"Zuru hasn't simply alleged that it suffered a loss; Zuru’s cofounders declared, under penalty of perjury, that because of the negative reviews, Zuru had to spe

"Zuru hasn't simply alleged that it suffered a loss; Zuru’s cofounders declared, under penalty of perjury, that because of the negative reviews, Zuru had to spend more money to recruit job candidates for a particular position." I don't understand the logic of the judge here. If even the most true-to-fact negative review may result in spending more for recruiting. Did not they have to demonstrate that they had monetary losses specifically attributed to dishonest negative review?