It makes no sense to me that Right Haven could have standing in any case. It is as though someone buys a used car knowing it has a dented fender, then sues a third party for having dented it. Where is the harm to the buyer? He knew the fender was dented when he bought the car. But that apparently is not how the law works. The judge's ruling says that Right Haven lacks standing because it never bought the car. I mean, the news article.
"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln