That could very well have something to do with it. A quick "google" will make it pretty obvious that the "tide has turned" a bit on the whole "sucks sites" situation.
For years it was pretty much a crapshoot - the court rulings were pretty inconsistent, with the "suck site" operator prevailing at times and the trademark holder prevailing at other times. That seems to be changing, as most recent rulings have landed squarely on the side of the trademark holder.
The content of critical sites may well be protected legally, but the "law" seems to be evolving more toward supporting the trademark holder when it comes to the use of a trademark in a domain name, "parody" and "criticism" considerations notwithstanding.
Of course, given that quality, and content, of that particular site (old content, not updated, few contributors, puppet-population, etc.) "natural selection" might have just kicked in resulting in its demise. No real loss. .