I don't want to speak for anyone, but I think the idea is more akin to conspiracy to commit murder or something. Maybe driving while intoxicated? The target of

I don't want to speak for anyone, but I think the idea is more akin to conspiracy to commit murder or something. Maybe driving while intoxicated? The target of the murder shouldn't have to be murdered for there to be some grounds for a lawsuit. Similarly, you might arrest someone for driving while intoxicated even though they haven't done any actual damage to person or property. Along these lines, I think the idea is that someone shouldn't have to show specific demonstrable harms that have already occurred in cases of antitrust. It's a gray area but it seems like with some things, harm should be implied or something to be avoided?