Bravo! I congratulate you for giving yourself a mini-tutorial on anti-trust law.
Unfortunately, in your research you seem to have gotten a confused understanding as to who is liable under the various Acts.
The laws pertain to COMPETITORS, not customers. If you live in a town with just two bakeries, you are under no obligation to balance your purchases at White Bread Inc. with purchases at La Baguette & Co., even if in not so doing your actions contribute to the failure of La Baguette. If, on the other hand, Amalgamated Big Bread, a huge producer, comes into town and undercuts both White Bread and La Baguette so as to drive them out of business, then yes, Amalgamated is liable for anti-competitive action.
Try again, I hope you are not a lawyer because you utterly fail. Please provide a specific reference to where it is limited to competitors. The laws are based around preventing competition, there is no loop hole that requires you to first be a competitor.
Interestingly trusts can literally involve others who may not be direct competitors but the collective can materially gain by limiting others ability to compete with those aligned with you, that was actually some of the impetus behind anti trust laws. The intentional deceptions used by groups to limit a company’s ability to compete. For example just denying a basic raw material that would prevent a company ability to compete. A competitor could ask a supplier to not sell to another competitor, maybe by offering a a higher payment for that raw material, a price they can pay due to their specific market share thus preventing a company from even starting up, both the company and supplier then would run afoul of anti trust laws. Very similar to the idea of influencing advertisers now in the twitter case.
A little insight, I did not just recently educate myself on this. You might want to come better prepared before tossing around thinly veiled ad hominems, especially when you are so misinformed.
I provided references to specific acts directly tied to the laws, you respond with assertions, basically your whole reply is an informal logical fallacy.