3 ms·
Exactly. People complain about how the lawyers who managed the case (sometimes for years!) take most of the payout, but so long as the company's risk/reward mat
by YCode 9y ago
Exactly. People complain about how the lawyers who managed the case (sometimes for years!) take most of the payout, but so long as the company's risk/reward math is tipped towards the safety of their customers I have no issue with not seeing much of the settlement.
- stult 9y ago>the lawyers who managed the case (sometimes for years!) take most of the payout This meme is part of the problem. The lawyers take maybe a third of the settlement, after bearing most of the costs of litigation themselves, which they would still bear if they lost. It's high risk/high reward. Lowering the reward just means no lawyer will take the case.
- maxerickson 9y agoQuibbling over "most" is beside the point. There is a real issue where the incentives for the lawyers don't line up well with the interests of the class. The lawyers likely do pretty well if they settle a huge case for tens of millions and the main thing that happens for the class is they can't file a lawsuit anymore. The financial penalty for the company is better than nothing, but it often isn't all that much and often doesn't do the class any real good either.
- jwommack 9y agoPart of the reason that is an issue is that they're settling for much smaller amounts because the cut they get is big. So you have some massive data breach cases settled for things like $10 million. That's not even punitive at that point for companies like Target. In practice it seems it basically just winds up being a big payout for whoever actually filed.