And yet Sandberg has not sued for defamation…

I'm not sure she needs to given the rest of the case against the author

> Ms Wynn-Williams was told she must refrain from engaging in or "amplifying any further disparaging, crucial or otherwise detrimental comments".

> All previous disparaging comments "to the extent within her control" must also be retracted, the ruling also said

She apparently isn't even allowed to criticise Meta in private. They're a horrible company but so many of that book read like poor fiction

▲

bluGill an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it really worth getting a lawyer? Even of you win what is the gain?

	▲	creaturemachine an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They could have it taken out of print if it was as fictional and damaging as some say. I see new copies are still for sale so it can't be that.

▲

SpicyLemonZest 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Why would she want to? Attempting to prove that private conversations did not happen as alleged is always a frustrating uphill battle, and winning the lawsuit wouldn’t stop people on social media from saying they think the court got it wrong and Sandberg really did do it. Wynn-Williams is already not allowed to repeat the allegations right now due to her case with Meta.

A lawsuit might get the relevant passage yanked from the book, I suppose.