Consumers don't generally rent server space. It would be difficult to establish consumer harm on the basis of server prices.
> Furthermore plenty of people run Linux desktops that would be affected by this
Right, this is the insignificant bit. Inconveniencing 2 or 3% of the market is not a valid antitrust claim [1][2].
> Consumer harm comes when there is intention to control consumer choice
No, it comes when you can prove prices were raised, output reduced, innovation diminished or customers were "otherwise harmed" [3]. To the degree intent is considered in the enabling case, it's in reading the intent of the Congress, not the defendant [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...
[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-ame...
[3] https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-the-consumer...