[raisin_churn]

I don't have enough information to form strong opinions about this specific case, but

> what White Castle's lawyers described as "annihilative liability"

sounds like something that should very much be on the table more frequently when large companies have repeated egregious violations of law as is alleged here.

[vineyardmike]

This is a common tactic in law suits. Go for the biggest flashiest number, to set the tone. It also helps shareholders be more willing to see a large settlement.

In this case, they’re alleging every finger scan violates consent while White Castle says they should settle with the initial scan violated consent -once per employee.

If the initial suit was for a more modest sum and a more modest allegation, White Castle may never have even considered admitting fault. I agree though, that we need laws with teeth so big companies can’t consider it a cost of doing business. The 17B number could wipe out many businesses entirely. Maybe they should. Chapter 11 protects the economy and jobs by ensuring the organization could still run, just with shareholders losing out.