Thank you for your interest in the JOLT Digest – we strive to provide neutral, useful information on current developments in technology law, and links to the insightful commentary of others on the subject. While we work to make our articles as factually accurate as possible, inevitably mistakes are made. Thank you for bringing one to our attention.

A few notes about the article:

- The article actually pertains to the decision by Judge Presnell to grant the TRO initially, at the request of the FTC on 11/6. Because of the limits of student journalism, we only became aware of this development on 11/17, and posted on the subject on 11/25.

- The article incorrectly reports the TRO as resulting from a hearing on 11/17. Aside from this, the article is factually correct with regards to the substance of Judge Presnell’s TRO of 11/6.

- The confusion arose due to the 11/24 hearing, which we did not know about when our initial TRO-related post went live in the early hours of 11/25. This, combined with our incorrect reporting of a hearing on 11/17, made the topic of our article unclear.

After reading your post about our article, we discovered the incorrect dates in original post and corrected them. Further, we have updated the article with the court’s most recent order, including the reduced scope of the present injunction.

Thank you again for reading the JOLT Digest, and helping us keep our information accurate. If you have any more comments to bring to our attention, you can contact the Digest staff at DigestContent@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Andrew Ungberg
Digest Executive Editor