In short, Intuit moved from previously-free features to their paid tiers. This move may have disproportionately affected low-income taxpayers, though—if true—that impact was unintentional, not targeted.[1]
The article cites several different features that were monetized and affect lower-earning taxpayers[2] as well as those affecting higher-end earners[3], but doesn't state that this list is comprehensive, and doesn't prove that impact was disproportionate.
ALL THAT SAID, there's still some crappy dark patterns here, as well as broader tax-ecosystem improvements that would benefit taxpayers that Intuit has fought tooth and nail to block. So I'm certainly not defending Intuit here, but I'd find more objective reporting to be more compelling.
[1] "The income levels of the groups that were being driven to paid products 'was never really considered.'"
[2] "One of these forms was for a tax credit that goes exclusively to poor taxpayers who are elderly or get disability benefits. Another is used by low- to middle-income households that receive a credit for putting money in a retirement account." (Which, if it's what I'm thinking of, applies to above-average earners, too.) "A third is used by taxpayers who collected unemployment benefits." "And then there are people with student loans, who also have to use Deluxe." (Unclear if this is a change.)
[3] "The company’s changes also affected parents who get a credit for child care expenses, as well as people filing the schedule for interest and dividends."