the problem with all environmental hazards is, we have to wait until the government steps in to do testing.this has proven out time and time again with industrial waste, pesticides, medications and etc.. to say something is not a hazard, until someone proves it is a bit naive.
If they were asking for an injunction it might be about the child. Did they start building the dome that encloses their house to shield them the neighbors' wi-fi? If they had it, I presumed they turned off their wi-fi to protect the child.
That's true for things that are new or on a smaller scale, but when you have a product/technology that literally billions of people are exposed and have been exposed to for 20 years or more by now with apparently no adverse effects then IMHO the burden shifts to the people with the unsubstantiated issues (apologize for the run on sentence).
sometimes it's difficult to connect the dots, unless someone is making a concerted effort. there are a lot of cancers with unknown causes.