It's obviously not the singular cause but it was also very realistic. If you can manage it, try to think from their perspective: the Crown is preventing you from expanding westward to limit your power, you are hearing (distorted) reports of unimaginable atrocities being committed in the name of profit by the EIC in India, at the same time the EIC is being granted extraordinary privileges in your colonies. Fear of the Crown re-organizing your governmental structure along the lines to move to an extractive form of colonization were well founded.
Furthermore, and returning to the original topic of this thread, the colonists were very averse to monopolies on trade since the few examples they had lead to disastrous behavior by the monopolists.
> the level of control the East India Company had over India back in the 70s was quite limited and relatively indirect.
Completely false, after the battle of Plassey in 1757 led to the EIC gaining direct control over all of Bengal (the largest and richest kingdom of India at that time) and they had installed puppet governments in other kingdoms and provinces.
By the time of the American revolution their power had only grown, surpassing any of the remaining independent kingdoms.
As an aside, When the British public (and hence the American public) found out about the full extent of the atrocities committed by the EIC in India there was a very large public backlash including putting the director on trial for what we would now term Crimes against Humanity. These people were not angels, but they were not only rampaging colonial brutes. History is complex, historical people doubly so.