Aren't antitrust laws designed to protect the customers from the power that a company can wield due to it's monopoly?
Isn't this what Youtube is doing? - Exercising it's power to 'force' her to move from ContentID to a new product.
And wouldn't this then also qualify as bait and switch? And isn't this according to some law illegal?
Note that the definition above does not mention market share. For example, Google dominates websearch market share, but competition is just a click away; if Bing or Yahoo or DDG built a better mousetrap, you could switch in an instant.
Since you, as a consumer, can easily switch to a different music provider, it's hard for me to see how you can argue that YouTube is wielding monopoly power over you. And similarly, Zoe can (and does) easily distribute her music on non-YouTube platforms.
Also, antitrust law is primarily about protecting consumers from harm (usually, higher prices). It's not about protecting other companies. So the core of Microsoft's antitrust defense was, "Yes, driving the price of the browser to $0 was terribly harmful to Netscape, but it was actually beneficial to consumers."
Depends on the jurisdiction. "Abusing a dominant market position" is enough for the European Commission to get involved - and Google do dominate this space.
Yes
>Isn't this what Youtube is doing? - Exercising it's power to 'force' her to move from ContentID to a new product.
Yes
But, good luck getting the William J. Baer at the DOJ to bring a suit, though. Youtube is not Aaron Swartz.