I’ve seen that argument a few times recently as well but I don’t find it at all persuasive. Public perception of market competition isn’t relevant to antitrust law. That the public is more aware of a company’s anti-competitive behavior doesn’t somehow absolve or even lessen the potential liability for the anti-competitive behavior.

Or perhaps I just don’t understand the point they’re trying to make? I’ve yet to come across this antitrust/branding argument where the rationale has been explained but I’d definitely be curious to hear the legal theory.

The only thing I can come up with is that being aware of the damages in advance of a purchasing decision might in some cases serve to limit said damages relative to being unaware of them. Not sure it applies in a monopoly setting where awareness of damages doesn't give you an alternative though. It gets more complicated when damage is speech instead of a financial exploit on a product.

If Revue were a big company perhaps. In this case I think its just to give Revue more value through the brand association.