraid=9&smtid=1
- Targeting the Trusts | US History II (American Yawp) – Lumen Learning, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2ay/chapter/targeting-the-trusts-2/
- Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911) – U.S. Conlawpedia – sites@gsu, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/standard-oil-co-of-new-jersey-v-united-states-1911/
- Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States – Wikipedia, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
- www.britannica.com, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Sherman-Antitrust-Act#:~:text=The%20Sherman%20Antitrust%20Act%20was,commerce%20in%20the%20United%20States.
- Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) | National Archives, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act
- ArtI.S8.C3.5.1 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Sugar Trust Case – Constitution Annotated, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-5-1/ALDE_00013407/
- Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911) | Wex – Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standard_oil_co._of_new_jersey_v._united_states_(1911)
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States – Oyez, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/221us1
- Standard Oil Co. v. United States | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/standard-oil-co-v-united-states
- U.S. Supreme Court Breaks Up the American Tobacco Company – EBSCO, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/us-supreme-court-breaks-american-tobacco-company
- United States v. American Tobacco Company – NCpedia, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.ncpedia.org/united-states-v-american-tobacco-co
- United States v. American Tobacco Co. – Wikipedia, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Tobacco_Co.
- Antitrust law basics – Section 1 of the Sherman Act – Thomson Reuters Legal Solutions, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/antitrust-law-basics-section-1-of-the-sherman-act/
- en.wikipedia.org, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914#:~:text=The%20Clayton%20Act%20made%20both,interest%20of%20a%20competitive%20market.
- Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 – Wikipedia, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914
- Clayton Antitrust Act | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clayton_antitrust_act
- Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914: History, Amendments, Significance – Investopedia, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.asp
- en.wikipedia.org, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914
- Our History | Federal Trade Commission, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/history
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC) | Wex – Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federal_trade_commission_(ftc)
- Antitrust Concerns in Digital Markets, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.bruegel.org/event/antitrust-concerns-digital-markets
- Antitrust Enforcement Trends in the Digital Economy | Covington & Burling LLP, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2023/03/antitrust-enforcement-trends-in-the-digital-economy
- Competition and digital economy – OECD, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/competition-and-digital-economy.html
- Antitrust Reform in the Digital Era: A Skeptical Perspective, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://businesslawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/antitrust-reform-digital-era-skeptical-perspective
- Antitrust Reform in the Digital Era: A Skeptical Perspective – Chicago Unbound, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=ucblr
- New Scientific Opinion Poll: Small Business Owners Experience Unlevel Playing Field with Large Companies and Big Tech, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://smallbusinessmajority.org/press-release/new-scientific-opinion-poll-small-business-owners-experience-unlevel-playing-field-large-companies-and-big-tech
- Big Tech’s Main Street Squeeze — Main Street Against Big Tech, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.mainstreetagainstbigtech.org/storybook
- The Dangers Of Selling On Amazon And Horror Stories From Real …, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://mywifequitherjob.com/the-dangers-of-selling-on-amazon/
- App Review Guidelines – Apple Developer, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- App Review – Distribute – Apple Developer, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://developer.apple.com/distribute/app-review/
- The App Store prevented more than $9 billion in fraudulent transactions – Apple, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/05/the-app-store-prevented-more-than-9-billion-usd-in-fraudulent-transactions/
- Home | Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc., accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.smallappdeveloperassistance.com/
