4 ms·

That's a good point. Where's the line between knowingingly circumventing the spirit of the law by following the letter. For example Teflon has been replaced w

That's a good point. Where's the line between knowingingly circumventing the spirit of the law by following the letter. For example Teflon has been replaced with chemically similar compounds that just aren't Teflon. It'll take decades for the studies to come in, in the mean time every human is being exposed to these chemicals in significant amounts. Then we have bpa, Neonicotinoids and other pesticides. We have cases where companies knowingly sell talc contaminated with asbestos for decades. We know these products kill people, we now the companies that make thenknow they are killing people and yet we can't claw back decades of fraudulently acquired profits and revenues? Imo, we should treat these behaviors like Nazis where everything they touched gets seized, even decades later. If that ruins some lives, well, whose worse off? The injured class or the child who inherited blood money?

tsdlts 6y ago
Isn't this a regulation failure though? The fact that these chemicals who we don't know the full effects of are let to market is the problem. Preventative measures make more sense than criminalizing things only when we find out there's a problem. Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? What if they've since switched markets entirely? What if the company disbanded and the founders created a new company in the same market? There's no clean way to deal out punishment in a legally unambiguous or overreaching way.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  It is 100% a regulation failure. The longer that companies are allowed to pervert government for private gain the louder and more extreme the demands from the disaffected will become.
- wnoise 6y ago
  > Isn't this a regulation failure though? Both/And. It's a regulation failure, and the unscrupulous take advantage it.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  It's a failure by regulators, but when you lobby for the lax regulations, you don't get to also stick them with the blame. > Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? It might not be clean, but I do believe it is unambiguous. Yes, the purchaser is still on the hook, and they should check their purchase agreement for the company to see if they can seek restitution from the original owners (assuming the risk of future litigation wasn't disclosed or waived). In this case the company knew they were externalizing a toxic chemical and did it anyways, thus they are liable to the extent the law allows. The original owner is potentially liable for breach of the purchase agreement if that risk wasn't disclosed to the new owner.

tsdlts 6y ago

Isn't this a regulation failure though? The fact that these chemicals who we don't know the full effects of are let to market is the problem. Preventative measures make more sense than criminalizing things only when we find out there's a problem. Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? What if they've since switched markets entirely? What if the company disbanded and the founders created a new company in the same market? There's no clean way to deal out punishment in a legally unambiguous or overreaching way.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
It is 100% a regulation failure. The longer that companies are allowed to pervert government for private gain the louder and more extreme the demands from the disaffected will become.
wnoise 6y ago
> Isn't this a regulation failure though? Both/And. It's a regulation failure, and the unscrupulous take advantage it.
arrosenberg 6y ago
It's a failure by regulators, but when you lobby for the lax regulations, you don't get to also stick them with the blame. > Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? It might not be clean, but I do believe it is unambiguous. Yes, the purchaser is still on the hook, and they should check their purchase agreement for the company to see if they can seek restitution from the original owners (assuming the risk of future litigation wasn't disclosed or waived). In this case the company knew they were externalizing a toxic chemical and did it anyways, thus they are liable to the extent the law allows. The original owner is potentially liable for breach of the purchase agreement if that risk wasn't disclosed to the new owner.