I've learned, rightly or wrongly, to basically ignore the significance of court rulings unless they're the outcome of a protracted Jarndyce-v-Jarndyce-esque process litigated by huge companies with huge legal defense budgets, with all appeals except maybe SCOTUS exhausted.
These decisions otherwise seem to get overturned in the future when you have a party with sufficient motivation+resources which is incidentally when they would matter the most.
A local stand-up comedian once quipped, "Why do we even have <lowest-level court>? They're always wrong!"
It stuck with me because then I read the news and realised they were right! The lowest level court rulings very often get overturned when challenged in higher level courts.
Of course, even later, I realised it's just selection bias. Cases are not brought before higher level courts unless in those specific case someone is fairly sure they can get the verdict overturned.
These decisions otherwise seem to get overturned in the future when you have a party with sufficient motivation+resources which is incidentally when they would matter the most.