4 ms·

Thanks for quoting the whole thing, but I already read it. I actually posted a link to it. Papa John had had over 40 lawsuits in the last 30 days. A multinati

Thanks for quoting the whole thing, but I already read it. I actually posted a link to it. Papa John had had over 40 lawsuits in the last 30 days. A multinational chain is not an easy target. They have a couple attorneys and a long track record of legal battles, not shrugging things off.

Alupis 4y ago
The point is, their attorneys cost a lot of money to actually go litigate. They will have to bring in outside council, and hire a team that actually litigates, not just advises. It comes down to gut-wrenching, but basic math. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate, and the outcome is uncertain. Writing a check for half that amount and settle this in a few months is far more desirable. Particularly for something so easy for PJ's to just remove from their site and shrug off. It's not core to their business or anything... they're not defending the right to put pepperoni on pizzas... > Papa John had had over 40 lawsuits in the last 30 days You mean there have been 40 complaints filed against them in 30 days. That's not surprising at all. How many of these go to court? Probably near zero... it's just the reality of lawsuits...
- cantSpellSober 4y ago
  Yeah, I already knew that attorneys cost money > It's not core to their business E-commerce?!
  - Alupis 4y ago
    This session replay thing is not critical to anything they do, including ecommerce. It's just another analytics thing... Here's how it will play out... been there done that myself: 1) Tech team will be commanded to remove this analytics collection utility, and never use it again. 2) Lawyers get together and figure out a payment that makes sense without litigating and bringing on that risk. 3) Papa John's cuts a check and forgets this even happened. There is no scenario where this sees a courtroom. No case law will be made. No arguments will even be made. The lawyers will jaw back and forth for a few months, because that's what they do, but then ultimately a demand will be made by the Plaintiff's attorneys, PJ will haggle it down a bit, ultimately pay it, and then the real Plaintiff will get a small stipend if they agree to lend their name to another copycat case... rinse and repeat.

Alupis 4y ago

The point is, their attorneys cost a lot of money to actually go litigate. They will have to bring in outside council, and hire a team that actually litigates, not just advises. It comes down to gut-wrenching, but basic math. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate, and the outcome is uncertain. Writing a check for half that amount and settle this in a few months is far more desirable. Particularly for something so easy for PJ's to just remove from their site and shrug off. It's not core to their business or anything... they're not defending the right to put pepperoni on pizzas... > Papa John had had over 40 lawsuits in the last 30 days You mean there have been 40 complaints filed against them in 30 days. That's not surprising at all. How many of these go to court? Probably near zero... it's just the reality of lawsuits...

cantSpellSober 4y ago
Yeah, I already knew that attorneys cost money > It's not core to their business E-commerce?!
- Alupis 4y ago
  This session replay thing is not critical to anything they do, including ecommerce. It's just another analytics thing... Here's how it will play out... been there done that myself: 1) Tech team will be commanded to remove this analytics collection utility, and never use it again. 2) Lawyers get together and figure out a payment that makes sense without litigating and bringing on that risk. 3) Papa John's cuts a check and forgets this even happened. There is no scenario where this sees a courtroom. No case law will be made. No arguments will even be made. The lawyers will jaw back and forth for a few months, because that's what they do, but then ultimately a demand will be made by the Plaintiff's attorneys, PJ will haggle it down a bit, ultimately pay it, and then the real Plaintiff will get a small stipend if they agree to lend their name to another copycat case... rinse and repeat.