This is a pretty crap article...
In the first instance (and as discussed at overly great length above), the situation at Hamley's wasn't an example of artificial scarcity. It's an example of actual scarcity, backed up by an anecdotal claim of "my mate said they had loads in the storeroom" anecdotal tale.
Secondly, what Apple is doing is not quite the same as what Google are doing, and in neither case are they doing the sort of "artificial scarcity" behaviour which was allegedly seen at Hamleys.
E.g. Apple's App Store is essentially a monopoly where they get to both control what is published and take a cut of the revenue.
They're not walking up to any third party developer and demanding that they raise the price of their software - and/or restrict access to said software to specific people or hardware. They do restrict what type of content you can put in the App Store - especially if it competes with their own software - but that's a different issue altogether!
So that ain't artificial scarcity.
Meanwhile, Google and Facebook are republishing other people's content, effectively for free. So again, this isn't artificial scarcity - if anything, it's exactly the opposite!
In truth, in Apple's case, I'm somewhat grudgingly on their side. For me, the best analogy of the App Store is a shopping mall; anyone can submit an application to open a shop and sell their wares, but it's the owner of the shopping mall who decides whether or not to grant that application. And the shop owner will then have to pay for the privilege of having their shop and wares within said shopping mall.
I'm aware that things are a bit more complex than in the above scenario - i.e. Apple is taking a per-sale cut, rather than just charging a fixed rent - but fundamentally, the App Store is hosted on Apple's infrastructure and is used to sell apps which run on Apple's OS, which is running on Apple's hardware.
It's Apple all the way down, and given that they're not at the monopoly level where splitting them up into a new set of Baby Bells seems appropriate, I'm struggling to see why they shouldn't be able to set the rules and prices for people wanting access to their eco-system.
Admittedly, it doesn't help that it feels like Epic is distinctly dodgy, in and of itself; they've been using the money from Fortnite (and their chinese owners) to try and disrupt the video game market; first by challenging Steam and launching their own app store, and then by doing things like giving away high-value games for free (e.g. GTA5) and buying exclusive access to new titles (e.g. Outer Worlds).
And those activities - market dumping and actual artificial scarcity - are the sort of thing which tend to get the attention of government agencies. But for now, as they're an "underdog" (albeit one which is 40% owned by a $69 billion chinese company) versus Steam and Apple, they're getting a bit more free rein.
(Even then, I suppose you can argue that both Sony and Microsoft are also offering free games to people who subscribe to their services, and also tend to buy exclusive/timed access to third party products. As do other companies, such as Gamestop. But Epic has been a lot more aggressive in their behaviour. Still, there's always shades of grey...)
Google and Facebook? There, I'm more on the other side, though there's definite concerns about the long term ramifications, as well as the wider picture as regards IP laws. E.g. as other people have pointed out, the main beneficiary of what's going on in Australia will be Rupert Murdoch and his properties, not some mythical plucky individual writers and publishers!