So as it stands, the appellate court’s decision is the law of the land.
Technically, from a legal perspective, there is a small chance this changes if a case makes it way to an appellate court in a different circuit and they’re in the mood to come to a different conclusion, at which time SCOTUS might be inclined to take up that case to resolve the contradictory outcomes, but those are pretty slim for a couple of reasons.
One, it’s not likely a new case would play out outside of California, by virtue of Apple being located there.
Two, a court of appeals of a different circuit would need to be in the mood to completely disregard the 9th circuits conclusion. While technically an option, most appellate courts don’t want to contradict their sister circuit, but there are some “activist” courts out there.
Three, the outcome needs to be sufficiently different for it to cause a significant contradiction.
And lastly, the fact pattern of the new case would need to be extremely similar to the Epic v Apple case.
Or will everything stand as it is at the moment with figuring out specific details that Apple must abide by that haven’t already been listed up to future lawsuits to determine?