I hope the conclusion of this matter brings you some satisfaction and solace."Senator Shoebridge, who has raised the American Express case in federal parliament several times, said the gag order was "deeply distressing"."I'm deeply concerned about the precedent that this sets and what it says to people also seeking to make complaints about privacy breaches they have experienced at the hands of large multinationals."When a regulator's processes favour powerful institutions and exhaust the individuals seeking justice, that is a bad outcome."The Australian Privacy Commissioner has found that this American multinational breached privacy laws and then threatened the successful complainant with a court injunction if he tells the whole truth about it That is so obviously wrong."A spokesperson for the OAIC defended the gag order and said it relied on "free and frank disclosure of information to efficiently and effectively investigate privacy complaints"."The OAIC considers that the disclosure of this information could cause harm to individuals, present a risk to AMEX's cyber security, and undermine the OAIC's investigation process," they said.The spokesperson said the OAIC sought to "balance the need for transparency, regulatory guidance and deterrence on one hand, with the need to prevent harm and preserve the effectiveness of the regulatory framework on the other".