4 ms·

> this is something I never understood of the Law about these kind of settlements, if someone pays something to the other party, something wrong must have been

> this is something I never understood of the Law about these kind of settlements, if someone pays something to the other party, something wrong must have been done With a civil suit, that's not necessarily the case, because there is a very different burden of proof compared to a criminal case. For civil trials the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, which means that the plaintiff merely needs to show that the fact in dispute is more likely than not. In comparison, criminal trials require a much higher burden of proof known as beyond a reasonable doubt. > https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidenc...

jaclaz 3y ago
The burden of proof has nothing to do with the admission (or not admission) of wrongdoing. A settlement is a way to end a dispute by agreeing to a solution, in other countries it is "normal" that a party admits (partial) responsibility and pays to the other party a (monetary) compensation and the other party accepts the compensation and promises to refrain from further actions in court. In such cases the admission is the actual reason why the compensation can be given to the other party. The way these class action settlements are closed seems like one party did nothing wrong still it gives money to the other party (why? because they are generous?).
- lockhouse 3y ago
  They are not paying out because they are generous, but I have seen companies pay out even when the case against them is flimsy simply because it’s the smartest business decision for them. These settlements are usually significantly less costly than if a civil case actually went to trial. Civil courts tend not to be very friendly to those with deep pockets. The burden of proof is very low, and the prevailing attitude is that they can afford it, so why not award compensation to the plaintiff.

jaclaz 3y ago

The burden of proof has nothing to do with the admission (or not admission) of wrongdoing. A settlement is a way to end a dispute by agreeing to a solution, in other countries it is "normal" that a party admits (partial) responsibility and pays to the other party a (monetary) compensation and the other party accepts the compensation and promises to refrain from further actions in court. In such cases the admission is the actual reason why the compensation can be given to the other party. The way these class action settlements are closed seems like one party did nothing wrong still it gives money to the other party (why? because they are generous?).

lockhouse 3y ago
They are not paying out because they are generous, but I have seen companies pay out even when the case against them is flimsy simply because it’s the smartest business decision for them. These settlements are usually significantly less costly than if a civil case actually went to trial. Civil courts tend not to be very friendly to those with deep pockets. The burden of proof is very low, and the prevailing attitude is that they can afford it, so why not award compensation to the plaintiff.