The health secretary has paid the money back and set out an explanation of events on his Moroccan holiday in an emotional Holyrood statement.
But questions remain over how honest he has been about the affair, with statements made over the past week appearing to contrast with what he has now told MSPs.
So is this the end of the matter, and for all the fury in the headlines and on the opposition benches is Mr Matheson's future secure?
Michael Matheson's statement may have elicited sympathy as he held back tears, and it did answer many of the questions hanging over this affair.
We now know how that big bill was run up, and Mr Matheson has made a fulsome apology.
But issues remain for the health secretary.
There are still some questions about the holiday itself. How likely it is that Mr Matheson didn't know his sons were watching the football until his wife told him last Thursday night, given he's a big fan himself?
But even accepting his explanation at face value - that he genuinely knew nothing until the story broke in the media - there are still questions.
He says he chose not to mention the role of his sons in this debacle in his statement last Friday, which is an omission which is perhaps understandable in context of protecting his family.
But he then repeated the same defence on Monday - several days after he now says he had the full picture.
Mr Matheson was explicitly asked whether anyone else had used his equipment and contributed to the data bill. He said no.
Other journalists asked if there had been any personal use of the device. Again, he said no.
There is perhaps a tiny sliver of wriggle room if you draw a distinction between use of the device and use of its data via a hotspot.
But let's be realistic. It was very clear what reporters were driving at, and Mr Matheson's denials were not caveated.
The media are thus absolutely furious - see today's front pages for evidence - and opposition MSPs are too.
The question is whether that actually changes anything.
The health secretary has the full and unequivocal backing of his boss, Humza Yousaf.
Indeed the first minister has been so effusive in his praise of Mr Matheson's integrity, and so categoric that he should stay in post, that it would be very difficult for him to turn around and sack him now.
There is a lingering question about Mr Yousaf's continued defence of Mr Matheson in interviews on Wednesday, given we now know that his minister had informed him about other people using the iPad prior to that.
Looking back, Mr Yousaf didn't engage with specific questions about how the bill was run up, instead moving smoothly on to praise of Mr Matheson's character before declaring the matter closed.
With hindsight, we perhaps now know why.
The opposition have certainly been keen to tie the whole row back to Mr Yousaf's own judgement.
Given the ongoing stooshie with the UK Covid Inquiry about WhatsApp messages, the government really doesn't need another transparency row.
And a major reshuffle which replaces the health secretary right at the start what is expected to be a very difficult winter period for the NHS would be particularly unwelcome for Mr Yousaf right now.
Given the current state of play at Holyrood, there is no obvious mechanism for the opposition to remove Mr Matheson.
The Conservatives have threatened a vote of confidence, which in theory could be used to prise a minister from office.
But the SNP and Greens have a majority which is predicated on them being able to rebuff such votes, so any motion tabled by the opposition would surely fail.
Mr Matheson has referred himself to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body - a slightly odd move, given the SPCB doesn't actually have much in the way of investigatory power. It is chiefly there to ensure the smooth running of Holyrood's facilities.
That referral will presumably be passed on to the Standards Committee, but any probe they launched would take months to conclude, with proceedings taking place in private. There would be no Privileges Committee-style public grillings.
And in the meantime, the government can point to a due process being under way, which must be respected.
That is a solid holding position, and one which has been echoed by cabinet ministers in interviews already.
Can Mr Matheson tough out the questions in the short term?
That is perhaps the final question on this affair, because the ball is largely in his court.
The health secretary will be dogged by reporters at every event for the foreseeable. The media do not take kindly to feeling misled. The follow up to literally every question will be whether the previous answer was true.
There is also the question of what his constituents make of it all. If his mailbox is deluged by furious Falkirk residents, he might have a change of heart.
There could also be pressure from within government, if colleagues on the SNP or indeed Green benches are unhappy with the handling of the affair.
And then there's the impact on Mr Matheson's own life at home. He has already been clear about how difficult this row has been for his family.
He has put much store in his personal reputation and integrity, as someone who has been at Holyrood since 1999 and generally been pretty well thought-of, and as a long-serving government minister.
But he may conclude that the worst has been and gone with that emotional moment at Holyrood.
Michael Matheson has offered an "unreserved apology" to MSPs after admitting his sons had run up an Â£11,000 bill by watching football using data from his parliament-issued iPad.