The ruling also doesn’t establish precedent, because it is a trial court ruling, which is never binding precedent, and under normal circumstances can’t even be cited as persuasive precedent, and the settlement ensures there will be no appellate ruling.
On top of that this was just one case in the US. It's honestly a bit ridiculous how some Americans seem to believe that when one random judge from their country rules something that instantly turns into an international treaty that every country on Earth must accept.
I thought it was precedentual within its circuit until an appellate says otherwise? And the the SC eventually joins in when two apellates disagree.
> I thought it was precedentual within its circuit until an appellate says otherwise?
No, trial court decisions are never binding precedent, if they are “published” decisions, they may generally be cited as persuasive precedent. Appellate decisions (Circuit Courts in the federal system) are binding on the trial courts subordinate to that appellate court (and even on panels of the same appellate court) until reversed by the same court sitting en banc or by a higher court (the US Supreme Court in the federal system.)