It's a little less specific than that. While the ruling officially only addresses standing and doesn't decide merit, there are several footnotes that basically

It's a little less specific than that. While the ruling officially only addresses standing and doesn't decide merit, there are several footnotes that basically go "the underlying theory of government action here is just wrong." And they're ultimately saying that the plaintiffs don't have standing because they couldn't trace their bans to government action... which is pretty close to a merits finding, as the lack of a government role is pretty dispositive as to whether or not that role was impermissible.