Didn't she also file suit against the US Post Office citing that they didn't forward her mail when she moved across town? 😀
I have moved numerous times. The postal service not only forwards my mail for free, but also notifies people who send me mail of my new address. And they will do that whether I move one space over, or across the country.
I don't bother informing anyone when I move. Yet they all get my new address from the postal service.
What Apple did was lock a person in to using one specific delivery location. iPhone. Then prevent said users from moving to another phone without losing the ability to receive texts. That is an established violation of law. It falls into the characteristics of a monopoly practice.
We've seen this before. You cannot legally lock a customer into using your product with no options to move away from your product.
And Apple provided no means for the iPhone owners to move away from the iPhone to another brand of phone without losing text communication.
Now, everyone seems to assume that it's trivial. However, there are certainly situations where people need to receive all texts or they could themselves be sued, fired, or even jailed for noncompliance with an order.
Those people should still have the right to switch to another brand of phone. And they do have that right. But Apple chose to use strong arm illegal monopoly tactics to prevent them from switching or penalize them if they did.