Speaking from experience with these things (although in my case, the articles we were forced to remove were absolutely and completely 100% accurate -- but the c

Speaking from experience with these things (although in my case, the articles we were forced to remove were absolutely and completely 100% accurate -- but the company that acquired us wanted to settle all outstanding lawsuits and ended up caving so that the transaction could close), this might have been terms of the settlement or whatever it was he came to with Ubiquiti. In our case, because our articles were in fact, factual, we were able to re-iterate and even quote, as part of the legal filings, aspects of the original reporting as part of a story that was in response to the removals themselves, but the content at those original URLs was replaced with a notice that the articles had been removed because of litigation with our former parent company. The fact that he didn't (or hasn't) scrubbed the stories themselves from the Internet Archive is a good sign (I think we had to remove our stories from the Internet Archive, though I do know that individuals did make archives other ways). I'm pretty opposed to suing journalists for the act of doing journalism and even though I'm a big fan of Ubiquiti products, I still don't love this sort of tactic. That said, it does seem clear that these stories were not correct and at the very least, flawed because of the single-source who was not a reliable narrator (and admitted to lying to the press), so in an ideal world, these stories would have been retracted anyway.