2 ms·

The goal of obtaining justice for the client is rather different than the goal of maximizing legal fees

• fn-mote 4y ago
  The goal is also to create an incentive for the company to behave appropriately (legally) in the future. A few low-cost losses is not going to do that. The goal is social justice, not just individual justice.
  • TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    High cost losses won't necessarily do that either. The fallacy is that these transactions have to be financial. They don't. Any number of other remedies - from jail time downwards - would provide a stronger deterrent. Without strong deterrents and the threat of even more expensive class action - possibly leading to personal ruin - individual losses can be written off as a cost of doing business. Generally the sanctions for bad behaviour are far too light, and strongly biased towards business owners over customers/victims. The Sackler/Purdue story is a perfect example. Inconceivable levels of harm were caused - far more harm than a high profile terrorist attack. But the Sackler family is still worth billions. And no one is going to jail.
    • giantg2 4y ago
      Generally agree. Companies can mitigate the costs through insurances and just passing on costs to customers.
  • gbronner 4y ago
    The goal is to produce a relatively low-cost way to resolve reasonable disputes while eliminating opportunities for fraud and bad actors. A formal written complaint prior to filing for abitration might have been equally effective. Incentivizing escalation simply drives up the costs of resolving disputes.