from the FBI raid because it provided documentary evidence to support critics' claims of the church and was the primary source of information used in the article The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power published by Time magazine in 1991. Vexatious litigation After the FBI raid, Rinder stated that fair game tactics had to be changed. Intimidation tactics were still used but took the form of vexatious litigation instead. Rinder stated this was effective at silencing organizations from disseminating information critical of Scientology and credits them with why the public was relatively unaware of the information seized during the FBI raid. Not until the Time magazine article, "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power," and the litigation that followed did that end. The year prior to the defamation lawsuit against Time magazine, the church was successful at shutting down the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) with these lawsuits. However, unlike CAN, the Time Warner Corporation had the resources to defend itself and the documents from the FBI raid to justify their claims. The biggest impact was that Time Warner was able to successfully prove that this lawsuit was vexatious in nature and meant to financially drain the critic into submission and not to resolve any actual dispute. Because the discovery process allowed for the subpoena of church documents, it essentially allowed the church to be "raided again" and the documents that described the churches vexatious litigation policy were found. The result was the church lost its lawsuit and was permanently discredited in all future litigation. The courts were also no longer receptive to litigation brought by the church after the case either because it had been conclusively demonstrated that the church was abusing the legal system. The approximately seven million dollars the church spent attempting to discredit the article had the opposite effect of drawing more attention to the case as well. In the early 1990s, when the internet was in its infancy, internet startups could be intimidated by the threat of litigation by the church but a decade later those same companies were now large corporations with the resources to defend themselves and lobbied for legislation that shielded them from user liabilities, "loser pays" laws that indemnify the church if they lose a lawsuit, and anti-SLAPP laws that prohibit them from using lawsuits to financially drain a critic into submission. Lawsuits against individual critics did continue but clever defendants began