user124599: If so, that would make it possible for that same node to have 1 very well funded inbound channel with only 1 other node that they also own and price gouge fees to route payment to them through this one connection.
For example, let's say that the company is a major financial institution, service provider or retailer with a high market demand. The company then creates a Lightning node (call this node A), and node A has only 1 inbound channel for billions of USD in SATs with only 1 other node (node B) on the network, which the company also owns/controls. The company then forcibly denies all incoming open_channel requests to node A, and only allows and/or advertises connections with node B. Users then have to connect to node B to route payments to node A for products or services. The company then jacks up the fees to route through node B forcing all users that send money to them to go through node B and pay this exorbitant price. Since the company is very widely used and popular in the market, demand for their services is high. Thus, consumers would be forced into paying a crazy fee until a competing service enters the market. Given the large amounts of capital available to this company, the cost of closing / opening a channel between the nodes is not a large concern give how cheap that on-chain txn is in comparison to the profit in fees.
Is this scenario possible? If so, is anything being done to mitigate it? If not, why?
What would prevent a company from doing this other than bad publicity?

user101498: Yes, it is technically possible.
But it seems to be more of an economic question rather than a technical one. Ultimately it is answered by the question: "how high a fee are buyers ready to pay?".
This has nothing to do with Lightning, or Bitcoin in particular. Hidden fees are everywhere.

124599: <p>If so, that would make it possible for that same node to have 1 very well funded inbound channel with only 1 other node that they also own and price gouge fees to route payment to them through this one connection.</p>
<p>For example, let's say that the company is a major financial institution, service provider or retailer with a high market demand. The company then creates a Lightning node (call this node A), and node A has only 1 inbound channel for billions of USD in SATs with only 1 other node (node B) on the network, which the company also owns/controls. The company then forcibly denies all incoming <code>open_channel</code> requests to node A, and only allows and/or advertises connections with node B. Users then have to connect to node B to route payments to node A for products or services. The company then jacks up the fees to route through node B forcing all users that send money to them to go through node B and pay this exorbitant price. Since the company is very widely used and popular in the market, demand for their services is high. Thus, consumers would be forced into paying a crazy fee until a competing service enters the market. Given the large amounts of capital available to this company, the cost of closing / opening a channel between the nodes is not a large concern give how cheap that on-chain txn is in comparison to the profit in fees.</p>
<p>Is this scenario possible? If so, is anything being done to mitigate it? If not, why?
What would prevent a company from doing this other than bad publicity?</p>
 101498: <p>Yes, it is technically possible.</p>
<p>But it seems to be more of an economic question rather than a technical one. Ultimately it is answered by the question: &quot;how high a fee are buyers ready to pay?&quot;.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with Lightning, or Bitcoin in particular. Hidden fees are everywhere.</p>
