I am amazed that this obviously false claim has been repeated a dozen times in this thread. Epic already has suffered economic harm based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has previously collected. They already had standing to sue to get those fees back. They did not need to do anything else.
> In fact, the judge did not suggest they do so because absent economic harm Epic had no standing to sue until Apple retaliated.
Yes, she did. She literally suggested the sensible way to proceed was to comply with the agreement while the lawsuit went on.
Epic Games remains free to maintain its agreements with Apple in breach status as this litigation continues, but as the Seventh Circuit recognized in Second City Music, “[t]he sensible way to proceed is for [Epic to comply with the agreements and guidelines] and continue to operate while it builds a record.” Id. “Any injury that [Epic Games] incurs by following a different course is of its own choosing.” Id.
> Part of Epic's legal team's arguments was that there is binding legal precedent that "self inflicted harm" was not disqualifying of any of their claims in an anti-trust suit due to the standing hurdle
I think you've misunderstood this part of the hearing. The cases they attempted to cite said that the doctrine of "unclean hands" is not a valid defense in an antitrust claim. It's unrelated to standing or whether their injury was self-inflicted for purposes of the TRO and the judge said in her ruling that it wasn't relevant to her analysis. 
> a similar anti-trust suit filed by an Apple user was thrown out without a trial on grounds that the customer was not able to sufficiently demonstrate Apple's practices harmed them
If you are referring to Apple v. Pepper note that this ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court and the case is still ongoing. 
 https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265... (Footnote on Page 5)
Well, here's the court's reasoning:
By contrast, with respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the Court finds the opposite result. In this regard, the contracts related to those applications were not breached.
The court also finds that "Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple."