Does anyone have the text of the court filings? I assume Mr. Tomlinson's legal actions were highly defective in some way, given that the court sanctioned him,
- "A judge also ordered Mr Tomlinson to pay the anonymous blogger behind the website $23,700 in legal fees."
In the US, you don't pay the opposing party's legal bills when you lose, unless you did something egregious.
[late edit]: I believe the relevant filing on the SFTC page is "ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER JOHN DOE 1'S PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP SEC.2029.600 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS". (I'm not able to link to it).
To my understanding: it looks like the operator of the website didn't do anything actionable (as far the plaintiff could demonstrate), and it was (the court says) invalid for the plaintiff to try to unmask them. They could have tried to unmask individual users of the website, and it reads to me like the court might have agreed to compel the operator to do that. But it was sanctionable to go after the operator, on (to my reading) a speculative theory that they might have been involved with the posted content. As the court says, you can't do that: you need evidence specific to the person you are trying to deanonymize.
- "A judge also ordered Mr Tomlinson to pay the anonymous blogger behind the website $23,700 in legal fees."
In the US, you don't pay the opposing party's legal bills when you lose, unless you did something egregious.
[late edit]: I believe the relevant filing on the SFTC page is "ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER JOHN DOE 1'S PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP SEC.2029.600 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS". (I'm not able to link to it).
To my understanding: it looks like the operator of the website didn't do anything actionable (as far the plaintiff could demonstrate), and it was (the court says) invalid for the plaintiff to try to unmask them. They could have tried to unmask individual users of the website, and it reads to me like the court might have agreed to compel the operator to do that. But it was sanctionable to go after the operator, on (to my reading) a speculative theory that they might have been involved with the posted content. As the court says, you can't do that: you need evidence specific to the person you are trying to deanonymize.