I'm sure if an app like that ever got blocked it would get handled correctly in court.
You have to remember, this issue with Epic isn't about a product being blocked from sale in the drugstore, it's an issue of the product vendor trying to bring a cart of the product into the store with their own cash box.
Apple has touted their closed nature as a feature from the beginning. That's what their buyers wanted. If you want to us a phone with a more open OS, you should probably get an Android.
It is the same problem, because in a 50-50 iOS, Android split, Apple should never be in a position to dictate that and wield so much power over society - as a capitalist driven company. Power like that has to reside with governments, not companies IMHO.
You are also making a sweeping assumption that the vast majority of consumers understand the difference in openness of the two smartphone options. In reality I would guess the end users will be vastly ignorant to the way they've empowered Apple to dictate to society in the way their store operates, and won't understand the topic - merely assuming their elected officials act to provide suitable consumer protections and be vigilant in identify monopolies, and dealing with them.
The reality is that any app (update) submitted could be blocked initially and cause problems, as in the case of a road assistance app, fixing it in courts two years later isn't "handled" for the people that get affected by Apple's blocking of the app. That ship sails 2years earlier, does it not?