I am not a lawyer. That said, I'm skeptical of the merits of this suit. Here's the actual complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.

I am not a lawyer. That said, I'm skeptical of the merits of this suit. Here's the actual complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.52... Ubiquiti seems to be arguing (count 1) that Krebs defamed them by not clearly identifying Sharp as his source in the December 2 post and December 5 update to the original article. That simply updating the original article constitutes repeating everything contained in it and is therefore defamatory beggars belief. They also argue (count 2) that the initial March article was defamatory. But it can't have been if if Krebs at the time didn't know the information provided by his source, Sharp, was false. Presumably Sharp didn't share that with Krebs that he was the one behind the breach, so Krebs wouldn't have had particular reason to suspect he was providing false information. Maybe Sharp defamed them, since he obviously did know he was telling falsehoods, but it's hard to see how Krebs did (and two of the supposedly defamatory statements in count 2 are just Krebs describing or quoting what Sharp said). Bad journalistic practices may abound, but I don't think any of that constitutes defamation. Neither Krebs nor Ubiquiti look great here.