NARRATOR: What if, 1, a monopoly situation exists with one company powerful enough to make it pretty much impossible for new players to appear? 2, Company A and Company B agree to divide the city in two, with each becoming a monopoly in one half and letting the quote unquote, "competitor" do the same in the other? 3, two companies with a 30% market share each would merge with the resulting entity, being large enough to drive everyone else out of business. 4, a handful of companies that used to outbid one another by offering lower and lower prices, decide to collude instead and the fix prices, keeping them at a level they're happy with. 5, certain companies engage in bid rigging, allowing one another to win auctions by agreeing on who wins beforehand and everyone else just pretending to be a legitimate bidder.

In such situations and many more, consumers would stand to lose in light of the fact that competition would be abandoned, leading to monopoly situations, cartel scenarios, and so on. As such, in the US at least, so-called antitrust laws exist to protect them with the famous or infamous top 3 being, 1, the Sherman Antitrust Act; 2, the Federal Trade Commission Act; and 3, the Clayton Antitrust Act. These laws act as deterrents, with those who break them risking anything from financially debilitating fines to even jail time.

Do all consumers love these laws? No. Ask a libertarian and he will tell you that government interference does more harm than good. Ask a Keynesian, and he'll tell you it's a great idea. Ask a Marxist-Leninist and he will suggest far more aggressive state involvement, and so on. If you're searching for a consensus, yeah, good luck with that.