> And a court should throw it out. If you want X feature then pay for X feature. If somebody sells you Y and tells you it's Y then you shouldn't be able to sue

> And a court should throw it out. If you want X feature then pay for X feature. If somebody sells you Y and tells you it's Y then you shouldn't be able to sue them because you wanted X. And the court will not - because of the liability of gross negligence cannot be written away. Many states and federal precedence exist on this aspect of release of liability. > I wouldn't buy that car. However, I'm not sure it's been shown Crowdstrike told them to install the software on all their machines. If they had then sure I don't think the asterisk saves them. This is the fundamental point of the lawsuit. Delta is claiming gross negligence liability which cannot be written away. Crowdstrike is claiming asterisk. The courts will decide if crowdstrike is liable or crowdstrike is not liable. If courts decide crowdstrike is liable, crowdstrike will have to pay up and also change business practices. So will other SaaS. If courts decide crowdstrike is not liable, customers of crowdstrike will account for that by negotiating lower priced contracts or switching providers to someone that is willing to take liability or their business insurance will drop crowdstrike as an acceptable security solution. Either way, crwd market cap is likely to decline. The only solution for crwd here is to settle outside the court - by paying up to Delta in hard cash. If I were a betting person, this is what I would bet on - again because liability for gross negligence cannot be waived.