I'd have to disagree. Perceived vendor lock-in makes it very easy to manipulate customers into transactions that they'd not prefer, but to which they still agr

I'd have to disagree. Perceived vendor lock-in makes it very easy to manipulate customers into transactions that they'd not prefer, but to which they still agree because they don't see any other choice. Note that I say "perceived", because the vendor lock-in doesn't need to be real for this to happen. Of course, there are many cases where the vendor lock-in is real too. Subprime loans sounded like a great idea, but the homeowners never realized that they couldn't afford them. And then once they had them, they couldn't get out. You may place all of this kind of stuff under deceitful advertising. But nobody is forcing customers to agree to transactions that are based on deceitful advertising. The transaction is completely voluntary, if perhaps misleading or fraudulent. If 3rd parties could not determine how much utility was gained from a transaction, doesn't it follow that 3rd parties also cannot determine how much damage was done from a transaction, if the damage is not easily materially quantifiable? Because if so, that throws out the whole basis for legitimate class action lawsuits, etc, where judgments for punitive damages and the like are determined by people who were not involved in the transaction.