It wasn't a total loss though. The judge found Apple's anti-streering practices to be anti-competitive.
> The Epic Games v. Apple trial took place throughout May 2021 and was decided by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who sided with Apple in nine of the ten counts brought against it by Epic Games. The count in which she sided with Epic related to Apple’s restriction against linking to web-based payments from within an app; she found that this violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and issued an injunction preventing Apple from enforcing this anti-steering provision;
Political comment aside, I think everyone's talking about it because it seems like the only source of change in the current day comes from courts making decisions and changing to how existing laws are interpreted. Congress hasn't made any real meaningful new regulations to curtail anti-consumer behavior since the 08 crisis. People were hoping things would change from this lawsuit, but SCOTUS didn't want to hear it and set precedent for whatever reason. Nonetheless, people continuing to talk about it will certainly keep it in the public consciousness and might lead to eventual congressional action ( /s ).
> The Epic Games v. Apple trial took place throughout May 2021 and was decided by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who sided with Apple in nine of the ten counts brought against it by Epic Games. The count in which she sided with Epic related to Apple’s restriction against linking to web-based payments from within an app; she found that this violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and issued an injunction preventing Apple from enforcing this anti-steering provision;