The argument isn't “Daily Harvest's product caused gallstones”, it's “Daily Harvest's product caused liver damage with symptoms strongly resembling gallstones,

The argument isn't “Daily Harvest's product caused gallstones”, it's “Daily Harvest's product caused liver damage with symptoms strongly resembling gallstones, and as a result plaintiffs received irreversible surgery with a risk of life-long side effects”. There are several questions here, and the legal system is the right place to unpick them. From the top of my head: - did DH's lentils cause liver injury? - is that injury permanent or temporary? - were gallstones misdiagnosed because of the injury inflicted by DH's lentils? - was unnecessary surgery performed due to misdiagnosis? - did the doctors misdiagnosing gallstones/performing unnecessary surgery meet the standard of care? - did the unnecessary surgery cause permanent/temporary harm? - was the direct harm (temporary liver injury) caused by DH's lentils reasonably foreseeable? - was the indirect harm (surgery, surgical complications, lifelong side effects) caused by DH's lentils reasonably foreseeable? A lawsuit is the right way to get answers to these and determine who, if any is liable for damages and in what amount.