[SubuSS]

I haven't read the article, but it is off-point to say no-one sues. History has no effect on what someone will do tomorrow - exposure is what companies try to limit.

The sueing angle kicks in when you do stuff like give feedback for folks who you think will take it well Vs keep it away from folks who give you a bad feeling or whatever. It is all exposure.

Almost in all the companies I have been at, there has been a big push to keep the interview experience uniform for all candidates. So you can't have hugely different loops setup for the same level for different candidates for example.

Fun fact: This is a main reason why as a company grows, you aren't able to get in with a wink and a nod anymore, even if you know 100% of the folks already there.

[Aeolun]

If noone has sued about feedback in the past 10 years, over probably millions of interviews, it’s a fairly safe bet that nobody will sue in the next 10.

[xtracto]

That is not how expected utility works... theres a probability of being sued a d there's an impact of the event of being sued or bad mouthed in social media... even if the probability is low, the negative expected utility (expected loss) is still high because of the impact value ... Not worth it.

[Dylan16807]

> even if the probability is low, the negative expected utility (expected loss) is still high because of the impact value

The impact would have to be astronomical. It's not.

> bad mouthed in social media

Which could happen anyway. And feedback might actually reduce the chances.