After nearly 100 hours of testimony ranging from secret deal-cutting with Netflix, to grilling Apple CEO Tim Cook, to discussions about a nude banana-man, the three-week-long Epic Games vs. Apple trial hearings concluded on May 24.

The fight erupted in August, when Epic updated the iOS version of Fortnite, its popular video game, with a “hot fix” to route around Apple’s 30% take on in-app payments. At that time, Apple promptly ejected Fortnite from the iPhone app store. Epic filed suit, alleging that Apple was abusing its market power. The two companies have been duking it out ever since, leading up to May 24’s “hot tub” session, which saw a debate-style close to the trial proceedings instead of the usual closing arguments.

While there’s no knowing which way the court will side in the legal spat, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is presiding over the case, has offered some hints about her thinking. She is looking to antitrust case law, and she appears reluctant to hand either Apple or Epic an easy victory.

For one thing, it’s unlikely that Judge Gonzalez Rogers will upend Apple’s business. “Can you find me a single antitrust case where the type of relief you are requesting”—that is, forcing a large company to substantially alter its business; or, specifically, in this case, making Apple host multiple app stores on its devices—"has been granted by a court?” she once asked Epic’s counsel, as reported by the Financial Times.

“It is a pretty significant step that courts haven’t done.”She said.

But Judge Gonzalez Rogers likely won’t let Apple get off scot-free. At one point, she pressed the company on its apparent stranglehold over the app store. “The 30% number has been there since the inception,” she said at one point, referring to Apple’s general cut of digital payments. “If there was real competition, that number would move—and it hasn’t.” (After litigation commenced, Apple reduced the fee for certain transactions to 15%, including for small developers and for subscription revenues that recur after the first year, a move later copied by Google.)

Fundamentally, the question at the heart of the case is how one defines the market in which Apple supposedly competes; it is the classic monopolist’s dilemma. Apple has been trying mightily to persuade everyone that it faces stiff competition from other app stores and device makers, like Google’s Android and Samsung, thereby justifying its app store rent-taking. Epic, meanwhile, has been pulling out all the stops to argue that Apple’s tight grip on the app store is anticompetitive, greedy, and overbearing.

If you held a Fortnite “boogie bomb” to this columnist’s head and asked for his prediction, he would say this: Apple will be forced to ease up on its ban against developers advertising alternative payment options in the app store. It’s a possibility that Judge Gonzalez Rogers has alluded to during the proceedings, and it nods at judicial precedents from earlier cases involving American Express and railroads.

I suspect the court will apply this tweak only to the mobile gaming market, another idea Judge Gonzalez Rogers has floated. Such a narrowed ruling would reduce the impact to Apple’s overall business, and it might help to appease a particularly aggrieved segment of app store developers—even if it offers cold comfort to other discontents, such as Match Group, Netflix, and Spotify, alongside countless smaller fish.

However Judge Gonzalez Rogers rules, one thing is almost certain: Appeals will lengthen the saga.