[burkaman]

Also important, from Intuit's statement:

> As part of the agreement, Intuit admitted no wrongdoing

I hate this and I don't understand why the government always agrees to it. Isn't an admission of wrongdoing more valuable than a tiny fine? Why do they always accept this kind of settlement? Isn't it both the right thing to do and better politics to keep the case going until the corporation at least has to admit it broke the law?

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

There are two reasons to take a settlement:

1. You’re not sure if you will win.

2. You don’t want to pay the cost of fighting.

If the two sides roughly agree on the likelihood of victory, it makes sense to settle so both can save legal costs. You can multiply the probability of victory by the spoils and make that the settlement amount. The costs and risks of fighting give some more incentive to come to a compromise even when the odds are unclear.

Sometimes settlements do include an admission of wrongdoing. The fact that this one didn’t is a suggestion that TurboTax had some strength in the negotiation. Either the case was not a slam dunk, or the states had some kind of other constraints. Maybe they judged that negotiating for more money was more valuable than an admission of guilt (which is easy to argue, since the consumers harmed will get utility from the money in their bank account).

[1123581321]

not admitting wrongdoing scopes the settlement to only that transaction (exchange of money in this case.)

Admitting wrongdoing can lead to other cases (because your admission can become evidence), so it’s a much more expensive settlement for the person or company, possibly expensive that it’s not worth settling.

[ac29]

> I hate this and I don't understand why the government always agrees to it

Taking things to trial is very expensive, and you the taxpayer is paying that cost. The company is probably never going to admit wrongdoing even if found guilty.