Sure, but as far as the court goes, I think this is probably comes back to establishing intent around Google's modus operandi and internal corporate interactions in the ad market. Even without an exclusivity clause, the likelihood it that Samsung are going to bundle a second AI tool, besides (possibly) their own is probably around zero, so that squeezes other players out of Samsung's sizeable share of the market. Plus however many other vendors bundle Gemini under similar agreements. They've already been found guilty, albeit subject to appeal, so my sense is that they are now trying to draw some lines along which Alphabet could potentially be broken up.
Ultimately, this isn't about destroying one or more of Alphabet's business units, it's about breaking them up so that the constituent pieces can each survive, either an independant concern or as part of another corporation, but also preventing any one of those parts from being able to similarly abuse their position in the market. For me, one way to do that (allowing for the fact they are not going to destroy Alphabet's ad business or stop them capturing user data, no matter how much we might want that), is to split the data capture / user tool parts from the ad-selling parts. Google (user tools) gets to provide data to anyone prepared to pay for access, as they do internally now with their own ad business, Google (ads) get to buy that data, and/or anyone else's, in order to place their ads. There are other potential units that could be split off as well, of course, but the fundamental issue here seems to be the union and dominance in data capture and selling ads based on that data within the same corporation.