I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of a consumer's options. Is your argument that I should have the fortitude and knowledge to opt out of coercive economic relationships? Why should I, as the consumer, bare the brunt of the responsibility for holding a corporation responsible for their misdeeds when they utilize their scale and volume to nullified my actions? Do I, as an individual, have any sway over corporate decision making when my fellow consumers do not have that fortitude or knowledge?
I do not agree that every scenario of corporate abuse should fall on the consumer to hold the corporation accountable because we are on unequal footing. This is regardless of the product being offered. These particular companies are taking advantage of shell games to keep customers in the dark on how they are being abused. I, as a simple consumer, withdrawing my dollars have no weight on the scale.
You really should read up on how Pearl Jam tried to fight Ticket Master in the 90s and lost popularity because they were effectively unable to host a show for years.
If Pearl Jam wasn't able to defeat Ticket Master, I find it laughable that you think individual consumers have any more weight in this matter.
Know what effect it has had on them? That's right, zero. As consumers, we're not even gnats on an elephant's toenail in our ability to affect the outcome. Maybe you'd like to brainstorm another solution.
If they are breaking the law, the government should throw the book at them and yea they should have done it long ago, but also people should stop giving money to a company they hate, regardless of whether they are a monopoly.