What's weird, and thus has always confused me, is that shareholders are likely to end up RICHER. In all cases of monopoly breakups in the past, the separate companies end up being worth more than the original conglomerate. Why resist?! Rockefeller became the richest man in history after the breakup of Standard Oil.
that hinges on whatever company being broken up actually being a monopoly, because monopolies are sub-optimal institutions for maximum growth and consumer/shareholder value.
i'll remind folks that whatever the DOJ + courts decide doesn't necessarily mean it's actually true, in an economic sense. It may or may not be. edit: It could be true in a matter of law or public perception, but it could easily not be in terms of economic impact, as these are different things. IIRC the case against Google and other big tech relies on some novel interpretations of harm, which may or may not be valid in hindsight.
edit to add: that is to say, standard oil and bell are examples of antitrust delivering massive consumer AND shareholder value, but if you’re a shareholder a finding of law is not necessarily a finding of reality and so therefore they would resist because the case for their value is not crystal clear.
