If you offer a targeted price reduction to unsustainable levels in all areas a competitor operates and says you do it to crush the competition then you will have a really bad time in court. If you however said that you did it to provide better services to those poor people then at least you have a fighting chance.

I guess this change in wording is why we mostly stopped seeing companies taken to court over anti-competitive practices in USA. Since we reworded all the "crush the competition" to "provide better services" the courts are now unable to tell when companies are behaving in an anti-competitive manner.