Lawyers acting for Ryan Giggs have started new court proceedings to force Twitter to hand over further personal details of those who tweeted Giggs' name in reference to super-injunctions.
Although the lawyers' first attempts to get hold of user info failed, the micro-blogging site has since been ordered to hand some user details over to the South Tyneside Council in a separate case, which went through the California courts.
Twitter will be forced to comply if the action is successful, meaning that it will hand over users' names and contact information - it's not clear exactly how many users will be targeted.
But if your details are set to be handed over, you should find out ahead of time thanks to Twitter's policy of notifying users that their account information has been requested, "unless we are prohibited from doing so by statute or court order".
This morning the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, stated that anyone using social networking sites to undermine court orders would face legal repercussions.
If Giggs' lawyers succeed in forcing the site to hand over users' details, those Tweeters could face a contempt of court charge, and find themselves saddled with a fine, have their assets seized or even head to jail.
An injunction is a court order to stop papers from running a story; a super-injunction is supposed to stop any media outlet from publishing the fact that an injunction has been taken out.
But in the light of social media it seems that these injunctions are nigh on useless, as people flocked to Twitter in order to find out the story, broken by an anonymous Twitter account and endlessly re-tweeted.