I am a strong opponent of monopolies, but I frankly look at this instance of two non-monopolies in different markets agreeing to selective sales as not that. Apple continues to be a small, but significant player, in PCs, and a large but highly competed player in smart phones (against Google/Samsung etc). Samsung is the largest electronics supplier in the world and Google's Android is on many more platforms.
Amazon in the retail market is not dominant in retail. There are lots of competitors. And Amazon is certainly not dominant in server farms (AWS). I read over the actual law suit and it awfully looks exactly like the particular hatred I have of lawyers looking to enrich themselves.
Now, if you wanted to make up that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products, well, OK. But why is that a monopoly? And that Amazon has a monopoly on online retail, I might understand that a little better, but it is an open market. They are certainly not the cheapest way to buy things and there always seems to be another place to buy something cheaper.
Outside of revenge or some other kind of motivated hatred, I don't get it. My motivation on those class action vultures is that everytime I've participated I see something like a check for $1.43. While they walk away with millions of dollars in retail fees. If we were to admit the truth that lawyers are a monopoly, then we should bust them up. Right?
Next think I expect to read is about how Tesla is a monopoly. That's just wrong. These guys are all just plainly successful businesses because they earned it with great products in highly competitive markets.