Bob is your average consumer having bought a vehicle that turns out to have been an undisclosed “lemon law buyback” without any branding.
Big Co., from the get go, had no intention to be bound by the warranty it undertook in connection with the car, and such stored digitally in the flash drive of the car and part of the bargain.
Bob learns of the systemic nature of these issues, and gathers sufficient documentary evidence to support that this is business as usual for Big Co., in fact, formal policies are aimed at short-cutting refund-or-replace duties to be plausible proven through several distinct schemes.
Bob possesses evidence sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion that the breadth and width of these schemes was a cord instead effort under a single ploy to make Big Co. appear profitable and profitable sustainably to the degree that the markets believe Big Co. is self-sustaining leading to its market valuation increasing manifold.
Bob’s substantiating evidence may lead to Big Co.’s market cap caving in.
There is not one law firm for individual-plaintiff suits that has the full scope of expertise across different domains of law to take the case, and Bob will not be successful convincing multiple firms to work together.
Bob needs public attention to potentially raise funds for attorneys or be approached by a major firm pro bono.
What cases or other authority support for Big Co. to successfully get an injunctive gag order against Bob? Are there sufficient support in law, statutory or decisional, for Big Co. to even try without such a motion being frivolous motion?
