3 ms·

Another reason to scrap class-action lawsuits - other than they clog up the courts with mostly frivolous claims seeking payoff and that lawyers get the bulk of

• zaksoup 8y ago
  Genuinely curious: what recourse exists for folks who aren't google-sized with google-sized legal teams to push back against bad-faith/illegal actions like this particular one. It seems clear that they acted against their users interests, even if the legality has yet to be determined. Google's de-facto monopoly on web advertising means that there's no other good option, though (and it's not as easy to avoid 'all ads served by google' the way it is to, say, stop buying Nike shoes because you don't like their business practices).
  • sqdbps 8y ago
    The relevant regulator not the courts. Also in this case there was no harm done and certainly the plaintiffs can't prove any. Google acknowledged the bug that was fixed back in early 2012!! this lawsuit is a money grab, most of them are.
    • zaksoup 8y ago
      you didn't really answer my question, and it also seems like the claim that there was no harm done is a bit specious, enough users to form a class certainly seem to feel harmed.
      • sqdbps 8y ago
        Feeling harmed and actually being harmed are different things. There is also something to be said about the general societal ill of feeling entitled to compensation for the slightest of perceived harms.
        • wanderer2323 8y ago
          (1) If the 'you are the product' maxim is true, then this behaviour of GOOG is equivalent to breaking, entering and stealing the product. (2) This is not an imaginary slight, a corporation wrote a piece of code with a clear intent to bypass a security setting on a user's device. Would the roles be reversed, charges would be brought against human without the need to prove harm or harmful intent -- DCMA is broad enough for that. Why should GOOG be less burdened by its unethical behaviour?
        • zaksoup 8y ago
          Still haven't answered my question about how individuals can pursue legal recourse against a large company without allowing class actions to exist.
          • deleted 8y ago
            [deleted]
        • abiox 8y ago
          > Feeling harmed and actually being harmed are different things. this seems almost non-sequitur. either way, it is the court's purpose to ascertain harm and any consequent penalties (if any).
          • zaksoup 8y ago
            Exactly this: If one group feels harmed and another group asserts that there was no harm then the courts exist to solve this exact problem.
    • s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "The relevant regulator not the courts" Here in the US, that's a non-starter.