3 ms·

> *Apparently there are some legal systems, particularly in Europe, where the costs of taking Big Tech to court are lower. You’d have to ask your lawyer about t

by User23 3y ago

> *Apparently there are some legal systems, particularly in Europe, where the costs of taking Big Tech to court are lower. You’d have to ask your lawyer about that. The time and willpower aspects may be similar though. I’m not a lawyer, let alone a European lawyer, but I’ve heard that the drain-their-bankroll-with-spurious-motions technique that’s beloved by shithead corporations and their attorneys when they have no case isn’t practicable in most European jurisdictions. This is because even at the motion filing level, loser pays. So drowning you in garbage motions just gives your lawyer an easy payday. Odds of the US adopting that system?

tzs 3y ago
> Odds of the US adopting that system? In general, not without a major change in the US attitude toward how businesses should be regulated and how individual rights protected to be more like Europe. I'll elaborate in a bit. In specific areas of law the prevailing party can win attorney fees, but offhand I can't recall any areas where it is mandatory. It's up to the court to decide. Whether that is easy or hard depends on the area of law. For example in patent law the statue says attorney fees can be awarded in exceptional cases, whereas in copyright law the statute just says it is at the discretion of the court. The problem with making loser pays apply in general in US civil suits is that the US often relies on civil suits brought by individuals to enforce rights and regulations that in Europe would be enforced by a government agency. Loser pays could discourage individuals from bringing such suits against larger more wealthy entities because a case is almost never completely open and shut.
ls612 3y ago
Loser pays has a different trade off. If you have a case which is close on the merits (where you may well win but it isn’t certain) you may want to concede early because you are risk averse about paying BigCo’s legal fees. It isn’t a free lunch. It just shifts the pain points to a different class of cases.

by User23 3y ago

tzs 3y ago

> Odds of the US adopting that system? In general, not without a major change in the US attitude toward how businesses should be regulated and how individual rights protected to be more like Europe. I'll elaborate in a bit. In specific areas of law the prevailing party can win attorney fees, but offhand I can't recall any areas where it is mandatory. It's up to the court to decide. Whether that is easy or hard depends on the area of law. For example in patent law the statue says attorney fees can be awarded in exceptional cases, whereas in copyright law the statute just says it is at the discretion of the court. The problem with making loser pays apply in general in US civil suits is that the US often relies on civil suits brought by individuals to enforce rights and regulations that in Europe would be enforced by a government agency. Loser pays could discourage individuals from bringing such suits against larger more wealthy entities because a case is almost never completely open and shut.

ls612 3y ago

Loser pays has a different trade off. If you have a case which is close on the merits (where you may well win but it isn’t certain) you may want to concede early because you are risk averse about paying BigCo’s legal fees. It isn’t a free lunch. It just shifts the pain points to a different class of cases.