It's not that simple. Let's say that Google sell a tv half or even a quarter the price of normal tv, but it can only access channels authorized by google, and the authorized channels can change anytime. Furthermore it can only access consoles and devices only authorized by google.

At first, the authorization is very permissive and the unauthorized channels or devices are very rare. People begin to buy the tv, and channels begin to optimize their content around it. Other tv lose their market share, and begin to adapt "google tv" architecture to sell their own to survive.

After 10 years google begin to unauthorize some channels, in prefer to their own which launched 3 years before, as well as consoles in preference to stadia. The ban is same with these similar cases, where it's framed as illegal content, or error. But it's happening often.

Is google in the wrong here? IMO it's debatable.

That was the parent's point - made via sarcasm.

I know, for me it's just an interesting case where there are no clear / definitive answer. Both sides have good arguments and it's hard to determinate who is wrong.

Yes, this legal void needs to end. If you have a majority of some market, there need to be additional legal responsibilities.