In this case the Sherman Act is relevant because all of Epic's federal claims are brought under the Sherman Act. (There are some California specific claims too.

In this case the Sherman Act is relevant because all of Epic's federal claims are brought under the Sherman Act. (There are some California specific claims too.) However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)