Given that United wasn't the one who dragged him out of his seat and beat him (that was airport security), it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that United should have been liable for this. Most likely United just wanted the lawsuit out of the news, so millions of dollars was cheaper for them than the lost goodwill -- even if they would have ended up winning the suit.

Weird, I didn't know the airport security had any saying in bookings, it's almost like a United staff asked them to take care of an "unruly" passenger.

Airport security might have followed orders but those orders couldn't have come by anyone but United.

Or they were afraid it would set a precedent that puts this practice into question

People can sue for whatever they want, and settlements from large juries are always a risk assessment, not an admission of wrongdoing.

>...not an admission of wrongdoing.

The admission of wrongdoing came from the CEO:

>...Two days after the incident, Munoz issued an additional statement, apologizing and promising that such an incident would never again occur on a United aircraft. He said, "No one should ever be mistreated this way." In an ABC television interview, Munoz was asked, "Do you think [Dao] was at fault in any way?" Munoz responded, "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...

A language that puts some conditions in some contract does not mean it can not be successfully challenged in court.