'The key to the whole question of an antitrust remedy is of course the discovery of measures effective to restore competition.' United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 326, 81 S. Ct. 1243, 6 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1961). '[T]he relief must be directed to that which is necessary and appropriate . . . to eliminate the effects of the acquisition offensive to the statute . . . and assure the public freedom from its continuance.' Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 573 n.8, 92 S. Ct. 1142, 31 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1972) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Section 7 remedies should not be punitive, but 'courts are authorized, indeed required, to decree relief effective to redress the violations, whatever the adverse effect of such a decree on private interests.' E. I. du Pont, 366 U.S. at 326.
The customary form of relief in § 7 cases is divestiture. See id. at 330 (noting that most litigated Clayton Act § 7 cases 'decreed divestiture as a matter of course'); see also ProMedica, 749 F.3d at 573; RSR, 602 F.2d at ...