It's just a ruling against an injunction that would have barred resolving the deplatforming dispute through arbitration.
It has no precendtial value. It has no probative value. It says nothing about how the underlying dispute will be resolved.
It should be seen as just one of many examples of the courts binding companies to the arbitration procedures companies included in their customer contracts in their attempts to avoid court.
Patrons in patreon do not have a direct contractual relationship with the projects they sponsor, so there can be no tortious interference of contact.
The cases are simply a gambit that patreon will settle and let these racists back on the platform rather than pay the costs of arbitration.
But given that Patreon was clearly and obviously a man-in-the-middle of the relationship and had policies which could be violated and which would terminate the relationship, and all parties knew this up front, then it is also clear to me that Patreon can freely choose to stop being a man-in-the-middle, and as such I don't think the tortious interference claim makes sense in this case.
If the followers wanted to have a contractual arrangement with Owen, they were free to do so outside of the bounds of Patreon (including, but not limited to direct donations, Paypal transactions, or Stipe payments), forgoing the controls and protections Patreon offers to patrons. The followers chose not to do so, ergo, it's clear that they did not intend to contract with Owens directly.