Agreed, but Microsoft did all those things (and worse) and they don't seemed to have been harmed any.
We have not seen the EU and UK resolutions thus far, and several concessions were extracted in the 1990 US case.
of course breakups similar to those of AT&T, Standard Oil, etc are unlikely in today’s world. Now trade restrictions, fines and regulatory impediments are far more common. Tesla is facing regular challenges in those respects, just as is Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon. In all these historical cases breakups were typical. Today, as then, new technological advances result in dominance by the most innovative companies. These are unimpeded when they are small, and. challenged when they implicitly threaten the ‘established order’.
i am not suggesting that Tesla will suffer major harm, maybe not even TSLA, but the defenses against these attacks which persist in the financial markets, regulatory procedures at every level, regulatory agencies all are stout defenders of the status quo. TSLA, like it or not, is being forced into less aggressive positions. As with Gwynne Shotwell presenting a harmonious front to the SpaceX community of regulators so Tesla now needs a similar face.
However difficult, the Elon Musk roles must be less CEO and more CTO. That, without question, is not easy. However, frontal attack on crucial constituents, especially regulatory ones, simply cannot survive in market-dominant maturing conditions.
Edison lost General Electric, JD Rockefeller lost The Standard Oil Trust, JP Morgan lost US Steel and many more,
Huawei might be seen in nationalistic terms, but now Apple is attacked for app control and Tesla with SEC, union, auto dealer, regional special interest and more. Just as Apple is attacked for ‘right to repair’ so Tesla is facing multiple attack points. The modern approach is rarely the forced breakups of the past. Now it is simply impeding eventual dominance of a newly major market by the very people who invented the market itself.
In that respect I hope it becomes clearer that the ‘letter of the law’ is not really the issue. The issue is essentially what used to be called ‘populist’ forces. Any entity that becomes a threat to the established order and the established opposition faces opprobrium which then foments constraints. That is how societies function. Obviously much of the world is now in the midst of huge political upheaval. That irrefutable fact points towards less stability for regulatory outlook.
These are major risks. Just as with most shareholders of those ancient examples TSLA long term HODL will do just fine, and better than that.
After all AT&T, General Electric and the Seven Sisters all did well even in the Great Depression. So too will TSLA face huge challenges which will not prevent great success.