How does serving extra-hot coffee save money? Seems if it got cold faster, people might need more refills, so it'd make more sense to serve it colder, eh?
As to the snarky comment, it was identified by ME as being snarky, so it could safely be ignored. Ignoring the facts of the case because they don't fit your preconceived notions, however, can't. There IS no "debunking" of a court case. Facts are facts, and they're the same no matter what side you're on - or that's how its supposed to work, at least. The coffee either WAS or WAS NOT 220 degrees. The settlement either WAS or WAS NOT $5 million dollars. There either WAS or WAS NOT a warning on the lid. These are verifable facts. If they're in dispute, then the people disputing them are tasked with providing the actual facts.
So again, if the information presented from the website is inaccurate, then present the actual facts of the case that "debunk" the information presented.