You need the case specifics to usefully argue for or against civil liability. The standard of proof might be lower but that must makes it more messy. Apple’s ta

You need the case specifics to usefully argue for or against civil liability. The standard of proof might be lower but that must makes it more messy. Apple’s taken some measures to prevent themselves from being liable. Were they enough? Is it possible to sell this kind of product and do enough to insulate themselves without getting some laws changed? Who knows. Maybe this Court will weigh in on that, assuming Apple doesn’t settle to make this go away. There’s a ceiling on the useful discussion we can have about civil liability in an HN thread about an ongoing case about this specific product. The same is true with guns and beers: you need facts of the case that are being argued, not just a couple of off-the-cuff whatabouts.