The FTC Is pretty clear[0] on what constitutes anti-competitive behvior, and a monopoly alone is not anti-competitive. Quote from the linked page: "Section 2

The FTC Is pretty clear[0] on what constitutes anti-competitive behvior, and a monopoly alone is not anti-competitive. Quote from the linked page: "Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods." So under their definition of anticompetitive monopoly behavior[1] (which is actually illegal). They call out that behavior with valid business justification (my own example: protecting their brand) is fine, even if it restricts competition. Side note: today I learned a new word! "Duopoly" (a market controlled by two players). Monopoly law _does_ apply to duopolies[1]. * [0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... * [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...