[1] Legal observers suggested that, if upheld, the case would prove notable for the court's expansion of the ACPA liability to include contributory cybersquatting.

In addition to cybersquatting, the defendants also produced instructions (including a video) on how to use Microsoft's marks in a misleading manner to maximize traffic to the website.

"[citation needed] Previous courts, notably in Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com,[8] reasoned that a higher standard was required for claims of contributory cybersquatting.

[citation needed] The Judge noted that in this particular case, the facts clearly demonstrated bad faith with an intent to profit, and as such denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Several scholars noted that the court's decision provides a precedent for expanding ACPA liability, beyond actions explicitly prohibited by the text of the law.