This is a win for public oversight/discourse, transparency, the media, and the internet.

The change in position shows what the bank was originally willing to do, but changed position only after it considered the needed feedback. The change shows how insulated the bank and court had become, and needed outside input to calibrate it.

Are we going to hear about a counter suit under Anti-SLAPP, against the bank? They may have withdrawn their complaint, but the original alleged abuse and attack on public discourse remains unaddressed. If they are permitted a chance to first file a suit, cause others to react, then withdraw their suit without consequences through a counter-claim, the larger effect will not be met. The lawyers working for that bank need to know they face a challenge.

Where is the bank's corproate board in reviewing the guidance they received from corporate counsel; and is their corporate counsel under any review for what appears to have been poor legal advice? Is there any plan to review the bank's actions in re this litigation under the various geographic incorporation standards; or standards that would warrant increased oversight of the ban's board of directors?