4 ms·

Really funny how the US Court system becomes really interested in cases as soon as shareholders file a lawsuit. When people file a lawsuit, it is given due con

Really funny how the US Court system becomes really interested in cases as soon as shareholders file a lawsuit. When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster.

olliej 2y ago
Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that says invading people's privacy for profit, or to provide it to political parties, is legal and therefore not subject to lawsuits or legal challenges in future.
- SauntSolaire 2y ago
  > Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that (...) According to the article, the supreme court actually declined to issue a ruling in this case. Curious if that causes you to update your beliefs in any manner.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    But it’s much easier to comment immediately with my preconceived notions than to actually read the article and risk that it disagrees with them.
Terr_ 2y ago
"Now, my caddie chauffeur didn't need to inform me that holding stock is where people put money that is properly invested, therefore a shareholder lawsuit involves the most heinous of crimes: Theft of money. And the others don't." (Futurama ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8z1RYf9mM&t=1m11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8z1RYf9mM&t=1m11s)
voidfunc 2y ago
It's not funny, it's by design. Property owners and investors are usually given the most attention by courts because they matter more broadly speaking.
- brg 2y ago
  Another reason is that the harm can often be quantified and remedy easily justified.
  - mikeshi42 2y ago
    Matt Levine recently covered how it's much more lucrative/easy to sue Chipotle for skimping out on their portions from the investor/security fraud angle than it is the customer angle [1] Unfortunate how that's just how the system works. [1] https://archive.ph/mhEQA https://archive.ph/mhEQA
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers. If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer. As an investor, you typically need a lawyer, but with that hurdle met you're similarly powerful. As a worker, the system seems to presume you're SOL on arrival.
- csdreamer7 2y ago
  > Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers. That is not true. Failure to pay employee salaries is a very easy way to pierce the corporate veil. It is not just you become another creditor like a consumer or a supplier would be.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Failure to pay employee salaries is a very easy way to pierce the corporate veil Legally, yes. Practically, many employers bounce paycheques and get away with it. It’s tedious to enforce worker rights in a way it isn’t for consumers. (In most states, you can get the AG basically working for you by copying their office on a complaint to the company.)
    - csdreamer7 2y ago
      > Legally, yes. Practically, many employers bounce paycheques and get away with it. It’s tedious to enforce worker rights in a way it isn’t for consumers. (In most states, you can get the AG basically working for you by copying their office on a complaint to the company.) Not sure what the point of your argument is. Many employers get away with bouncing paychecks but you can get the state AG working for you by CCing them on email? The above comment claimed the law favored consumers and investors over employees and I gave a common case where they are not. Not the practicality of enforcing the law. The same goes for employers too where employees steal or skip work and they are just fired instead of paying a lawyer (if they are incorporated a small business the owner can not represent the company usually) or going through the hassle of collecting proof, filing a factual police report and showing up in court to testify. Doesn't change what the law is when it is worth it to pursue, and it was worth it to pursue against Meta for withholding material info to investors.
yard2010 2y ago
As I see this: the US is built on money. Money is the most valued thing. So if someone hurts your basic need of shelter food or water no one cares. If someone makes you lose money or makes your investment go bad the court will intervene. Although it might sound awful I don't think it is necessarily that way. I just wish it could be more balanced. But then again, I'm a foreigner, I know nothing about the US.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > If someone makes you lose money or makes your investment go bad the court will intervene. Yes, but there's a very important caveat: Only if you still have enough money to pay experienced lawyers at least >$50k to make that happen (and more money, to ensure your own lawyers are at least a little worried about any potential malpractice suit). However corrupt you think the US legal system is, I guarantee you it's worse. But you're basically 100% correct; money is the most valued thing. In many circles, of every socioeconomic class, things like honesty and integrity are openly derided - they get in the way of making money. Somehow, protecting people's basic needs falls into that class too. It's shockingly stupid, yet somehow normal - and even spun as a good thing - 'freedom'.
blitzar 2y ago
Elizabeth Holmes was only found guilty of ripping off investors with her fake bloodtests - the paying customers, no harm no foul.

olliej 2y ago

Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that says invading people's privacy for profit, or to provide it to political parties, is legal and therefore not subject to lawsuits or legal challenges in future.

SauntSolaire 2y ago
> Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that (...) According to the article, the supreme court actually declined to issue a ruling in this case. Curious if that causes you to update your beliefs in any manner.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  But it’s much easier to comment immediately with my preconceived notions than to actually read the article and risk that it disagrees with them.

Terr_ 2y ago

"Now, my caddie chauffeur didn't need to inform me that holding stock is where people put money that is properly invested, therefore a shareholder lawsuit involves the most heinous of crimes: Theft of money. And the others don't." (Futurama ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8z1RYf9mM&t=1m11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8z1RYf9mM&t=1m11s)

voidfunc 2y ago

It's not funny, it's by design. Property owners and investors are usually given the most attention by courts because they matter more broadly speaking.

brg 2y ago
Another reason is that the harm can often be quantified and remedy easily justified.
- mikeshi42 2y ago
  Matt Levine recently covered how it's much more lucrative/easy to sue Chipotle for skimping out on their portions from the investor/security fraud angle than it is the customer angle [1] Unfortunate how that's just how the system works. [1] https://archive.ph/mhEQA https://archive.ph/mhEQA

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers. If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer. As an investor, you typically need a lawyer, but with that hurdle met you're similarly powerful. As a worker, the system seems to presume you're SOL on arrival.

csdreamer7 2y ago
> Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers. That is not true. Failure to pay employee salaries is a very easy way to pierce the corporate veil. It is not just you become another creditor like a consumer or a supplier would be.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Failure to pay employee salaries is a very easy way to pierce the corporate veil Legally, yes. Practically, many employers bounce paycheques and get away with it. It’s tedious to enforce worker rights in a way it isn’t for consumers. (In most states, you can get the AG basically working for you by copying their office on a complaint to the company.)
  - csdreamer7 2y ago
    > Legally, yes. Practically, many employers bounce paycheques and get away with it. It’s tedious to enforce worker rights in a way it isn’t for consumers. (In most states, you can get the AG basically working for you by copying their office on a complaint to the company.) Not sure what the point of your argument is. Many employers get away with bouncing paychecks but you can get the state AG working for you by CCing them on email? The above comment claimed the law favored consumers and investors over employees and I gave a common case where they are not. Not the practicality of enforcing the law. The same goes for employers too where employees steal or skip work and they are just fired instead of paying a lawyer (if they are incorporated a small business the owner can not represent the company usually) or going through the hassle of collecting proof, filing a factual police report and showing up in court to testify. Doesn't change what the law is when it is worth it to pursue, and it was worth it to pursue against Meta for withholding material info to investors.

yard2010 2y ago

As I see this: the US is built on money. Money is the most valued thing. So if someone hurts your basic need of shelter food or water no one cares. If someone makes you lose money or makes your investment go bad the court will intervene. Although it might sound awful I don't think it is necessarily that way. I just wish it could be more balanced. But then again, I'm a foreigner, I know nothing about the US.

mandmandam 2y ago
> If someone makes you lose money or makes your investment go bad the court will intervene. Yes, but there's a very important caveat: Only if you still have enough money to pay experienced lawyers at least >$50k to make that happen (and more money, to ensure your own lawyers are at least a little worried about any potential malpractice suit). However corrupt you think the US legal system is, I guarantee you it's worse. But you're basically 100% correct; money is the most valued thing. In many circles, of every socioeconomic class, things like honesty and integrity are openly derided - they get in the way of making money. Somehow, protecting people's basic needs falls into that class too. It's shockingly stupid, yet somehow normal - and even spun as a good thing - 'freedom'.

blitzar 2y ago

Elizabeth Holmes was only found guilty of ripping off investors with her fake bloodtests - the paying customers, no harm no foul.