I think that's a total misread of the situation.
Tesco has a contract with VMware. According to Tesco, VMware/Broadcom is now breaking this contract. The point of litigation is to determine which said prevails in this dispute. Of course, during litigation, Tesco will make many claims to show how important they are, and how insidious VMware/Broadom's actions are, all in support of their position. It doesn't mean that they Tesco could go offline at any second (though that is of course possible).
You later said "Tesco sell groceries, like potatoes. Do you think they only have a single potato supplier?"
That's a good point, but the more direct analogy would be it Tesco signed a purchasing agreement with a particular potato vendor where they paid £1m for a certain amount of potatoes over three years. Now let's say that after the first year this particular vendor fails to supply the agreed upon potatoes and won't refund any money. Tesco would undoubtedly sue that one vendor (even though they have multiple potato vendors). I have no doubt that Tesco would likewise claim that "This vendor's refusal to supply us with potatoes is endangering the food supply for Britain and Ireland!"
You wouldn't say that Tesco was "negligent" for trying to enforce a paid contract with that potato vendor, would you?
