you're not exactly agreeing with GP, you are going overboard, the court said these types of cases are covered by antitrust, but that Epic had failed to make its case. (like, murder is still illegal even if a particular case is not made)

But it said ... that Epic, regardless, had “failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive alternative means for Apple to accomplish the procompetitive justifications supporting iOS’s walled-garden ecosystem.”

In other words, while these types of contracts can be within the scope of a Sherman Act claim, that wasn’t relevant to the court’s decision in this case.