3 ms·
It doesn't matter who redacted it. The tweet claims "Amazon admits no basis for damages..." The only possible source for this is a court filing by Amazon's at
by staticman2 4y ago
It doesn't matter who redacted it.
The tweet claims "Amazon admits no basis for damages..."
The only possible source for this is a court filing by Amazon's attorney where Amazon admits there is no basis for damages.
The tweet appears to be a redacted filing by the Twitter user's attorney.
It doesn't support the headline at all. If you think it does, someone has sold you something.
- dang 4y agoI've added a question mark to the title. If someone can suggest a better* title, we can change it again. I'm pretty lost here. * i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the original source