Zengen@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I mean lookingbat the details for the basis of the suit. They think they can sue someone for teaching a criminal how to do something. They think they can sue the makers of body armor for selling a guy who was not a criminal at the time of purchase, an unregulated commercial product. They think they can sue YouTube for providing motive for whatever he did.
In the law world theres a word for this. Its called a shakedown. This is grieving family’s who are vindictive. They dont care who pays, but somebody has to pay in their eyes. Sadly on the merits this case will die in court pretty fast and nobody is gonna see a dollar unless alphabet and spez’s lawyers decide they are feeling charitable. Which they won’t because settling would cause implications of guilt in the public eye.
sadly… this case will die in court
Only part I disagree with. It’s a very good thing that this case dies in court. It really does suck for the families, sure, but if these kinds of lawsuits worked it would cause a whole lot more problems than it solves.
nailed it
A former Australian PM recently won a case against Google arguing that the YouTube platform enabled journalist FriendlyJordies to make fun of him, and he won a $750 million settlement.
Also, not a former Australian prime minister. He was the deputy premier of New South Wales.
I’m still learning Australian political terminology, you are right, I had prime minister and deputy premier confused.
FYI, the premier is like the state governor and the prime minister is like the president.
YouTube may end up being protected by Safe Harbor laws though: theguardian.com/…/powerful-us-laws-could-shield-g…
715 thousand. Not millions
Corrected. Man I’m high…
True
How is this a “shakedown”?
They literally explained why it was a shakedown. I don’t know what else needs to be said.
The parents of the victims are suing organizations that have no chance of being held liable in the hopes that they get some form of payout. That’s what a shakedown is.
It’s tragic and I get their anger, but this isn’t going to succeed. Any legal team worth its retainer fee will successfully defend this.
There’s no blackmail or extortion of money, it’s a litigation suit on companies to be held liable. That’s not defined as a shakedown.
The term “shakedown” has been used to describe frivolous lawsuits seeking to strong-arm settlements from defendants for decades. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I’d blame it on the lawyers.
The family’s lawyer is getting paid either way.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah some families are vindictive but ALL lawyers are ready to press a case like this as long as they think they can win.
TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 year ago
If they think they can win it’s another matter, what I think is happening here is the lawyer is pushing for the case regardless, because they get paid regardless.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m not sure that’s true. Families don’t always have deep pockets. The lawyer is paid a % of the settlement, which is probably more money than the family could just pay out of pocket. But it does mean they need to win, so they pick their cases. I mean if you pay them well in cash they’ll likely take any case. But a lot of personal injury cases and such are paid on a percentage.