The article says that the litigation began in 2005 or so, so hasn't reached a settlement after nine years, but this rejected settlement would have limited their

The article says that the litigation began in 2005 or so, so hasn't reached a settlement after nine years, but this rejected settlement would have limited their behaviour for only five years. That doesn't seem equitable. If it takes nine or ten years for alleged antitrust behaviour to get to a settlement, then the settlement should restrict future behaviour for at least twenty years. Otherwise this is just a means to allow such behaviour to continue immediately after the settlement agreement shortly expires.