Perhaps finish reading the said sentence - the court didn't decide the case because Apple decided to pay out money for their actions.
Your assumption that Apple's settlement to avoid guilty verdict somehow means that they didn't do the action (which they agreed to pay damages for) is the wildest instance of corporate boot licking I've seen this week :D
If the court decided that plaintiffs didn't have a case, Apple wouldn't settle.
I’m not sure how you failing to provide proof of lying makes me a corporate boot licker? Deciding to settle is a business decision which may or may not be related to what they did. This is the difference between a legal system and a justice system.
Please explain what kind of trouble are you threatening me with by claiming that corporation paying damages for their actions is kind of a good proof that those actions actually happened?
I am not threatening you. I’m saying if you assert that an entity is lying and you fail to provide proof then it can have consequences. It may make you the liar, since you are making false statements.