Certainly, writing that is simpler than writing out the reasons behind 3 separate events. But I think Occam’s razor is more about actual simplicity, and would cut against arguing that there was an elaborate conspiracy that involves multiple large companies acting against their own interests.

"Simpler" is subjective and sort of beside the point of Occam's razor. The razor is about choosing the competing hypothesis with the fewest assumptions baked in.

"When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras." A massively orchestrated conspiracy requires a lot of assumptions and so probably violates the razor.

"Someone" said it and all these people listened? You're going to need more evidence than that.

Except you're missing the explanation as to why all of the actors have a reason to listen to that person. That's where things stop being simple.

I'm not sure that's more simple than different groups taking different actions for their own reasons.