Lightning incentive for micro-cheating?
When the total capacity of the channel is less than it costs to close the channel, neither party has an incentive to close the channel.

If broadcasting an outdated commitment transaction returns some funds to the cheating party, the cheated party can create a transaction to claim all funds from the cheater. In the worst case, the justice transaction can just burn all funds by sending them to fees. In no case would the cheating party be able to get any gain from broadcasting an outdated commitment transaction as long as the cheated party recognizes the attack.

Thus, the potential cheater is limited to choosing to hurt both parties. This seems strictly less beneficial than just keeping the channel open.

Especially, if you consider that other channel partners of the attacker would see the channel closure on-chain and may choose to ostracize the attacker.