Antitrust law has long existed under the premise that more competition is better for the consumer. But what if a monopoly were to eliminate competition, and then use the increase in efficiency of an empty market strictly to benefit consumers?
The two most important players in antitrust law globally are almost certainly the United States and the EU, so I'm specifically interested in the laws of both, especially in how they contrast given Europe's stronger stance against anticompetitive activities.
Say a company, Supergood Corp., were to intentionally act in such a way as to eliminate competition. Then Supergood hires all workers laid off by the bankrupt competitors, and uses the loss of competition to increase efficiency by cutting advertising (why advertise when you're the only player), consolidating supply chains for faster and cheaper goods, etc.
Supergood Corp. then passes all of the savings resulting from its actions on to consumers, lowering prices to minimize profit, and improving both price and quality over conditions before the anticompetitive activities took place.
Considering the criteria used to establish violation of antitrust law, is there a way that Supergood Corp. can avoid legal culpability under relevant laws for the above actions?