The fact that unfavorable information is out there doesn't obviate a contractual agreement not to discuss it in public per the settlement. Doing something that could cost you (as here) is the very foundation of contract.

I neither know nor much care how their operation runs, and it's not my purpose to defend it. To be honest I've never especially liked the people who run it; their deconstructions of internet rumors are often snarky and shallow, and undermine their factual value with distracting tone issues - but that's how they choose to run their business. I'm just pointing to the fact of the site's general reliability as a fact-checking service over a long period.

Right, I know they may be unable to discuss it even when it's public. I was saying if it were entirely made up (i.e. there is no such settlement to begin with), they could say as much.