So let's see if I have it right from TFA:
1) She is alleging that an employee of the collection company (probably a pimply-faced 25 year old call center operator) "told her that MediaSentry hacked" into her computer. As if call center operators for another company know jack diddly about the technology used by a 3d party technology company - and even then, it is just her word that they told her that. MediaSentry itself says that they set up fake severs and monitor IPs and requests...like a honeypot. That is NOT hacking - the computer with that IP has to actively submit a request for the materiel, and the request is monitored. AFAIK, MediaSentry does nothing illegal - and I'll bet $5 that the RIAA checked that at length with several lawyers before hiring them.
2) At NO POINT in the lawsuit does it deny that her live-at-home daughter did NOT download said music. The ONLY reason that I can think of is that she would be perjuring herself to claim that, i.e., there is a good probability that it might be the case it was her daughter.
3) The rise in braodband has resulted in many more static IP addresses - and it looks as if hers was consistently used over the course of weeks. Again, no one has to hack to determine that - the MediaSentry server can prove that from their own logs, and corraborate that by subpeoning her ISP details (ie, that she has a static IP, or if dynamic what it was on a given day).
4) Her lawyers are idiots (anyone else see the spelling and formatting mistakes?), hoping for a sympathetic jury, some crying from the defendant, and a total ignorance of technology by the average juror. IMHO, this is NOT how we technophiles should be wishing society to turn out...blind ignorance of technology and lawsuits that exploit it are more long-term harmful to us than the RIAA.
Opportunistic, conniving biotch, if you ask me...
Future Shock