Is Incompetence An Excuse?

This article from Vox has got to be the most curious take from a publisher that I've ever read.  Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster are two of the biggest remaining publishing houses.  Out of what was once dozens of publishing houses, only five big ones remain.  In fact, there used to be six until Penguin and Random House merged into Penguin Random House.  Now Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster are looking to merge, thus reducing the total "big" houses to four.  However, the Justice Department is seeking to prevent the merger, calling it anti-competitive and trending towards monopolistic practices.  The suit argues that, "Authors are the lifeblood of book publishing.  Penguin Random House’s proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster would result in substantial harm to authors, particularly authors of anticipated top-selling books."

One of the strangest things in this case, though, is the argument put forth by Penguin Random House is that the industry is chaotic and that success is so random that no one company could possibly control enough market to control the chaos.  In essence, they're arguing that their business sense is too incompetent to make this an anti-competitive practice.

What bullshit.

By continuing to merge into larger and larger companies, the publishing houses have a stranglehold not just on the customer market, but on which authors get selected to publish.  Yes, indie books have made great strides over the last decade, but the vast majority of books are still published by one of the "Big 5" houses.  These houses are so large and control so much of the market that there is no realistic way for a new imprint to compete.  It's like Rumble trying to make a play for YouTube - great in theory, but since YouTube has such a large market share, Rumble isn't really a competitor(most people haven't even heard of Rumble, let alone used it).  This consolidation gives virtual control over what succeeds and what doesn't.  While I agree that success is never guaranteed, and I've argued repeatedly that a novel must actually be good to succeed, it's almost impossible to break in without massive resources currently controlled by the Big 5.  And further consolidation gives them a vice grip on who can and can't get in, meaning that the publisher, rather than the market, gets to decide.

To me, this sounds less like going for efficiency and more like trying to enact dictatorial control over the industry.  Is that good for customers...or authors?  I think it will eventually harm what is out there, because why would a publisher look to be more competitive when there's no competition?