[Despegar]

>My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court

This is obviously false because there are other antitrust cases against Apple pending.

[zamalek]

That's Government v. Apple, not Epic v. Apple. Furthermore, irrespective of what the outcome of Epic v. Apple is, more people are paying attention to Apple's behavior and the rouse may eventually bear fruit (in the form of more Government v. Apple).

[ascagnel_]

Blix v. Apple[0] pre-dated the Epic v. Apple suit by about 8 months.

[0]: https://download.bluemail.me/docs/01869-Blix-Amended-Complai... (PDF)

[anotherman554]

It's not obviously false because unless you've read the case law on the legal concept of "standing" you have no insight into the issue at all.

[Despegar]

Fortunately I have and they do have standing.