Khan and the "Neo-Brandeisians" have a legal theory, which to oversimplify, holds that the true meaning of the antitrust statutes is "big business is antithetical to democracy, and so the federal government is empowered to stop businesses getting bigger." The current precedent in antitrust holds that antitrust means that the government is only empowered to act when bigness results in consumer harm, mostly in the form of higher prices.

Note, legal theories are not like scientific theories! Courts can be influenced by legal theories. And in fact, the current mainstream in antitrust, which focuses on consumer harm, started as a legal theory propounded by the likes of Bork (yes, that Bork) and Posner. Because it has been adopted by the courts, especially by the Supreme Court, it is the precedent.

Trial courts are bound to follow the precedent! So, of course the legal strategy was bound to lead to losses in court. You can win under this strategy, but only in the Supreme Court, which isn't bound to follow the precedent, but mostly prefers to follow its own precedent. Getting to the Supreme court typically takes years, and it requires the Supreme Court wanting to take the case.

We'll see in the next stage if this was the strategy. If I were pursuing this strategy, I would say so. Then the losses wouldn't hurt morale!