8 ms·

Don't many companies do similar things to hook kids? Would candy companies be liable for making their products appealing to kids, knowing sugar is an addictive

Don't many companies do similar things to hook kids? Would candy companies be liable for making their products appealing to kids, knowing sugar is an addictive substance? The same argument applies to breakfast cereal companies as well.

daeros 3y ago
No disagreement here, but Instagram shouldn't be let off the hook just because cereal companies get people addicted to sugar too and do awful things as well. Remember two wrongs don't make a right.
- Auracle 3y ago
  Unequal application of justice isn’t justice.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    You can't pursue everyone at the same time. What do you suggest?
    - tengbretson 3y ago
      Cap'n Crunch has been out for 60 years. There's been time.
  - hanzmanner 3y ago
    An idealistic appeal to an unattainable equal application of an extremely multi-faceted legal framework is not an argument.
  - dmoy 3y ago
    Civil lawsuits aren't really justice at all in the first place anyways. At least not by that measure.
pixl97 3y ago
I mean cigarette/vape companies have been successfully sued for this, so yea.
- gameman144 3y ago
  Wasn't the whole victory there because cigarettes/vapes can't be sold to minors? It seems really hard to define a firm line between making an addictive product and making a product that people really use a lot because it's well-made. For instance, I play a lot of video games. If their developers got punished for getting me so hooked, that would be a real slap in the face to everyone involved.
  - hanzmanner 3y ago
    The focus of this lawsuit is specifically the declining mental health of minors, not the good quality of the product. If games will be determined to have an extremely detrimental effect on children, there will be similar lawsuits.
superkuh 3y ago
Sugar is not an addictive substance. You cannot become physiologically dependent on sugar with negative consequences. Lets not bring in even more disinformation. This nebulous application of the word "addiction" to non-addictive concepts by the public can lead to damaging outcomes like state DAs themselves exploiting the public ignorance and mis-use of the concept to try to bring themselves fame so they can run for public office later. See the original post topic for an example.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > Lets not bring in even more disinformation. And this is why “disinformation” is a bullshit term. Hes not spreading lies nor objective falsehoods. Hes not even making the claims you’re rebutting (physical addiction to sugar). He makes a perfectly valid point that we can all discuss as we see fit without maligning it as disinformation.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    > Hes not even making the claims you’re rebutting (physical addiction to sugar). Did you not read his post? I'll quote it for you. > Would candy companies be liable for making their products appealing to kids, knowing sugar is an addictive substance?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      You changed "addictive" to "physiologically addictive" to win an argument no one was having. That's not the only form of addiction recognized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction Food addiction (particular sugary/fatty foods) isn't that insane of a concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Food_Addiction_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Food_Addiction_Scale
      - superkuh 3y ago
        Your link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction Now lets go through each of them cited in the bad wikipedia write up. Sexual addiction: Not in the DSMV or even the updated DSM-5-TR. Not in the ICD-10 or ICD-11 (pre-release). Gambling addiction: The only one grandfathered in to the DSM. It's in DSMV. Probably to be removed in later versions "The DSM-V has since reclassified pathological gambling as gambling disorder..." ref: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10899-014-9449-2 https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10899-014-9449-2 . Also not in ICD-10 or ICD-11. Internet addiction: "Excessive Internet use has not been recognized as a disorder by the World Health Organization, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)." "The American Psychiatric Association (APA), while stating there is insufficient evidence for the inclusion of Internet gaming disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2013, considered it worthy of further study." And now lets go back to sugar and accepting your moving the goalposts to "food addiction" (another unsupported concept): You say that it is a purely psychological "addiction" with no physiological aspect and I agree. It's not an addiction. Those are called habits. Read more at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179181/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179181/ "Food Addiction in the Light of DSM-5" to understand how this societal fear meme fails to fulfill the requirements of an actual addition disorder.
dylan604 3y ago
Does switching to high fructose qualify as tweaking the formulas specifically increase/enhance the addictive properties? To me, Socials should be treated like Big Tobacco.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Does switching to high fructose qualify as tweaking the formulas specifically increase/enhance the addictive properties? “… a broad scientific consensus has emerged that there are no metabolic or endocrine response differences between HFCS and sucrose related to obesity or any other adverse health outcome. This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract.” HFCS is used because it’s cheaper. Not because it’s addictive. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    It's not the equivalence. Breaking down things down to elements and comparing them misses the unique structure and our response to that. Apple are the same as orange if you break them down into fructose/glucose.
adamrezich 3y ago
imagine if kids had a magic rectangle in their pockets at all times that generated, when tapped, an infinite amount of sugary breakfast cereal for them to consume, anytime, anywhere, and it had become commonplace for kids to spend plural hours each day doing nothing at all but mindlessly tapping said rectangle and consuming the magically-produced sugary breakfast cereal. imagine if this started from early childhood, with parents giving kids a slightly larger, rubber-bumpered sugary-cereal-producing magic rectangle to occupy themselves while out to eat or shopping for groceries or even just around the house. imagine if this was all completely socially accepted and anyone speaking out against it was shouted down as being opponents of technological progress or whatever.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  Imagine if parents could control whether kids have access to a magic rectangle and what they can do with the magic rectangle...
  - adamrezich 3y ago
    imagine if they didn't though because it was just societally accepted that kids having access to sugary-cereal-producing magic rectangles was completely normal, even out in public—plus adults also use their own magic rectangles almost as much as kids, and kids learn by watching adults.
  - gettodachoppa 3y ago
    What stops you from making this argument to allow kids to smoke cigs? That's kinda how this is. Imagine if every kid smoked, and if you didn't want your kid to smoke too, they become a social outcast with all the mental issues that come with it. Society steps in to regulate harmful/predatory behaviors all the time, even between consenting adults (let alone children, even if their parents play along). Libertarianism just doesn't work for kids. (I think it doesn't even work for adults, personally)
burnished 3y ago
Well? Its not enough to just say something and assume its absurd and stop thinking about it. Have those companies intentionally made their products addictive to the extent you think they are deserving of censure or punishment? Because if thats the case maybe your point shouldnt be "this new bad thing is fine".
- HappySweeney 3y ago
  I'm not so much saying it's fine (it clearly isn't), but that it seems to be grandstanding to me. Maybe it will yield some positive results for kids, even if at the cost of having official truth validators and/or uncensorable outrage porn for everyone else.
  - burnished 3y ago
    Thats fair, from the article alone I can't tell. They perform psychological research in order to make their product addictive though so I'm biased to believe this could be more of a 'banality of evil' type situation rather than a boogeyman hunt with fun civil liberties consequences.
tekla 3y ago
Same with video games. Imagine how much productivity would go up if addictive video games were banned. Looking at you Factorio
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Because we should only be worried about "productivity" and not allowing people to do something they enjoy doing off the clock. Paternalistic nonsense.
  - tekla 3y ago
    So yeah, let TikTok and Instagram do whatever. If Gen Z likes it, they like it.
    - hanzmanner 3y ago
      Do you feel depressed and suicidal looking at other people's builds in Factorio?
      - tekla 3y ago
        Yes. Knowing I will never be as good as them, knowing I am not as clever as them, realizing a 17 year old kid made a base that was 10x as efficient as mine in half the time in my 700 hour game. Terrible for my mental health.
      - alexsmarsh 3y ago
        No, but not having Air 1s did
    - psunavy03 3y ago
      Those are social media apps, not video games.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  I assume you're kidding, but I'm going to respond as though you didn't because I think many here may unironically believe you. Nope - it's exactly the opposite. The kinds of people with the pure autism needed to get good at Factorio, Rimworld, Dwarf Fortress end up as world-class developers. Some of the best historians are going to be minted by expert paradox game players. The games we should regulate are the garbage, zero-thought zero-gain games. Even fortnight and roblox are highly educational compared to the legalized child gambeling I see with those stupid ticket machines at places like Dave and Busters. Also, shooters are unfortunately a national security thing. I can show you videos from the US military, especially US tank trainers and rifle trainers about how shockingly familiar that these systems are even to people who have no experience with them due to realistic portrayals in their video games. This is why "Americas Army" existed at all.
candiddevmike 3y ago
Yes, and they should go after Roblox /Fortnite next. Fleecing parents so your kids don't get made fun of for "having the free skin" shouldn't be a business model.
- pton_xd 3y ago
  > Fleecing parents so your kids don't get made fun of for "having the free skin" shouldn't be a business model. Not any different from me guilt tripping my parents into buying me an expensive pair of Jnco jeans back in the day. Without them I wouldn't be cool and other kids would make fun of me! Or maybe they'd make fun of me for wearing those instead of something else the next year, who knows. Social pressure evolves pretty quickly.
- idontwantthis 3y ago
  Roblox is the only thing I’ve completely banned from my family.
  - TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
    Can you explain why? I allow my son to play it once per week for about 30 minutes, but I sit next to him the entire time and watch. Why did you ban it?
    - rokkitmensch 3y ago
      I preemptively banned it because: a) It's an excellent lead-gen machine for predators b) Kids trivially trip into (rigged) casinos My kids have an emulator running N64 classics and more next to the tv, no need for them to burn hundreds of dollars on gambling tokens.
    - idontwantthis 3y ago
      That level of supervision isn’t what I want to do and allowing him to play at all each time turned into no work, no other play, and even waking up in the middle of the night to sneak downstairs and play. It scared the crap out of me, tbh.
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
swatcoder 3y ago
Indeed so! Which is why there’s been a long history of formal regulation and explicit industry self-policing for both of those examples. Engagement-optimized social media is now big enough and seemingly permanent enough to be invited to the club, and seems to be very reluctant to do the self-policing thing so far.
firtoz 3y ago
Isn't it why there's sugar tax?
rchaud 3y ago
Candy companies don't run invisible psychological experiments on their customers. An app like Instagram is also self-replenishing, which can't be said for physical products with addictive qualities.
- hanzmanner 3y ago
  They do. Advertising is psychological manipulation (aka experiments).
  - rchaud 3y ago
    There is no experiment happening once the candy bar is in your hands. The bar discloses its nutritional contents in a readable label as required by law. The same is not true of Instagram whixh is an algorithmic black box. The EULA is made intentionally unreadable and easily skippable, so its users ignore the risks.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  They hold focus groups and push false narratives with popular characters.
YeBanKo 3y ago
Candies are the least sever offender. Everyone know, that you have to limit kids candy intake, because they have too much sugar. But why all of a sudden products like yogurt or pedialyte have loads of sugar?
jonhohle 3y ago
Last I checked candy companies aren’t finding ways to stalk children and keeping record of their habits and behaviors. Physically sugar might be worse, but the business practices of physical products have mostly been the same for decades. Social media companies are engaged in many practices yet to be litigated. Edit for clarity: certainly candy companies have general demographic data and market research, but advertising companies have profiles down to the individual. Lawyers seem to have settled on COPPA allowing them to do this for 13 year olds, but I would imagine most parents would prefer minors be excluded from any tracking, profiling, inclusion in multivariate testing or targeted advertising.
- JCharante 3y ago
  > but advertising companies have profiles down to the individual That's just because candy/cereal companies don't need it. Slap a superhero or Elsa on the cereal box and you'll have 50% of kids under 5 crying until their parent buys the cereal.
carabiner 3y ago
We regulate tobacco companies. Social media is the new smoking so this suit is following suit.

daeros 3y ago

No disagreement here, but Instagram shouldn't be let off the hook just because cereal companies get people addicted to sugar too and do awful things as well. Remember two wrongs don't make a right.

Auracle 3y ago
Unequal application of justice isn’t justice.
- fsflover 3y ago
  You can't pursue everyone at the same time. What do you suggest?
  - tengbretson 3y ago
    Cap'n Crunch has been out for 60 years. There's been time.
- hanzmanner 3y ago
  An idealistic appeal to an unattainable equal application of an extremely multi-faceted legal framework is not an argument.
- dmoy 3y ago
  Civil lawsuits aren't really justice at all in the first place anyways. At least not by that measure.

pixl97 3y ago

I mean cigarette/vape companies have been successfully sued for this, so yea.

gameman144 3y ago
Wasn't the whole victory there because cigarettes/vapes can't be sold to minors? It seems really hard to define a firm line between making an addictive product and making a product that people really use a lot because it's well-made. For instance, I play a lot of video games. If their developers got punished for getting me so hooked, that would be a real slap in the face to everyone involved.
- hanzmanner 3y ago
  The focus of this lawsuit is specifically the declining mental health of minors, not the good quality of the product. If games will be determined to have an extremely detrimental effect on children, there will be similar lawsuits.

superkuh 3y ago

Sugar is not an addictive substance. You cannot become physiologically dependent on sugar with negative consequences. Lets not bring in even more disinformation. This nebulous application of the word "addiction" to non-addictive concepts by the public can lead to damaging outcomes like state DAs themselves exploiting the public ignorance and mis-use of the concept to try to bring themselves fame so they can run for public office later. See the original post topic for an example.

nonethewiser 3y ago
> Lets not bring in even more disinformation. And this is why “disinformation” is a bullshit term. Hes not spreading lies nor objective falsehoods. Hes not even making the claims you’re rebutting (physical addiction to sugar). He makes a perfectly valid point that we can all discuss as we see fit without maligning it as disinformation.
- superkuh 3y ago
  > Hes not even making the claims you’re rebutting (physical addiction to sugar). Did you not read his post? I'll quote it for you. > Would candy companies be liable for making their products appealing to kids, knowing sugar is an addictive substance?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    You changed "addictive" to "physiologically addictive" to win an argument no one was having. That's not the only form of addiction recognized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction Food addiction (particular sugary/fatty foods) isn't that insane of a concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Food_Addiction_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Food_Addiction_Scale
    - superkuh 3y ago
      Your link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction Now lets go through each of them cited in the bad wikipedia write up. Sexual addiction: Not in the DSMV or even the updated DSM-5-TR. Not in the ICD-10 or ICD-11 (pre-release). Gambling addiction: The only one grandfathered in to the DSM. It's in DSMV. Probably to be removed in later versions "The DSM-V has since reclassified pathological gambling as gambling disorder..." ref: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10899-014-9449-2 https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10899-014-9449-2 . Also not in ICD-10 or ICD-11. Internet addiction: "Excessive Internet use has not been recognized as a disorder by the World Health Organization, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)." "The American Psychiatric Association (APA), while stating there is insufficient evidence for the inclusion of Internet gaming disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 2013, considered it worthy of further study." And now lets go back to sugar and accepting your moving the goalposts to "food addiction" (another unsupported concept): You say that it is a purely psychological "addiction" with no physiological aspect and I agree. It's not an addiction. Those are called habits. Read more at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179181/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4179181/ "Food Addiction in the Light of DSM-5" to understand how this societal fear meme fails to fulfill the requirements of an actual addition disorder.

dylan604 3y ago

Does switching to high fructose qualify as tweaking the formulas specifically increase/enhance the addictive properties? To me, Socials should be treated like Big Tobacco.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Does switching to high fructose qualify as tweaking the formulas specifically increase/enhance the addictive properties? “… a broad scientific consensus has emerged that there are no metabolic or endocrine response differences between HFCS and sucrose related to obesity or any other adverse health outcome. This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract.” HFCS is used because it’s cheaper. Not because it’s addictive. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/
- ipaddr 3y ago
  It's not the equivalence. Breaking down things down to elements and comparing them misses the unique structure and our response to that. Apple are the same as orange if you break them down into fructose/glucose.

adamrezich 3y ago

imagine if kids had a magic rectangle in their pockets at all times that generated, when tapped, an infinite amount of sugary breakfast cereal for them to consume, anytime, anywhere, and it had become commonplace for kids to spend plural hours each day doing nothing at all but mindlessly tapping said rectangle and consuming the magically-produced sugary breakfast cereal. imagine if this started from early childhood, with parents giving kids a slightly larger, rubber-bumpered sugary-cereal-producing magic rectangle to occupy themselves while out to eat or shopping for groceries or even just around the house. imagine if this was all completely socially accepted and anyone speaking out against it was shouted down as being opponents of technological progress or whatever.

Aerroon 3y ago
Imagine if parents could control whether kids have access to a magic rectangle and what they can do with the magic rectangle...
- adamrezich 3y ago
  imagine if they didn't though because it was just societally accepted that kids having access to sugary-cereal-producing magic rectangles was completely normal, even out in public—plus adults also use their own magic rectangles almost as much as kids, and kids learn by watching adults.
- gettodachoppa 3y ago
  What stops you from making this argument to allow kids to smoke cigs? That's kinda how this is. Imagine if every kid smoked, and if you didn't want your kid to smoke too, they become a social outcast with all the mental issues that come with it. Society steps in to regulate harmful/predatory behaviors all the time, even between consenting adults (let alone children, even if their parents play along). Libertarianism just doesn't work for kids. (I think it doesn't even work for adults, personally)

burnished 3y ago

Well? Its not enough to just say something and assume its absurd and stop thinking about it. Have those companies intentionally made their products addictive to the extent you think they are deserving of censure or punishment? Because if thats the case maybe your point shouldnt be "this new bad thing is fine".

HappySweeney 3y ago
I'm not so much saying it's fine (it clearly isn't), but that it seems to be grandstanding to me. Maybe it will yield some positive results for kids, even if at the cost of having official truth validators and/or uncensorable outrage porn for everyone else.
- burnished 3y ago
  Thats fair, from the article alone I can't tell. They perform psychological research in order to make their product addictive though so I'm biased to believe this could be more of a 'banality of evil' type situation rather than a boogeyman hunt with fun civil liberties consequences.

tekla 3y ago

Same with video games. Imagine how much productivity would go up if addictive video games were banned. Looking at you Factorio

psunavy03 3y ago
Because we should only be worried about "productivity" and not allowing people to do something they enjoy doing off the clock. Paternalistic nonsense.
- tekla 3y ago
  So yeah, let TikTok and Instagram do whatever. If Gen Z likes it, they like it.
  - hanzmanner 3y ago
    Do you feel depressed and suicidal looking at other people's builds in Factorio?
    - tekla 3y ago
      Yes. Knowing I will never be as good as them, knowing I am not as clever as them, realizing a 17 year old kid made a base that was 10x as efficient as mine in half the time in my 700 hour game. Terrible for my mental health.
    - alexsmarsh 3y ago
      No, but not having Air 1s did
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    Those are social media apps, not video games.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
I assume you're kidding, but I'm going to respond as though you didn't because I think many here may unironically believe you. Nope - it's exactly the opposite. The kinds of people with the pure autism needed to get good at Factorio, Rimworld, Dwarf Fortress end up as world-class developers. Some of the best historians are going to be minted by expert paradox game players. The games we should regulate are the garbage, zero-thought zero-gain games. Even fortnight and roblox are highly educational compared to the legalized child gambeling I see with those stupid ticket machines at places like Dave and Busters. Also, shooters are unfortunately a national security thing. I can show you videos from the US military, especially US tank trainers and rifle trainers about how shockingly familiar that these systems are even to people who have no experience with them due to realistic portrayals in their video games. This is why "Americas Army" existed at all.

candiddevmike 3y ago

Yes, and they should go after Roblox /Fortnite next. Fleecing parents so your kids don't get made fun of for "having the free skin" shouldn't be a business model.

pton_xd 3y ago
> Fleecing parents so your kids don't get made fun of for "having the free skin" shouldn't be a business model. Not any different from me guilt tripping my parents into buying me an expensive pair of Jnco jeans back in the day. Without them I wouldn't be cool and other kids would make fun of me! Or maybe they'd make fun of me for wearing those instead of something else the next year, who knows. Social pressure evolves pretty quickly.
idontwantthis 3y ago
Roblox is the only thing I’ve completely banned from my family.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  Can you explain why? I allow my son to play it once per week for about 30 minutes, but I sit next to him the entire time and watch. Why did you ban it?
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    I preemptively banned it because: a) It's an excellent lead-gen machine for predators b) Kids trivially trip into (rigged) casinos My kids have an emulator running N64 classics and more next to the tv, no need for them to burn hundreds of dollars on gambling tokens.
  - idontwantthis 3y ago
    That level of supervision isn’t what I want to do and allowing him to play at all each time turned into no work, no other play, and even waking up in the middle of the night to sneak downstairs and play. It scared the crap out of me, tbh.

idontpost 3y ago

[dead]

swatcoder 3y ago

Indeed so! Which is why there’s been a long history of formal regulation and explicit industry self-policing for both of those examples. Engagement-optimized social media is now big enough and seemingly permanent enough to be invited to the club, and seems to be very reluctant to do the self-policing thing so far.

firtoz 3y ago

Isn't it why there's sugar tax?

rchaud 3y ago

Candy companies don't run invisible psychological experiments on their customers. An app like Instagram is also self-replenishing, which can't be said for physical products with addictive qualities.

hanzmanner 3y ago
They do. Advertising is psychological manipulation (aka experiments).
- rchaud 3y ago
  There is no experiment happening once the candy bar is in your hands. The bar discloses its nutritional contents in a readable label as required by law. The same is not true of Instagram whixh is an algorithmic black box. The EULA is made intentionally unreadable and easily skippable, so its users ignore the risks.
ipaddr 3y ago
They hold focus groups and push false narratives with popular characters.

YeBanKo 3y ago

Candies are the least sever offender. Everyone know, that you have to limit kids candy intake, because they have too much sugar. But why all of a sudden products like yogurt or pedialyte have loads of sugar?

jonhohle 3y ago

Last I checked candy companies aren’t finding ways to stalk children and keeping record of their habits and behaviors. Physically sugar might be worse, but the business practices of physical products have mostly been the same for decades. Social media companies are engaged in many practices yet to be litigated. Edit for clarity: certainly candy companies have general demographic data and market research, but advertising companies have profiles down to the individual. Lawyers seem to have settled on COPPA allowing them to do this for 13 year olds, but I would imagine most parents would prefer minors be excluded from any tracking, profiling, inclusion in multivariate testing or targeted advertising.

JCharante 3y ago
> but advertising companies have profiles down to the individual That's just because candy/cereal companies don't need it. Slap a superhero or Elsa on the cereal box and you'll have 50% of kids under 5 crying until their parent buys the cereal.

carabiner 3y ago

We regulate tobacco companies. Social media is the new smoking so this suit is following suit.