[fsaneq2]

> If successful, the state would collect 75 percent of the penalty, while the rest would be paid out over to the company's 65,000 employees

What is the logic for the state somehow being entitled to such a huge cut? Presumably, if anyone was wronged here, it was the employees.

[GabrielF00]

IANAL but skimming through the complaint, they're basically acting as a "private attorney general". The lawsuit alleges that Google's policies violate state law. Normally, the state would sue the company, but in this case, the law firm is saying that they'll handle the enforcement for the state. If they're successful, they get a percentage of the penalty.

I don't know how damages are divided up in cases like these, but I'd guess that the state's cut would be distributed (at least partially) to affected employees.

[ocdtrekkie]

And this would be a choice by the lawyers in how to file this case, as opposed to some sort of civil suit.

[Sniffnoy]

See paragraph 66:

> Because Google requires Googlers to waive their right to seek class-wide injunctive relief for Google’s illegal conduct, the only effective remedy to address Google’s illegal conduct is the aggressive and full imposition of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.

[ocdtrekkie]

I'd be quite curious if that clause would hold up in court. Forcing employees to give up their right to seek relief for employer misconduct almost certainly is illegal... right?

[lagadu]

The logic is punitive vs compensatory damages, medical malpractice is a good example: it's to prevent people trying to get rich by trying to get into malpractice situations and to not start futile suits just hoping for a payout. The idea is that if there isn't a massive payout at the end then the majority of lawsuits would be brought by people who were actually harmed by whoever they're suing and want justice more so than they want to get rich.

This way you reduce the incentive for futile suits and malpractice hunting while keeping the penalties harsh for those who do it.

Compensatory makes sense to go to the claimant but punitive not so much; it's purpose is to make financially unwise to keep whatever practices an entity was found guilty of.