[tsdlts]

Isn't this a regulation failure though? The fact that these chemicals who we don't know the full effects of are let to market is the problem. Preventative measures make more sense than criminalizing things only when we find out there's a problem.

Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? What if they've since switched markets entirely? What if the company disbanded and the founders created a new company in the same market? There's no clean way to deal out punishment in a legally unambiguous or overreaching way.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

It is 100% a regulation failure. The longer that companies are allowed to pervert government for private gain the louder and more extreme the demands from the disaffected will become.

[arrosenberg]

It's a failure by regulators, but when you lobby for the lax regulations, you don't get to also stick them with the blame.

> Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook?

It might not be clean, but I do believe it is unambiguous. Yes, the purchaser is still on the hook, and they should check their purchase agreement for the company to see if they can seek restitution from the original owners (assuming the risk of future litigation wasn't disclosed or waived). In this case the company knew they were externalizing a toxic chemical and did it anyways, thus they are liable to the extent the law allows. The original owner is potentially liable for breach of the purchase agreement if that risk wasn't disclosed to the new owner.

[wnoise]

> Isn't this a regulation failure though?

Both/And. It's a regulation failure, and the unscrupulous take advantage it.