For the sake of this publication, I hope that they got paid by Google (in money or favours) for this rambling low-quality "article".
A dominant position in an open market with zero lock-in, is completely inconsequential to antitrust laws. Unless nefarious behaviour is alleged, it just means the product (and/or the branding) is superior.
Can anyone replace a Koala product with an alternative, without suffering any repercussion? Yes. Can anyone build a bathroom without buying from Koala? Also yes. Will your bathroom continue to work if you remove a Koala product? Still yes. Are consumers or businesses suffering from this market dominance? Not really (I guess Koala can command slightly premium prices, but we're talking plastic building supplies here - the margins will likely be pretty low already).
> Can anyone build a bathroom without buying from Koala?
Can you? I ask, because I legitimately don't know - The article mentions the Baby Act that mandates a change table in public restrooms, so you MUST have a change table - and that change table MUST meet some safety standards. What I do know is that regulatory capture is a quiet activity that can be done through many mechanisms.
What are the safety regulations around baby changing stations and who writes them? If anything, this article hasn't made me feel more fuzzy towards Google, but makes me ask "why does Koala Care have such a large market share?"
If making a change table is as easy as some plastic, some straps and a bolting assembly surely someone can make a product just as good for the same or less price. However, that clearly isn't the case, which makes me question what is the regulatory landscape for approval of change tables and who approves them?
The change stations are decades old technology so I don't think there could be any real regulatory capture because the core patents related to this invention have expired by this point.
A dominant position in an open market with zero lock-in, is completely inconsequential to antitrust laws. Unless nefarious behaviour is alleged, it just means the product (and/or the branding) is superior.
Can anyone replace a Koala product with an alternative, without suffering any repercussion? Yes. Can anyone build a bathroom without buying from Koala? Also yes. Will your bathroom continue to work if you remove a Koala product? Still yes. Are consumers or businesses suffering from this market dominance? Not really (I guess Koala can command slightly premium prices, but we're talking plastic building supplies here - the margins will likely be pretty low already).
This has nothing to do with big-tech cases.