5 ms·

> But why should it be? If you trust your product, that's a no-brainer to cover the consumer for damages. If you don't... This assumes a lot of things about th

> But why should it be? If you trust your product, that's a no-brainer to cover the consumer for damages. If you don't... This assumes a lot of things about the US legal system that aren't really true. A company can get sued for anything. And the cost of litigation is nontrivial. In the US, by default, each party is liable for their own litigation costs. This means that if 20000 people decide to sue Pfizer (you know, 1% of 1% of the vaccinated in the US), Pfizer now has to deal with the litigation costs of tens of thousands of lawsuits. Even if they win every single one, they're paying for hundreds, or even thousands, of lawyer-years in billables. And while many of those might just be people hoping for a quick buck, or people with legitimate concerns who are ultimately mistaken, some will be agenda-driven people with funding to make the cases last, and whose goal is to make Pfizer look bad, because those people think vaccines are dangerous and the people who make them should be punished. And Pfizer is on the hook for all of that even if there are no damages. Zero, zilch.

908B64B197 5y ago
> In the US, by default, each party is liable for their own litigation costs. This means that if 20000 people decide to sue Pfizer (you know, 1% of 1% of the vaccinated in the US), Pfizer now has to deal with the litigation costs of tens of thousands of lawsuits. They can recover those costs if the lawsuit is frivolous. And we're talking about a billion dollar company racking billions in profits fighting in court against... sick people robbed of their health's. A balanced fight indeed.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > And we're talking about a billion dollar company racking billions in profits fighting in court against... sick people robbed of their health's. A balanced fight indeed. No, in this hypothetical, we're presuming that the vaccine has no side effects. So these people aren't sick people robbed of their health, but either mistaken or agenda driven. > They can recover those costs if the lawsuit is frivolous. This is a high bar and isn't always even possible, depending on the jurisdiction. Often it requires things like the person filing the suit to know the suit is frivolous.

908B64B197 5y ago

> In the US, by default, each party is liable for their own litigation costs. This means that if 20000 people decide to sue Pfizer (you know, 1% of 1% of the vaccinated in the US), Pfizer now has to deal with the litigation costs of tens of thousands of lawsuits. They can recover those costs if the lawsuit is frivolous. And we're talking about a billion dollar company racking billions in profits fighting in court against... sick people robbed of their health's. A balanced fight indeed.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> And we're talking about a billion dollar company racking billions in profits fighting in court against... sick people robbed of their health's. A balanced fight indeed. No, in this hypothetical, we're presuming that the vaccine has no side effects. So these people aren't sick people robbed of their health, but either mistaken or agenda driven. > They can recover those costs if the lawsuit is frivolous. This is a high bar and isn't always even possible, depending on the jurisdiction. Often it requires things like the person filing the suit to know the suit is frivolous.