>> 4 months before the law that they allegedly violated was enacted 1. The Internet is a medium in which stuff is sort of continually published as it's request

>> 4 months before the law that they allegedly violated was enacted 1. The Internet is a medium in which stuff is sort of continually published as it's requested. If you're made aware that a claim is false and don't actually have anything to back it up, I think it's naturally on you to amend that or remove it. I don't necessarily see this as a violation of the rule of law if that happened and they took no action. 2. They claimed that someone had "alleged links based on reports". Well if they can produce third-party reports I think they're technically in the right. But there's a problem that people read too much into it when writers hedge what they're saying. Reminds of Himalayan Salt: it's known for it's color and mineral content (impurities), but people often say that OTHER people call it the purest salt. Maybe it is, but that doesn't make sense to me. So I once called a nutritionist on it when they made the claim and they said, "oh I don't know, but other people say that". There's so little burden of proof because of how they say it. Should be a red flag when we read it.