[madssj]

Isn't the problem here that the legal system in the US allows for such "made up" cases?

I mean, like suing someone because you burned your tongue on coffee, which is a hot beverage. I just don't get it.

[hga]

A lot of people say the problem is in a lack of feedback.

The English rule AKA "Loser pays" requires the loser to pay the other party's attorney's fees and it really dampens frivolous lawsuits.

[madssj]

True, but take this case as an example, would that case have even the slightest chance of winning anywhere else in the world?

It's a major problem that they allow such cases in the court, but that such a case can win? That's just crazy?

[hga]

The points here about feedback are:

Would she sue if the downside is paying Google's lawyers upon likely loss?

If she's not paying for the litigation (likely), then would a lawyer take this and many other cases on contingency for the chance at one jackpot when he has to pay the house so much more for each roll of the die?

There's a strong case to be made for restricting lawsuits by this method instead of having the legal system be even more restrictive about what it lets people sue for. In the latter case, there's a tremendous pressure for capture of the court system to prevent legitimate lawsuits from ever filed. Bribing judges will frequently be a lot cheaper than paying out legitimate damages.

[teaspoon]

I agree in general but, nobody's getting sued for burned tongues. The American woman who famously sued McDonald's suffered third-degree burns through her pants that required skin grafts.