> The claim was very specific: Prove this data isn't from the 2020 election. All you had to do was actually include 2020 election data in the set. And right the

> The claim was very specific: Prove this data isn't from the 2020 election. All you had to do was actually include 2020 election data in the set. And right there, the problem becomes much harder. The core of the arbitration decision is that "election data" specifically meant "packet captures of machines related to the election," relying on the fact that pretty much everyone (sans Lindell) understood that that was the kind of data they expected to have. Lindell instead had a tactic of relying on him being the ultimate arbiter of what satisfied "election data" as an ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card (which likely could have run afoul of other good-faith laws, although arbitration didn't analyze that point because they didn't need to go that far).