Sometimes you need to push the boundaries of your agreement to show that the agreement terms are bullshit, especially if you have literally no other option.
With this, Epic are saying to the courts "Look, Apple not only completely control their entire ecosystem and have a monopolistic share of the market, but can ruin an entire entity just for adding an alternative payment option that allows competitive pricing for the consumer. Isn't that a brazen display of antitrust market dominance?"
Nothing will make Epic's case more apparent than performative action that specifically highlights the behaviours by Apple that Epic are trying to highlight.
They're basically saying "Dad, my brother hit me!" and then annoying their brother so badly that they hit them again right in front of their dad.
