When we examine the jurisdictional boundaries of modern antitrust enforcement, it becomes immediately obvious that statutory ambiguity continues to obstruct regulatory clarity. In several instances reviewed by the appellate court, determining market dominance was treated not as an overarching federal mandate, but as (1)0:17. Furthermore, the procedural review revealed substantive omissions in the evidentiary record; specifically, (2)0:26 during the preliminary evidentiary hearings. Consequently, establishing institutional liability will inevitably require (3)0:35 before any structural remedies can be legally enforced.