Who Watches the Watchmen? Monopolization of Modern Comic Book Distribution

[...]despite Marvel Comic's ("Marvel") attempt to self-distribute its comics, Diamond's aggressive tactics ultimately prevailed allowing it to gain control of the vast majority of comic book distribution in the U.S. Other distributors panicked after being cut off from Marvel, one of the two largest comic book publishers, and scrambled to nail down DC Comics ("DC") to an exclusive distribution deal to stave off ruin. [...]the Department of Justice's decision not to charge Diamond with violating antitrust laws allowed the company to maintain, expand, and cement its hold on the comic book industry. According to Robert Bork, the modern goal of antitrust law in the U.S. is the protection of consumer welfare.77 Other antitrust scholars see this goal, espoused by the Supreme Court in Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.™ as striving to maximize all consumers' welfare within society.79 This goal should drive every antitrust suit that comes before any court, especially a suit against Diamond. Diamond would be able to exploit its inclusion in a far larger market to appear far weaker.86 The DOJ improperly defined the relevant product market as all book distribution in its 2000 investigation of Diamond.87 This overbroad definition allowed Diamond to argue that because it faced large-scale competitors within the book distribution market it could not have established a powerful monopoly position.88 The insurmountable power that it held within the comic book distribution market appeared inconsequential compared to the traditional book distributors' market power at the time.89 By defining the relevant product market so broadly, the DOJ directly perpetuated Diamond's extensive power within the comic book distribution market. [...]to avoid this same mistake, a plaintiff should demonstrate to the court that the proper relevant product market at issue is not traditional book distribution but comic book distribution. 2.