My guess is that this is a contractual dispute and is fake news.
I’m not so sure this is judicial overreach so much as lease breaking. I wonder if it’d be enough to satisfy the ruling if Starbucks closed the stores but paid out the remainder of the lease.
Bingo! You guys nailed it within the first 50 posts.
Starbucks legal team probably viewed the case as a cheap way to avoid some part of a payout and is no doubt not at all surprised by the ruling.