Point 1: while I agree with the general idea, it’s a little annoying to see a reasonable argument undercutting itself by mixing together unrelated stuff and in an inconsistent way. Example:

  • Amazon: the ‘issues’ listed have nothing to do with antitrust investigations. The ‘aggressive use of non-compete’ was signed off by a judge, so the simple fact that a company uses well written (as far as non-compete goes) isn’t an issue by any measure, their use of dominant position means effectively they can influence a judge (somehow), which is a matter for the FBI. Bullying smaller brands has nothing to do with the questions asked. You are asking if Amazon improperly favours own products as opposed to the quoted source which says that Amazon is pressuring brands into using services on the platform that some brands simply don’t want (or can’t afford the cost of).
  • AT&T: “clearly” in error? Nobody will take your question seriously in an argument if you’re adding that word. It simply means you’ve already decided on the answer and you won’t accept anything else. Try something more productive, like including signs of a wrong decision and maybe suggest an improvement to the law.
  • Big Agro: rising prices in the current food market isn’t a sign of anything. An investigation would better go into market share shift.
  • Big Pharma: abuses of patent law are everywhere. Nothing to do with antitrust investigations though, but more with a need to overhaul the copyright and patent system.
  • Facebook: you say “Whatsapp and Instagram” while linking to a source material that mentions only Instagram. WhatsApp wasn’t a competitor in the same market as Facebook (social network) as defined. Sure, there’s the question if the panel that drew the final call on both those acquisitions really understood the technologies and the markets at stake. But rather than jump at “let’s break up a company due to success” I’d suggest to “let’s elect some people that are going to overhaul the institution supervising this”, otherwise you’re just opening a can of worms and still let the system make these calls in the future.
  • Google: case in point is the difference between US and EU. EU law has (in addition to antitrust provisions) something call “abuse of dominant market position”. Effectively if you’re deemed to have over 51% of a given market, the rules change and eyes are on you for any sort of pressure or lobbying that directly goes against competition. This can also be the TLDR of this post. “Has Google anticompetitively excluded its rivals?” is answered with YES under EU law and NO under US law. If you are genuinely in search of solutions rather than questions with no actionable outcome, go for changing the law!
  • Ticketmaster: yep
  • T-Mobile: most likely, though it’s a thin case given that higher prices are likely given the subscriber distribution of the two. But possible higher prices aren’t enough of a reason. You can easily answer yes, but unless there’s actual collusion, the mere possibility of it means nothing.
  • Airlines: you say 4 major players without naming them but you want to review mergers in the whole industry (you didn’t do the same for Facebook now, did you?)? Yeah, there was a merger at the top, but also about 30 down the line and you want to prevent consolidation at the bottom, arguably the only thing that could bring some competition against the big guns.
  • Healthcare: hell yeah! so … call your representative today and ask for higher scrutiny.