3 ms·

No because they didn't lose. It's a standard technique for corps suing individuals, you string the person along for years as they rack up $100,000 in legal fees

No because they didn't lose. It's a standard technique for corps suing individuals, you string the person along for years as they rack up $100,000 in legal fees while your costs are for your own internal lawyers - and wait for them to go bust. You drop the case before it goes to court so there is never any chance of you losing.

sketerpot 17y ago
Where are barratry laws when you need them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
- kjuhygfgbhjnm 17y ago
  But remember the crackpots (sorry homeopathists) were the innocent victims here - the nasty journalist said they were a buch of frauds - so causing them to lose money and their patients to go untreated.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    I'd love to see him counter sue for, I don't know, besmirching his good name. They accused him of lying right? Can he not ask them to prove that. Would be amusing (but I realise, sadly, unlikely)
    - faboo 17y ago
      They accused him of libel, actually. In the UK you can both be telling the truth and be guilty of libel. (Hence the hubbub there about libel reform)
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Fair point; I forgot the precise bit they were suing over. :)
ErrantX 17y ago
> No because they didn't lose. Perhaps not legally (and so, yes, they probably won't be made to pay). But I think publicly they have lost on this. If the aim was to ruin his reputation that doesn't seem to have worked and neither has trying to ruin him financially. I would say Singh has won in every sense of the word but a legal ruling :)