If you want a real analogy, it's more like a pub where most drinks are free because they're served by other customers and the owner makes money by auctioning ad

If you want a real analogy, it's more like a pub where most drinks are free because they're served by other customers and the owner makes money by auctioning ad space on the glasses. Anyone can go there to hand out free drinks, provided they follow the rules, like no alcohol in the kids' corner and no coca wine. If someone's drink is very popular, they get a cut of the pub's advertising revenue. Now someone walks in and starts offering Corona. It's not everyone's favorite, but still decently popular, and the owner has no problem with that. Until a few hours later, when a new line is added to the list of rules on the door: "no Corona". Then the owner tells the person handing out free Corona that they're breaking the rules and kicks them out. Is that fair? Not in this case, says the court. Everyone agrees to the rules when they walk through the door, but the owner can't just willy-nilly change them after the fact. (If you want to really understand the decision, you'll have to read the original instead of relying on analogies.)