This may be relevant: http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=14397
An interesting quote: "As I understand bundling, the primary reason for it is because there's no margin to be had on the hardware. So, retailers oftentimes by the time they stock a product and get it from the distribution centers to their stores and onto the store shelves are actually losing money on the hardware itself, not altogether different from the hardware manufacturers," (Hal) Halpin(, former head of the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) explained.
The Game Doctor would actually fall outside of the realm of legality, according to part of that article I linked above, but controllers and games are not. You can argue that they are forcing you to buy 3rd party accessories or bundling games that you would otherwise not choose, and that you could agree to meet the minimum equivalent that they are requiring if given the option to substitute... say, swap Madden 07 for Excite Truck or Elebits or Wii Play (Wii Play could also substitute for a controller too).
The argument could go that Nintendo is forcing Wii Sports on the masses, which actually could be reason enough to bring suit against Nintendo by either consumer or 3rd party advocates. Wasn't Nintendo challenged for bundling 1st party games with systems before? I believe that was why for most of the time consumers have an option to get a standalone system or one bundled with software. I do think, at least this time, in Nintendo's defense that Wii Sports is an excellent tutorial/demonstration for the Wiimote.