(I'm not going to criticize a man who runs an educational toy company for not being precise about "lawsuit" "discovery" "subpoena" etc.)

I believe (subject to clarification) that he's a fact (regular) witness in CA's action against Amazon, and the discovery requests from Amazon are overly burdensome to him. He has no commercial interest in this litigation (except very attenuated benefit to his company if the Amazon policies change). It's unclear if this is just unthinking automatic action by Amazon/their lawyers, truly necessary for their case, or intentionally vexatious behavior, but it does seem clear there are two effects:

1) Silence critics of well resourced or litigious organizations 2) Promote anonymous speech (if they couldn't figure out who posted information, they'd have no one to vex through the courts.)

If I were not directly a party to something like this, I'd be very motivated to not expose myself to months/years of pain. None of this sold more educational toys for him in any volume. Using his specific identity and other stuff did add credibility to his initial arguments, but from reading the original blog post, it stands on its own merits, and especially if it had been a "name shaped pseudonym", I wouldn't have questioned it.