Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is far from a novel question. There is extensive statute and case law in this area across many jurisdictions. You could start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
Sure, I'm well aware of antitrust laws, the Sherman Act, etc. If you want to look at it from that angle, what are the consumer concerns being violates by Teams being bundled and potentially replacing Zoom that was previously used? Teams isn't forced on Office users and Zoom isn't prevented, consumers still can choose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
""" The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components.
One effect of tying can be that low quality products achieve a higher market share than would otherwise be the case. """
> ...Zoom isn't prevented, consumers still can choose.
Only until Zoom fails because consumers who would have otherwise used Zoom were forced to pay for Teams instead because the price for Teams was bundled into the price for Office. At least, that's the argument.
To be clear, I'm not myself arguing either way. But the reason for the case is clear and it is disingenuous to pretend that it doesn't exist.