3 ms·
That was a separate lawsuit and as you mention they already won it.
by voxic11 7y ago
That was a separate lawsuit and as you mention they already won it.
- DonHopkins 7y agoIt was a successful "legal motion" "TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT" from Proper Media's defamation case, not a "suite" (sic) nor a "separate lawsuit" as you claim. You could try reading the document I linked to. It's all there in stark black and white: "By cutting off Snopes’ primary source of revenue and stymying its ability to pay legal fees, Plaintiffs hoped they could bring Snopes to its knees." ... "Plaintiffs’ claims are exactly what California’s anti-SLAPP statute is designed to prevent. This motion is proper because the challenged claims are a calculated effort by Plaintiffs to obtain an economic advantage over Snopes by expanding the scope of litigation, driving up legal costs, and chilling Snopes’ fundraising efforts." You said "The suite seems to be entirely about who is contractually owed the profits from advertising." It states quite clearly and addresses your point that that those profits from advertising were Snopes' primary source of revenue, which they used to pay their legal fees. Which is why they they won the anti-SLAPP motion. Do you still have any misunderstanding now?