It's important to investigate things before you subscribe to them. Just because something sounds plausible doesn't mean that it's true. Likewise, just because an apparently untrustworthy person says something, that doesn't mean they're lying.
"Consider the source," is a saying which also applies. It basically means that people are predictable, and the things they say and do are consistent with their beliefs. This means people may be lying outright, or unconsciously, in order to support their assertions.
You see this all the time in politics with each party determined to oppose the other. For example: anything your friends or supporters say or do is considered to be good, but if your enemy says and does the same thing, it only goes to demonstrate how stupid, wicked, or bad they are. If the enemy ever does a generally accepted "good" thing, then we're quick to ascribe an ulterior motive. When one of our own people does the same "good" thing, we're calling for Nobel prizes to be awarded.
In general, just because you hear about a lawsuit, there's no reason to jump to conclusions that the suit has any merit. Quite often, it's just a stunt put on by a legal firm to drum up some revenue for themselves, or by an organization seeking publicity for their cause. In my business law class, we were told that you can sue for as many zeroes as your secretary can type in on the form because the final award (if any) is more likely to be based on actual damages. A judge might throw out the case altogether, and a jury might even side with the defendants. These outcomes don't always generate the same headlines as the initial filing.
In the case of this lawsuit, we see that it takes a few more years to possibly get to the bottom of what's really going on.
