The Doordash acquisition of Instacart increases competition. You are missing something fundamental if you think "2 services becoming one means less competition."
Doordash attempted to buy Instacart in 2021 for $40-50B dollars. Since then Instacart has lost market share and value, and Doordash is now acquiring them for $17B.
The real competitors to Doordash and Instacart for grocery delivery are not each other. The competitors are Walmart, Amazon, and local grocery chains (Meijer, Kroger, etc). And guess what? These competitors are winning. Amazon, Walmart, and Kroger alone comprise a majority of grocery delivery (~64% in 2025, per an emarketer FAQ on digital groceries).
Has nothing to do with monopolies, having the market slowly condense into one mega company does not create competition and results in higher prices for the consumer.
You don't have to have an absolute monopoly. Microsoft was punished for anti-competitive actions in the 90s when it bundled its Internet Explorer browser into Windows.
Even though other browsers existed, like Netscape Navigator etc, Microsoft was still found guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and guilty of anti-competitive action, both in the US and elsewhere.
Microsoft was forced to create a version of Windows without IE bundled, and other corrective actions.
To this day while I welcome anti-trust legislation, I don't understand how a "free" thing can be anti-consumer. Both Microsoft and Netscape were not "charging" the customer for this product. While it could be argued the product may generated revenue, the purpose of anti-trust in general is to stop something that negatively affects consumers.
Now the food industry would be my best example that needs more anti-trust. All of my organic brands have been bought out by Conagra Brands. There's no competition.
I would also agree that this specific acquisition is not going to be helpful for consumers.
Monopolies are not illegal, anti-competitive practices are illegal; there's a subtle difference.
You're right. Duopolies aren't great either and just because two companies are in fierce competition doesn't mean everything is good with the law. Both companies might be engaging in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
The Doordash acquisition of Instacart increases competition. You are missing something fundamental if you think "2 services becoming one means less competition."
Doordash attempted to buy Instacart in 2021 for $40-50B dollars. Since then Instacart has lost market share and value, and Doordash is now acquiring them for $17B.
The real competitors to Doordash and Instacart for grocery delivery are not each other. The competitors are Walmart, Amazon, and local grocery chains (Meijer, Kroger, etc). And guess what? These competitors are winning. Amazon, Walmart, and Kroger alone comprise a majority of grocery delivery (~64% in 2025, per an emarketer FAQ on digital groceries).
> increases competition. You are missing something fundamental if you think "2 services becoming one means less competition."
"When there are fewer competitors it means there's increased competition" is quite the take.
> The real competitors to Doordash and Instacart for grocery delivery are not each other.
Together they will have ~80% of the market.
>"When there are fewer competitors it means there's increased competition" is quite the take.
I think it's quite obvious that mergers can increase competition. Especially when you read the rest of my comment. Can you steelman what I'm saying?
>Together they will have ~80% of the market.
Are you mixing restaurant delivery (~60% for doordash) with grocery delivery (~20% for instacart)? Those are different market shares.
It doesn’t seem like they have monopoly here given how big Uber Eats is?
Has nothing to do with monopolies, having the market slowly condense into one mega company does not create competition and results in higher prices for the consumer.
Isn't that what monopolies are known for??
Aka monopolies...
You don't have to have an absolute monopoly. Microsoft was punished for anti-competitive actions in the 90s when it bundled its Internet Explorer browser into Windows.
Even though other browsers existed, like Netscape Navigator etc, Microsoft was still found guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and guilty of anti-competitive action, both in the US and elsewhere.
Microsoft was forced to create a version of Windows without IE bundled, and other corrective actions.
To this day while I welcome anti-trust legislation, I don't understand how a "free" thing can be anti-consumer. Both Microsoft and Netscape were not "charging" the customer for this product. While it could be argued the product may generated revenue, the purpose of anti-trust in general is to stop something that negatively affects consumers.
Now the food industry would be my best example that needs more anti-trust. All of my organic brands have been bought out by Conagra Brands. There's no competition.
I would also agree that this specific acquisition is not going to be helpful for consumers.
11 replies →
A duopoly isn't great, either.
Monopolies are not illegal, anti-competitive practices are illegal; there's a subtle difference.
You're right. Duopolies aren't great either and just because two companies are in fierce competition doesn't mean everything is good with the law. Both companies might be engaging in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
6 replies →