The Bollea v Gawker case itself is already a counter-argument to your suggested fix. What would have been different if it was known upfront Bollea had third pa

The Bollea v Gawker case itself is already a counter-argument to your suggested fix. What would have been different if it was known upfront Bollea had third party funding and was willing to use it? The facts of the dispute haven't changed, so the end result should not have changed. The main effect is that Gawker may have changed their approach to defending/settling the case. Which is a good argument not to disclose how the applicants are funded.