Antitrust is designed to protect consumers, not downstream firms. Restraints on trade are only illegal if they are 'unreasonable' in the sense that they are viewed as likely to lead to long-run harm for consumers.
To some extent, it is a company's job to 'harm' suppliers, sellers and competitors.
It may well be possible to tell a compelling story that this is an unreasonable constraint (I'm not an expert on US case law). I just find it interesting that so many complaints on the topic fail to directly articulate the theory of harm for consumers.
Protecting downstream firms (in aggregate), also protects consumers. From the site you linked to:
"to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up."
Ok so explain that process without hand waving then! There are plenty of cases of bundling that are 1) Allowed to operate under scrutiny of competition authorities 2) Can be theoretically/empirically justified on efficiency grounds. The emphasis is on you to demonstrate that this is not the case if you are arguing that the constraint is unreasonable. This is the basis of modern antitrust enforcement.
To some extent, it is a company's job to 'harm' suppliers, sellers and competitors.
It may well be possible to tell a compelling story that this is an unreasonable constraint (I'm not an expert on US case law). I just find it interesting that so many complaints on the topic fail to directly articulate the theory of harm for consumers.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...