That's what stood out to me, too: how is "not being forthcoming" a security issue? I don't have confidence that the judge understands the technical parts of the case. They might not matter, depending on the legal issues in play, but if they matter, this quote seems a bit clueless.
The lie-by-omission is leaving out the security aspect of having a walled garden. It’s not well expressed if you read this as an essay, but it is natural for on-the-fly spoken language.
Apple's argument is that they provide a guarantee to iPhone that all the apps in the App Store are safe and secure. They can't make that guarantee if developers add secret features the reviewers don't know about.
Sure, it’s mathematically impossible to guarantee the behavior of an app in advance.
That’s why Apple needs to be able to remove or disable apps that pass review through intentional deception.
Edit: for that matter they need to be able to remove apps that have unintended bad consequences too, at least until developers have a chance to fix them. Like they did with Zoom on the Mac.
They can display links depending on response from servers, a pretty basic functionality required for many apps. So "hacking" the appstore is as simple as updating their backend with a "purchase here, 25% cheaper" link to their own webbpage.
