Court (and out-of-court) settlements that suck

[-Jrabbit]

Paying millions in compensation to settle a lawsuit with the proviso of "no admission of wrongdoing" (aka "enough lawyers to avoid guilt, technically") makes no sense and should not be permitted. Same thing with cease-and-desist rulings on blatantly false or misleading advertising/labeling by food and pharma companies. IMHO.

Or maybe I'm just tired of reading about it.

[Sava]

If a corporation does it, it's not wrong.

[Lorizael]

It might be better than the alternative. Giant corporations feel much more comfortable paying a small settlement than taking the chance of paying a very large reward. However, this is based on an irrational view of probability. The statistics indicate that companies would probably dish out less money over all if they went to court every time rather than settle, because the odds of the ruling being negative (for them) are usually pretty small.

[Dinner]

Paying millions in compensation to settle a lawsuit with the proviso of "no admission of wrongdoing" (aka "enough lawyers to avoid guilt, technically") makes no sense and should not be permitted. Same thing with cease-and-desist rulings on blatantly false or misleading advertising/labeling by food and pharma companies. IMHO.

Or maybe I'm just tired of reading about it.

That's what most of the big banks and "financial institutions" do when ever they're caught committing a criminal act. I remember reading (though I haven't fact checked it but it sounds true) that no financial type person has been found guilty of any wrong doing since the 1987 financial crisis. When you have enough money in the US you get away scot free.

[Sava]

I remember reading (though I haven't fact checked it but it sounds true) that no financial type person has been found guilty of any wrong doing since the 1987 financial crisis.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/trader-kareem-serageldin-pleads-guilty-to-role-in-banking-crash-8572216.html

[pchang]

The other thing I hate are the settlements with confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements. The rest of us deserve to know if we are in danger too.

[MRT144]

If a corporation does it, it's not wrong.

QED

[pchang]

You guys are reminding me of a Canadian SciFi show "Continuum".

[MRT144]

The other thing I hate are the settlements with confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements. The rest of us deserve to know if we are in danger too.

Has there ever been a case where NDAs for public hazards caused greater harm and there was civil law action taken?

[pchang]

Hard to say since no one is allowed to talk about it.

[Sava]

You guys are reminding me of a Canadian SciFi show "Continuum".

Yeah, because everyone who criticizes a corporation is a violent, time traveling psychopath.

But if I get to bang Rachel Nichols, I don't care.

[Lorizael]

You guys are reminding me of a Canadian SciFi show "Continuum".

I've found the show's stance on corporations to be quite nuanced. They talk about the fact that corporations basically saved the human race (in Canada, anyway) after the government collapsed, for example.

But if I get to bang Rachel Nichols, I don't care.

Indeed.

[Sava]

for Guy:

[-Jrabbit]

Here's the thing: when cash is allowed to substitute for guilt, the cost of the settlement is just passed along to consumers. So the people who got screwed end up paying for the privilege by getting screwed again. That's fundamentally unfair, and may be a core indicator of how our "free" market has been co-opted.

[Sava]

Cash is speech. When a corporation says, "I'm innocent", it's true... because the money they pay makes the victimconcerned-party agree with them.