You are absolutely wrong. Had the case been weak, as you claim, there is no way in hell that CNN would have settled.
NONE.
It sets a precedent that others are now going to use against them. No, the case was solid, and they knew it.
That's why they bailed so fast.
Or they just realized it was cheaper to pay "Go the **** away" money than to have this get rehashed in the press over and over and over again.
No, the LAST thing a media company would EVER want to do in this situation is pay money. PERIOD. It sets a precedent that ALL media companies are now going to be saddled with. The only reason why they settled is because they
knew they were going to get fucked.
And rightfully so.
Whether they won or lost the case, CNN was fucked by the filing of the suit, because the Defendant's costs are sunk costs. Win or lose, they still end with a huge bill. If CNN win their case, they still get a bill for tens of thousands of dollars. Having the other side assessed for the defendant's legal bill is meaningless. The amount adjudged is a small fraction of the defendant's costs to retain their lawyers and to fight the lawsuit.
The last thing a media company wants is a protracted lawsuit with a team of lawyers billing at $800 per hour each, for pre-trial work, plus paralegals billing at $200 per hour, and upwards of $3000 per court appearance, per lawyer. You can hit $100,000 in legal bills without batting an eyelash.