There are several comments in this thread that are well-intentioned and more or less on the right track. There are also a few that are quite problematic. I felt compelled to come make the point that--maybe this is obvious to some, but not to others--poverty is not a valid reason for child protective services to seek to remove a child from their parents. Here in the US, there are thousands of children who are homeless with their parents, and it isn't because they are skirting under the radar of social services. As long as the child is not being abused or neglected, and the parents are doing what is necessary to see they are clothed and fed, it is widely accepted that is always in the child's best interests to remain with their parent(s). Outside of imminent danger, even the most abject crushing levels of poverty are not an excuse to take someone's child from them.
--Source: I have worked as a Guardian ad Litem since 2008 and my mother is the director of a county department of social services, formerly the director the department's child protective services.
I will have to do some searching to grab a screen cap, but I can tell you that Yelp explicitly advertised a paid "feature" to small businesses like mine to hide competitors from top search results in exchange for a fee. I don't know that empirical proof of systemic abusive behavior and antitrust violations would necessarily be useful here. They are clearly employing tactics that actively damage open competition and informed consumer choice, and even anecdotal evidence of that is justification for regulatory movement to stop it.
--Source: I have worked as a Guardian ad Litem since 2008 and my mother is the director of a county department of social services, formerly the director the department's child protective services.