Her's the problem. Neither consortium, so far as I can tell, has completely stopped buying books published by Random House. I've carefully read what they've posted online and the consortiums have only stopped ebooks. That means they've shifted their purchases to only paper. Technically that is not a boycott.
In my opinion, it doesn't even come close to being a boycott. I would have thought that a boycott involved, as a way to express disapproval, breaking contact completely. These libraries are still buying Random House titles, and that means they're just one of many libraries unhappy with the situation.
If you boycotted a car maker because of price gouging on a particular model but you then bought a different model from that same company, would they even care? No, because that's not a boycott.
While the consortiums may have a big stink over the issue, their actual response is no different from anyone else's. They're still buying books from Random House. This really looks more like a hissy fit than a boycott.
We still have not seen a real boycott yet, and I don't ever expect to see one.
P.S. Sorry it took me so long to see through the hype; I only recently realized that everyone else was misapplying the concept of a boycott.