[skrause]

In a way the US is regulated by a high risk of expensive lawsuits with really high amounts of compensation if they harm someone. So a company will not release a product that might be harmful because they could end up paying hundreds of million dollars of compensation to harmed people.

These kinds of lawsuits don't exist in Europe, in the worst case a company will pay $10,000 to a single person. But there are other protections in place and if you take those away you will end up with much worse protection than the US has because this indirect regulation doesn't exist.

[nickpsecurity]

You should look up our pharmaceutical industry. They keep the risk down to a certain amount, forge the data with questionable methodology, make billions on the products, and then pay a fraction of that in settlements or whatever. Banking sector is similarly bad about stuff except with money instead of lives (most of the time).

Yes, they'll release a product that might be harmful. The tradeoff is whether they can get away with it in court. The Ford Pinto case is a classic example of that kind of thinking gone wrong. I suggest you look its details up to see how our boardrooms think on things. It was really bad. Least they paid for it.

[pizza234]

> In a way the US is regulated by a high risk of expensive lawsuits with really high amounts of compensation if they harm someone. So a company will not release a product that might be harmful because they could end up paying hundreds of million dollars of compensation to harmed people.

This is purely in theory, in particular for some industries and products.

C8 made lots of $$$ to DuPont, and it took 50+ years to be banned.

You can't prove, in a strict sense, that C8 caused harm to any given person. Also, you don't know that a product like C8 is harmful when you release it.

A company will release a harmful product very gladly, as long as it has a pool large enough of scientists, lawyers and PR professionals to keep the ball rolling for a long [enough] time.