Great comment. No, I don't think it would set precedent on forced confession or anything like that. But when the whole case involves a burden that is shifted onto the defendant, that's a dangerous precedent itself. This case should not have gone so far already.

You are correct regarding the normal civil standard of proof. What we are talking about here is the burden of proof, which is slightly different. It's simpler: the defendant should not have the burden of proving innocence (criminal) or lack of liability (civil), yet that is the plaintiff's entire case here.

Basically, the law can change over time and if this works once for a plaintiff, there is no telling how many more opportunists will sue artists, authors, you name it, using a similar theory of liability. And some of those courts will be looking at what this one did. Over time, the law can shift as courts interpret and apply it in new ways. Criminal law is pretty well insulated by constitutional protections, but how many of those have we seen whittled down when times change? A lot of them.