How is that relevant? A stupid and harmful policy is stupid and harmful, regardless of who was notified and how. If I send an email to Google to notify my displeasure, it is not reasonable to expect all Google employees to be aware of it and avoid my business.

Despite the fact that personally punishing individual employees for a beef your holding company has with some of their colleagues is stupid. There is no other way of putting it.

> Lawyers expect others to abide by such notifications, do they not?

There is so much wrong here. Lawyers are not omniscient. They also expect companies to abide by their own terms of use, and routinely ignore unfounded or groundless “notifications”.

> Bringing up companies the size of cities compared to that is completely ridiculous and irrelevant.

So, where’s the limit? What company size makes this reasonable?

> And companies like Meta, Google, Apple, etc. will absolutely enact draconian policies when IP and other litigations are going on.

So, it is draconian after all. Show an example of individuals being booted off Google’s or Apple’s platforms only because of their employer.

> Why does it matter where she's licensed? It's irrelevant.

But then, none of the points you’ve made are, either.

I started out reading the article wondering 'OMG, what is it that this mom could've possible done that she's banned?' and then when it says "lawyer at adversarial law firm" I immediately switched to "oh yea, makes total sense".

None of the counterarguments here stand up to scrutiny.

"Isn't involved in litigation" and "not a Security threat" - she is totally a security threat: today she's a mother of a girl scout and is not working on the case, and tomorrow she's a loyal employee helping out with the case.

"Part of girl scouts trip" - Does she have a firewall in her brain between personal and professional?

'Conlon said she thought a recent judge’s order in one of those cases made it clear that ticketholders like her “may not be denied entry to any shows.” - You know what the best thing about America is? Our endless appeal system.

This entire article is a non-story (someone denied access to a business), and yet, it's somehow making the rounds. The paranoid cynic part of my brain is interpreting this entire situation as "A law firm that sent in an employee for some snooping, and then got caught, and now is making some noise in the papers." The lady doth protest too much, methinks.