Anti-trust law has gone through a variety of interpretations over the long history of its existence, and I think your characterization of it is incorrect, even under today's recent interpretations.
This suit seems to follow the interpretation of: "it is bad if consumers are being harmed in some way". Having a monopoly position via market share is not a necessary condition for that to happen.
This suit seems to follow the interpretation of: "it is bad if consumers are being harmed in some way". Having a monopoly position via market share is not a necessary condition for that to happen.