What exactly was the court’s reasoning for such a strong one-sided ruling? I feel like the article doesn’t adequately explain. This is about all we get:

The claimed damages stem from their entry into the slaughterhouse, the secret filming, and the publication of the footage […]

Let that sink in. The judges confirmed the footage was authentic. They confirmed it showed animal welfare violations. They confirmed it was in the public interest. And they still gave the slaughterhouse everything it asked for.