That's essentially saying that being too competitive is anti-competitive, and frankly, I think it's ridiculous. So what if smaller competitors aren't able to provide the same solutions at the same price? Isn't that why it's called competition? The point is to benefit consumers, not to keep inefficient businesses alive by hurting them.

That said, I think there's some sense in calling anti-competitive when a player lowers the price temporarily, in order to drive out competitors and jack up the prices afterwards. But that's clearly not what happened here.