Suppose there is a borderline case. Company thinks they have a 25% chance or more to win in court, but then reporters would write stories about the case it's bad PR. Could be better to settle so nobody ever hears about it, even if they could win.

If reporters are going to write stories about it anyway, might as well fight.

It took me a moment to understand what they’re saying, but I think that they’re talking about post lawsuit settlement restrictions which certainly exist, vs speaking out about issues before a lawsuit.

Restrictions on talking about an event is standard in most settlements as part of the “paying someone to disappear” solution to illegal working conditions. Presumably the “just shut up about it” has some value to the company which would now be lost.

The purchaser of a settlement (in this case Apple) is buying a 'basket' of things (non-disclosure potentially being one of them). Taking one item out of the basket will make the basket less valuable (less worth pursuing for plaintiff lawyers), and disclosure of settlements will (obviously) increase their visibility, which is undesirable (and may increase the number of victims wishing to pursue them).