File:Prenda Law and apparent related entities (as adopted by court in Ingenuity 13 v. Doe).png

Immediate source: Diagram obtained from Federal Court ruling 6 May 2013 (Page 9). The Court states: "Still, the Court adopts as its finding the following chart detailing Plaintiffs’ relationships. Though incomplete, this chart is about as accurate as possible given Plaintiffs’ obfuscation."

The firm and related entities and persons are acknowledged generally by the Court and media sources to be extremely opaque in structure. ("The Principals also obfuscate other facts, especially those concerning their operations, relationships, and financial interests. The Principals’ web of disinformation is so vast that the Principals cannot keep track..." ^{ruling: p.8-9}). Therefore an explanatory diagram is relevant and this is the one selected and "adopted" by the Court in its ruling.

1. The underlying information conveyed by the diagram is dense, and is "incomplete" having been "obfusticated", in the Court's view. An attempt to cover the same description textually, would therefore carry an extremely high risk of misrepresenting the court's intended concept it wished to convey, thus misinforming the reader, and perhaps also of misrepresenting one or more parties and individuals in a different light than the Court had actually intended (WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS). The infographic is the one representation certain to correctly, and without any modification, convey what the Court actually itself intended by this diagram;
2. The subject matter is dense and would be extremely difficult to put into words in a way that a reader would readily understand;
3. It isn't likely to be 100% clear what exact words correctly characterize some aspects shown in the diagram, although presumably the Court's interpretation, understanding and intention is represented correctly by the diagram as a whole. As Wikipedia editors are not the Court, they cannot have the required certainty what words might correctly substitute for it as the Court would see it, so they are at risk (see point 1) of misrepresenting the diagram's meaning if they attempt to use their imagination to put into another form, or other words, the information and view that the Court had chosen and adopted to present in its ruling.