> If DigiCert is about to do something crazy like take down all your websites, courts are generally willing to put a temporary stop to it without understanding all the details. "Preserve the status quo" and "prevent irreparable harm" are the buzzwords.
So if DigiCert's irreparable harm was great would that prevent it? Like legally requiring CAs to follow their revocation policies or pay millions in damages?
You're conflating DigiCert's argument against issuance of the TRO, with the irreparable harm the complaintant (Alegeus) is alleging will occur if the TRO is not granted.
Are there actually millions in damages being caused by delaying revocation of these certificates? Courts are generally averse to “penalty clauses” where you make up a nonsense number and call it damages. (Irreparable harm means that ordering monetary compensation can’t remediate it, so a more reasonable fee would probably not count.)
So if DigiCert's irreparable harm was great would that prevent it? Like legally requiring CAs to follow their revocation policies or pay millions in damages?