The article doesn't explain everything and I may defend Kraken in this case. When you work for this kind of company, you have several non-disclosure agreements in your contract that you have to respect. Once you left the company too.
You can't go and repeat what happens, how the company works and so on.
that doesn't address one of the primary issues: the subpoena itself is based on vague claims and conjecture. kraken has no proof that former employees even posted on glassdoor, nor have they articulated which statements are actionable. this argument from the EFF's motion to quash is spot on:
Payward fails to specify which particular statements within the review are allegedly actionable, much less specifying what actionable meanings the statements convey or providing evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the statements were capable of any actionable meanings. The vagueness of Payward’s claims “is redolent with the possibility that greater specificity might not disclose” confidential information or disparaging/defamatory remarks, “but a lack of merit in the claims themselves.”
kraken is essentially throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks without meeting any of the legal requirements before them.
they also haven't proven that defendants shared "confidential information". did you read the reviews? they are really quite generic and opinion-based.
then there's the disparagement claim. kraken fails on virtually every front there, but this one is the most obvious: a breach of contract claim for disparagement requires the plaintiff to show evidence of false or misleading statements. kraken hasn't even attempted to prove that, and i strongly doubt they could.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S207172.PDFApparently the person tried to break the agreement, as a company Kraken has also its right to defend its interest
that is 100%
not apparent. kraken has not proven in any way that the confidentiality agreement was broken, nor that the defendants engaged in disparagement. you're just taking their word for it IMO.
read the EFF's response. it's quite illuminating. there are multiple important issues at hand---not only free speech but rights to privacy. kraken shouldn't be given the authority to violate privacy rights simply on the basis of meritless allegations.