3 ms·
I worked in an industry where we were required to use a bunch of euphemisms throughout our internal documents for just this reason - if we were investigated by
by refurb 4y ago
I worked in an industry where we were required to use a bunch of euphemisms throughout our internal documents for just this reason - if we were investigated by the government, all of those documents would be evidence and using words like “war room” would be used as proof of (channeling the DOJ press release team) “anti-competitive actions akin to a war where the enemy would be destroyed, and the defendant would have a monopoly”.
So instead we used “team room”. The work never changed, just what we called it.
- tpxl 4y agoWouldn't any judge see right through such bullshit?
- refurb 4y agoAntitrust is notoriously hard to prove. It often comes down to intent. Internal documents and how the company talks about business decisions can be enough to sway minds in a situation where you’re trying to convince a judge/jury what the company was thinking. Clearly if you’re trying to put a competitor out of business then calling it a “team room” won’t matter one bit.
- svnt 4y agoIs this true? Given monopolistic consequences are structural and inevitable, it seems the law should be enforced on structure and function and not require deliberate intent.
- refurb 4y agoAnti-trust isn’t black and white. The government encourage competition, but when you compete to become the only company, then it’s anti-trust. The line is very fuzzy.