"Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law and an expert on privacy issues, said the decision was "disappointing, but not surprising."
"In cases involving deeply humiliating and embarrassing allegations like an STD, plaintiffs will sacrifice their claims to avoid further damage," she said. "In privacy suits, we ought to reconsider the presumption against pseudonymity. If the decision is really due to the court's skepticism about the claim, then that should be the issue—the cognizably of the claim."
"The rationale is to put a thumb in the scales in favor of judicial transparency and the discouragement of frivolous suits," Citron added. "In truth, neither reason is convincing in light of counter interest in privacy and justice.""