3 ms·
> particularly in cases where it's difficult to ascertain whether any loss they have suffered is linked to the product or not This is what a trial is for? I'm
by teachrdan 3y ago
> particularly in cases where it's difficult to ascertain whether any loss they have suffered is linked to the product or not
This is what a trial is for? I'm not sure if you understand how a civil trial works. But lawyers from both sides get to present evidence supporting their case. Unless you're suggesting that 3M (market cap: $57.5 billion) did not have the resources to defend themselves against a frivolous suit.
To state what should be obvious: A company does not settle a frivolous lawsuit for $5.5 billion dollars.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=market+cap+3M&source=desktop https://search.brave.com/search?q=market+cap+3M&source=deskt...
- sokoloff 3y agoMy comment was responding to the ambulance-chasing-incentives aspect of the process.
- teachrdan 3y agoThat response does not make any sense. Ambulance chasers only make money if they win. In this case 3M had more than enough resources to defend itself. At worst, they could have settled for a trivial amount -- if they were not liable. The fact that they settled for $5.5 billion strongly suggests they were liable and they knew it. tl;dr It's not ambulance chasing to sue a company guilty of corporate misconduct.
- sokoloff 3y ago> Ambulance chasers only make money if they win. Clarification/correction: Ambulance chasers make money if they win or if the defendant settles the case.
- teachrdan 3y agoDo you have an alternative system in mind? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Should there be a purity test for lawyers to make sure they're 100% sincere in their lawsuits?