> I think the complaint is worth reading, not because everything in it has already been proven true,

I think its worth reading, because it claims things are false and then describes how they are literally true, if perhaps incomplete.

If you know even a little of the applicable law, its also worth reading for entertainment value because its shockingly bad even beyond directly undermining its own falsity claims. There's a lot to go into about how bad, but the crowning bit of absolute failure is that it names two defendants—Media Matters and Eric Hanonoki—but then fails to even mention any allegations against Hanonoki in any of its causes of action (he is mentioned only in footnotes past the “Jurisdiction and Venue” section.)