You don't even need Amazon Holdings to own them, the same results can happen from regular old business partnerships. Maybe the government can forbid new deals b

You don't even need Amazon Holdings to own them, the same results can happen from regular old business partnerships. Maybe the government can forbid new deals between the offshoots, but that just creates middlemen. Or maybe ADiapers isn't viable on its own, so Amazon forms a deal with BDiapers instead, but the same net result happens. (Product placement deals are commonplace.) In the worst case you get the same anti-competitive behavior, where Amazon and BDiapers form a partnership where Amazon subsidizes BDiapers to kill off the diaper competition and then gets paid back after BDiapers jacks up prices. The government could put a stop to that too (and does occasionally stop anti-competitive practices of various sorts) even though there's no single company to breakup. There are other methods than breakup to strongarm companies into doing things. So why not use them instead of all this mess that would result from breaking up Amazon? Especially if we can't even show their diaper venture was particularly effective in anti-competitive goals? We don't even need to invent a diaper business, we have the whole Amazon Basics line as well as their Amazon hardware to analyze. Those do get preferential treatment, yet other in-kind hardware and products still show up and sometimes do better anyway (Energizer is #1 in 9V batteries), plus the alternatives have the larger share (majority) of non-Amazon commerce locations where they don't compete with Amazon. They may compete with store-brands of those places of course. Meanwhile for customers, the top 3 most trusted brands in America are USPS, Amazon, and Google. This talk is not about what the public wants or what's good for the public at all.