4 ms·

But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. As said above, TPG isn’t subject to the TOS because they aren’t the ones who agree

But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. As said above, TPG isn’t subject to the TOS because they aren’t the ones who agreed to them. So, it’s the user that is misusing AAs data. But they don’t want to sue their customers (and in particular each customer individually, because I’m sure there is a no-class-action clause)… So here we are. It should be fascinating to see where this goes.

tiahura 5y ago
But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. As the great Professor Hecker repeated so often in Business Associations - “The tortfeasor is always liable.” E.g. when you get hit by the Dominoes delivery driver, you can sue the delivery driver.
- rhizome 5y ago
  I was just looking at this in the context of the Rogel Aguilera-Mederos (110 year sentence) truck-crash case the other week. IANAL, but as I understand it there's a legal concept called "respondeat superior" and the "McHaffie Rule" that may complicate that assertion. A lawyer could and probably would stomp me on this description, naturally.
  - tiahura 5y ago
    Respondeat superior means the employer is also liable, not solely liable. Again, the tortfeasor is always liable. Iaal.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. Respondeat superior lets you sue the principal for torts of an agent committed in the scope of their agency, but it doesn't eliminate the liability of the agent for their own torts. You typically want to sue the principal when the agent is less able to pay, less willing to settle, or one of many easily replaceable agents employed by the principal for the same purpose. When the first and third of those are reversed and the second is unclear (which seems to be the case here), you want to focus on the agent. You could sue the multitude of principals, too, but that's just a lot more cost for little additional benefit (and possibly sympathy backfire in a jury trial.)
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  And here's me, all idealistic, thinking that decisions on who to sue should be about the merits of the complaint, rather than "who has the potential to give me the most money".
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Civil lawsuits are a means of dealing with a problem, mainly by recovering losses (via damages) but also sometimes by imposing other legal compulsion (equitable relief). “how does filing a lawsuit against this party improve my expected resolution to whatever problem motivated the lawsuit, and is that worth the added cost of pursuing that party” should be part of your calculus. That's not to say the merits of the case don't figure in, but a meritorious case against someone who even the best possible outcome won't do anything to improve your condition is just a way to waste your money and time, and the courts.

tiahura 5y ago

But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. As the great Professor Hecker repeated so often in Business Associations - “The tortfeasor is always liable.” E.g. when you get hit by the Dominoes delivery driver, you can sue the delivery driver.

rhizome 5y ago
I was just looking at this in the context of the Rogel Aguilera-Mederos (110 year sentence) truck-crash case the other week. IANAL, but as I understand it there's a legal concept called "respondeat superior" and the "McHaffie Rule" that may complicate that assertion. A lawyer could and probably would stomp me on this description, naturally.
- tiahura 5y ago
  Respondeat superior means the employer is also liable, not solely liable. Again, the tortfeasor is always liable. Iaal.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. Respondeat superior lets you sue the principal for torts of an agent committed in the scope of their agency, but it doesn't eliminate the liability of the agent for their own torts. You typically want to sue the principal when the agent is less able to pay, less willing to settle, or one of many easily replaceable agents employed by the principal for the same purpose. When the first and third of those are reversed and the second is unclear (which seems to be the case here), you want to focus on the agent. You could sue the multitude of principals, too, but that's just a lot more cost for little additional benefit (and possibly sympathy backfire in a jury trial.)

FireBeyond 5y ago
And here's me, all idealistic, thinking that decisions on who to sue should be about the merits of the complaint, rather than "who has the potential to give me the most money".
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Civil lawsuits are a means of dealing with a problem, mainly by recovering losses (via damages) but also sometimes by imposing other legal compulsion (equitable relief). “how does filing a lawsuit against this party improve my expected resolution to whatever problem motivated the lawsuit, and is that worth the added cost of pursuing that party” should be part of your calculus. That's not to say the merits of the case don't figure in, but a meritorious case against someone who even the best possible outcome won't do anything to improve your condition is just a way to waste your money and time, and the courts.