4 ms·
This article contains zero information on exactly what the violation was. It’s quite possible that there was an ambiguity in the law or regulation.
by avalys 3y ago
This article contains zero information on exactly what the violation was.
It’s quite possible that there was an ambiguity in the law or regulation.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago> the company violated the Clean Air Act by installing devices to defeat emissions controls on hundreds of thousands of engines
- cyanydeez 3y agoI think you mean that it's quite possible their lawyer estimated the value of interpreting the regulations wrongly was greater than the penalty.
- goodluckchuck 3y agoOr that it was morally justified as a means of self defense since the regulation was primarily intended to destroy the company as a means of sabotaging American industry.
- itsanaccount 3y agoWho meant to sabotage American industry?
- ryaneager 3y agoWait, are you arguing in favor of the polluting car companies…?
- rasz 3y agoBecause they settled, that usually means you dont have to admit any wrongdoing.