Sarah Wynn-Williams book contains a number of implausible anecdotes which people repeat as gospel truth even though they have not AFAIK been corroborated. I am pretty skeptical, for example, that Sheryl Sandberg punished Ms. Wynn-Williams for not getting in bed with her.

And yet Sandberg has not sued for defamation…

I'm not sure she needs to given the rest of the case against the author

> Ms Wynn-Williams was told she must refrain from engaging in or "amplifying any further disparaging, crucial or otherwise detrimental comments".

> All previous disparaging comments "to the extent within her control" must also be retracted, the ruling also said

She apparently isn't even allowed to criticise Meta in private. They're a horrible company but so many of that book read like poor fiction

Why would she want to? Attempting to prove that private conversations did not happen as alleged is always a frustrating uphill battle, and winning the lawsuit wouldn’t stop people on social media from saying they think the court got it wrong and Sandberg really did do it. Wynn-Williams is already not allowed to repeat the allegations right now due to her case with Meta.

A lawsuit might get the relevant passage yanked from the book, I suppose.

Is it really worth getting a lawyer? Even of you win what is the gain?

They could have it taken out of print if it was as fictional and damaging as some say. I see new copies are still for sale so it can't be that.

Oh, I agree they could. Question is, is it worth the bother? the lawyers are the only ones who win if you tried anything.

I read half of it. I couldn't get paat her weird character attacks at his autism traits, her attacks on the male programmers in general despite most of the problems she faced coming from her (all female) team, and how she tried to frame herself as both indispensable and some unaware victim. I think the moment she wrote about giving birth while writing emails and her doctor begging her to stop as a humblebrag was the end of my relationship with that book