The "treated unfairly" part comes from the fact that a cartel formed to make sure that if you wanted a product with a lcd in it you had to pay an inflated price to a cartel member.

Innovation should have (and would have naturally) driven prices down had a few big boys not gotten together and used their collective might to prevent that competition.

It sucks that prices were too high but it sucks even more when actions like these halt innovation, usually using downright rotten legal means to prevent smaller competitors from entering the market to challenge the cartel's position.

The class action suit, even when it does not benefit end consumers much, works together with antitrust law to prevent industries from balkanizing into huge cartels, jacking up prices, controlling supplies to engineer shortages, and then forcefully ceasing all innovation.

Please note that I never claimed that I was treated unfairly by Dell. It's just factual that I paid a higher price than I would have if there were not collusion in the market for LCD displays. Part of the point of free market capitalism is that competitors don't collude to keep prices artificially high. When they do, it's a market failure. That's why antitrust regulation is so vigorously enforced. I'll quote from the article:

In a 2004 Supreme Court decision, which was unanimous, cartels were called “the supreme evil of antitrust.”

“Cartels are regarded as the most dangerous form of anticompetitive conduct,” said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “The reason is that the potential impact on consumers is so great, and there is no plausible justification for it.”