|
|
|
|
|
|
by madssj
5862 days ago
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
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.