It could be a form of bundling, tacit veritcal integratation, magin squeeze , price discrimination, tie-ins etc.
Various tricks oligopolistic companies use to prevent competition from bidding prices down - trying to extract a bit of extra profit. The harm is that people are paying more than they might - or for extra features they cant opt out of than they would in a free or open market. Likely the harm is very diffuse and no one person is all that bothered to be paying 10% more or whatever, but it all adds up.
Anti-trust regulators are so weak they don't really have to try though. TBF it's very hard to prove this stuff in court even if there was a political will to improve competition to benefit consumers.
Finding a loophole or an inconsistency about grammar doesn't prove that language shouldn't make sense to at least two people. I mean did anyone ever actually say that to communicate that actual meaning? If not then its not relevant at all.
But even if someone did say that with the intent to communicate (something about bison?), language or grammar, especially as it emerges from fallible human communication is allowed to make mistakes.
That's why we have words like "misunderstanding". It's also why meanings and patterns of use LITERALLY change over time. But whether misunderstood or unintelligible or encrypted it's fundamental purpose is still to communicate.