It may be that this is referring to Wilding v. DNC Services Corp.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilding_v._DNC_Services_Corp.
It appears the lawsuit failed due to not meeting the legal tests for the causes of action alleged, and lack of standing:
The DNC donor class and the Sanders donor class alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of consumer law that bars deceptive trade practices. The claims were based on the theory that the plaintiffs were harmed financially by alleged false statements of impartiality.
The court said the plaintiffs in the DNC donor class had not alleged they relied on any specific statements before they made their donations, which defeated their fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims.
The court said the consumer protection claim failed because the plaintiffs were not consumers of goods or services.
The court said claims by the Sanders donor class failed on standing grounds because none of the plaintiffs alleged they gave money to Sanders after Wasserman Schultz made statements about impartiality.
Without better sources from the snippet I’m inclined to agree it is disinfo.
I guess what I don’t understand is how that bears at all to the court’s ruling - that to claim reliance on false statements requires specific statements which the court says weren’t made. Also the plaintiffs didn’t have standing. What does the obligation to follow their own rules have to do with anything?
Also, how reputable is “Independent Voter News”? Genuinely asking, I’ve never heard of them.