4 ms·
"It's not perfect, but if you make ten billion dollars from fraud," I don't see how this applies to this matter. From what I read in the article, Uber was bein
by redm 9y ago
"It's not perfect, but if you make ten billion dollars from fraud,"
I don't see how this applies to this matter. From what I read in the article, Uber was being sued and investigating a crime that occurred through the application of their service. In other words, if they did something wrong, it wasn't in the pursuit of profit, it was in defense of another lawsuit or the ultimate private settlement thereof.
- SolarNet 9y agoYes, however they still profit from winning such lawsuits, if this was typical behavior, then theoretically they should be on the hook for any money they avoided paying by using such methods. For example if they were invading the privacy of the people in the drivers lawsuit (where they ended up paying 100 million) and used it to win instead, then that would be the amount they should be on the hook for. The point is that any illegal behavior in corporate governance means the corporation and the people who stand to benefit from it automatically loose entirely on the related matters. Which is guaranteed to be effective at stopping illegal behavior. Of course this is in the case of criminal fraud, which hasn't been brought up in this news case you are correct.
- spacemanmatt 9y agoThe lawsuit is against the business. Defending from a suit and profit are commingled interests; there is no separating them.