I'd like to cynically say that the rhetoric and arguments have finally started to return to their roots within this particular administration, but there's no evidence of a process actually being carried to completion yet.
Of course the rentiers can still squash things, and will. But I think the tide is against them.
Matt Stoller has done great work both documenting this and contributing.
Failing that, you could read his blog. He's the most succinct and thoughtful writer on the topic today.
This is not some "hidden history" -- they were quite proud of it. I watched it unfold in real time.
I find it fascinating that the Reagan administration (and the bevy of organizations around it) moved taxonomy and models such that the democrats (in particular Clinton) discussed economics and antitrust using the republicans' framework, just as the republicans still think of the economy from a Victorian/Marxist framework (Labor Theory of Value, capital expressed only in smokestack industries and finance, etc etc).
It’s not unique at all. The old trusts that were broken up at the dawn of antitrust (that’s where the name comes from) were of a similar structure and even more dominant.
The “consumer harm” test (really “short term consumer cost” test) was a deliberate crippling of antitrust doctrine during the Reagan era. The process is only now starting to return to its roots.
Consumers can be harmed by a low price when it is predatory, either to drive out competitors (so price can go up later) or to transfer business to a monopolist who can charge higher prices elsewhere and/or stave off competitive technological or entrepreneurial threats. This doctrine blessed such predatory tactics while pretending to be a high-minded consumer-friendly approach.