I don't think it's that simple. You guys are talking as if Lorillard is going to run a monopoly, or establish an effective monopoly through regulations. That battle has been fought, caught up in legislations for years, and lost, by other giant corporations.
It's not a matter of a monopoly. It's a matter of an oligopoly. A few big players who dominate a market segment. It happens in all kinds of industries, health insurance and oil, to name just two. A corporation lobbies for legislation that favors itself at the expense of as many other competitors as it can.
American legislature doesn't like obvious monopolies. On either side of the aisle. And american legislature loves small business - also on both sides of the isle. Not because they are well-intentioned (who knows), but because it is always politically expedient. It's popular to bash large corporations.
Politicians pay lip service to small business. Small business isn't who pours millions into Crossroads GPS Super Pac. Small business isn't who supports the USCoC or ALEC.. The Koch brothers aren't small business. No, they like HUGE business. They don't like the appearance of obvious monopolies, but they flat refuse to invoke the anti-trust laws. They much prefer to have a few big players operating under a hundred different names so the illusion of a free market is maintained but they only have to beg for campaign bribes from a limited number of benefactors. When were the anti-trust laws last enforced? What is the Big 8 in accounting now, the Big 3? Five health ins. companies write 80% of all the insurance in the country under hundreds of different names. How many airlines dominate the majority of that market? The radio market is dominated by 3 giant media conglomerates where hundreds of independent stations existed just 20 years ago. A half dozen media conglomerates control 80% of every newspaper, book, movie, TV show and magazine in the country. I could go on and on in every industrial segment from agriculture to retailing. The most common phrase in the English language is "A subsidiary of". It's not corporation bashing. They've had full reign over the last 30 years and they've shown their true nature.
You are also forgetting that Lorillard has competition from Chinese companies that are very well financed.
I'm not talking about Lorillard dominating the market. I'm talking about them using their influence to eliminate the e-cigs as a viable business for anyone but the most well capitalized corporations. I'm quite sure they'd be perfectly satisfied to be one of a half-dozen players, including Chinese ones, if necessary. The Chinese companies don't have the legislative or regulatory clout that an American company does.
The game may have become different, and certainly there is a danger to small companies - but at the same time there is less danger of outright vaping bans.
There was no danger of outright bans in the first place, not since the latest court rulings. You cannot ban a tobacco product and that's been settled law or a decade. Where was Lorillard's CEO's enthusiasm for e-cigs when SA and Joye were battling the FDA to keep e-cigs from being classified as drugs? Where was BT then I'll tell you where they were. They were in the gallery with BP, cheering on the FDA. Now that the dust has settled and they can't squash them permanently, they want a cut of the action. And there is a lot of danger to small companies. Lorillard will be an ally to any efforts to consolidate this otherwise diverse and fragmented industry. They may be targeting new vapers with the Blu, but they cannot survive for long unless they get repeat business. Their best shot at repeat business is to make it expensive and inconvenient, if not impossible, for a Blu vaper to upgrade. They don't want a Blu vaper to try an eGo, ever. If there's anything they can do to prevent it, they'll sure as hell do it. And that includes proposing and supporting regulations.
There's no upside. Lorillard has nothing to contribute to this industry. That ship sailed when e-cigs were declared tobacco products. There can be no ban, so they can't help prevent one. They don't benefit from any legislation that favors e-cigs over cigarettes regarding smoking bans. They can only benefit from strict control of cartridges and juice. Lorillard has nothing to offer the future of e-cigs. They benefit from the strictest regulation possible, just like the liquor industry and the pharmaceutical industry benefits from strict regulation.
Food industry is regulated. Heavily. That doesn't mean that there is no place for small farmers or restaurants. It's too early to jump to conclusions.
No,food is not regulated heavily. Production facilities are regulated. Food serving facilities are regulated. And, in fact, there is little room for small farmers and small independent restaurants, both of which have been in decline for decades. But that's a different situation not caused by regulations. Those regulations pertain to sanitation and health, predominately. Food is not considered a regulated industry, like nuclear or energy or transportation or finance or tobacco. This isn't even a legitimate comparison. No corporation lobbies for regulations against the sale and use of certain competing food. Egg producers have nothing to gain by attempting to impose onerous restrictions on milk producers.
What I think is an absolute necessity however - and immediately - is for the current actors in the industry to form a professional association of some kind.
And like other regulated industries, the big dogs will dominate and connive and conspire to cut out those below them in the pecking order, using their influence on regulatory legislation.
