They're hoping for a default decision in their favour when the anonymous person(s) don't show up to court. Then they try to use that court order to shut down their work wherever thay can

I probably shouldn’t comment as I haven’t read the article (SHAME) but my assumption is this is the first step to compel platforms the cracker may have used to providing identifiable information on them.

Oh, that's easy. You have one of your rent-a-cops grab a random dude off the street, beat a confession out of him, and then sue that guy.

I think I understand the approach.

Pro-consumer data/service companies have privacy policies where they don’t share someone’s info. The sole exception is when that person has used those services to break the law. The suit may have the intent of establishing that fact so said services consider providing the user’s info.

Here's a Wikipedia article about it in the US.