I don't know where the mention of Google and Apple can be linked to "defense of consumer interest" which was what you wanted to conclude.....
The reality is that when the CMA mentions them, it enters the realm of the absurd since MS enters the fight is anything but anti-consumer, since its current presence in the mobile market and subscriptions is non-existent in comparison and would only mean "one more option for consumer" .
Then, as I said, the context is what matters and the issue of balance of mentions is clear....... The CMA's main concern is the effects on Sony and in the second place the rest, including consumers, workers , competition, nintendo, and the other agents.
In short, it is fair and understandable that MS reproaches the CMA for this attitude. And I have no doubt that if you were an MS attorney, that aspect would also be where you would discuss the CMA's brief because it is very obvious.