Post-Soviet capitalism has evolved for nearly 35 years, yet disputes between businessmen still spiral into conflicts, coercion, media uproar, and staged court battles. The market model where associations, unions, and trade groups represent party interests remains a distant ideal in this context.
Entrepreneurs resemble quarrelsome partners who get stuck in the same destructive pattern, so resistant to change that conflicts often bubble up to the highest level of decision-making.
Rifts are forming in the online commerce sector. On July 10, the President signed the Antitrust Restrictions on Digital Platforms Act, aiming to calm marketplace volatility. Online trading platforms, acting on their own, levied fines and penalties on merchants and pressured them to participate in promotions. It is commendable that the government seeks to safeguard small and micro enterprises, but in many other nations such decisions are driven by professional associations rather than political leaders.
Leaders in government have long managed broader duties beyond shielding sellers of inexpensive Chinese apparel from marketplace owners. Even two years ago, Russia saw a rapid, smooth resolution path through the Federal Antimonopoly Service, the prosecutor’s office, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, and deputies. Today, the state signals stronger protection for small businesses, a response to global political and economic instability, giving Russians a sense of steadiness and the ability to plan ahead.
The law’s journey reveals a troubled history: a year and a half of vendor, distribution point, and warehouse worker strikes; marketplace greed escalated to a point where, during fighting in Belgorod Shebekino, Wildberries evacuated workers and fined them for leaving their posts. In response, marketplace workers on a national scale engaged in mass theft, damage to goods, and substitution with cheaper alternatives, creating a troubling pattern across the country.
From September 1 onward, marketplaces themselves will face intensified government scrutiny. The signing of the law means all participants in online commerce must recognize that no violation will go unpunished.
In practice, all sides breached fair-trade rules: marketplaces compelled sellers to slash prices by as much as 80% to attract buyers, risking the viability of many sellers. Sellers displayed unsold stock under the guise of new shipments, while stores boasted higher rankings through deceptive reviews. Tax practices were part of the game as well, and platforms became a source of revenue for thousands of scammers. In a short span, Russian online commerce looked like a nationwide relic from a chaotic era.
Across the world, and in Russia in theory, free markets rely on supply, demand, and corporate advocacy. Unions advocate for workers’ rights, small-business associations challenge large platforms, and marketplace owners in their own circles pursue profit rather than burning vendors. Some Russian marketplace owners acted with a bold, reckless mindset, prompting complaints to State Duma deputies. Those less familiar with the intricacies of the market often end up sorting things out for everyone, as is typical in such disputes.
It becomes essential to note that some rules in the new law remain vague. For example, it is unclear whether a marketplace that creates a network effect—bringing together many buyers and sellers—will raise advertising costs or push prices to unsustainably low levels for sellers. Before the law, the network effect hinged on transaction volume. From September 1, the ability to exert a decisive influence on the market will be a key criterion.
Experts will gauge impact strength using established criteria. An objective, professional, and independent evaluation is expected. Yet it remains unclear how to treat the previous method that counted transactions. Will it still be used if not canceled? The new law does not disclose this. It is also uncertain when authorities will assess network impact by transaction counts, when to measure determinant impact, and what methods will drive the choice.
The signing of this law targets the largest players. The era when marketplaces could profit at the expense of ordinary vendors appears to be ending. Marketplace operators have tempered their appetite, a shift driven by the need to curb abuses and align with regulatory expectations.
This shift may reflect both profit-driven motives and a broader impulse to act decisively—perhaps a mix of both. Had certain websites not taken aggressive stances against thousands of vendors during special operations, they might have continued operating under their own rules without attracting official attention. Sellers would likely accept fines and promotional participation, of course. But when a business climate becomes intolerant of excessive penalties during regulatory actions, even the most loyal state apparatus may redirect its focus toward enforcement and oversight.
The author’s viewpoint presented here may differ from editors’ positions, and it reflects a personal interpretation rather than a stated editorial stance.