I don't think it's a wildly adventurous case, but it shows they're looking at types of competitive restraints they didn't before. I'd sort of look at the government's ability to prove that there is a harm to competition in the sense of either effects on prices, or on the offering of new services in the markets they're concerned about. This isn't a slam-dunk where you prove something and you win. This case involved the economy, and it's much more complex.