[throwaway092323]

They probably know that it doesn't hold water legally. The hope is to victim blame as much as possible so that fewer people sue them in the first place. The next step will be to "remind" people about the TOS that they totally agreed to.

[dylan604]

This looks like a perfect class action case. There's really no physical harm or financial harm to the users, but a class action might be the only way for it to hurt. But IANAL, and probably have it all wrong in my head???

[underwater]

Why is it that in the US individuals have to band together and privately launch a class action to stop these types of parasitic behaviours. The government is supposed to represent the interests of citizens.

[alistairSH]

That's exactly why - we have a largely dysfunctional federal government (and most state governments aren't much better).

The biggest downside is the lawyers take a massive chunk of any award and the actual victims are often left with very little. Or, even worse, the victims get worthless coupons (like with many credit/PII breaches - the award will be 1-year of credit monitoring from the company that allowed the breach in the first place).

[BrandoElFollito]

This credit score system in the US always made me curious. Say some point I had a proposition to move to the US and I asked the company offering the job how they will ensure that I immediately get the best possible score. They said it was not possible because it was a personal score.

I told them that I will certainly not start to build a credit score at 40 yo so they will have to find someone else.

[listenallyall]

You refused a job because the company would not assist you in obtaining a perfect ("best possible") credit score?

a) nobody has a perfect score b) FICO algorithms are proprietary from third-party companies, how would your potential employer have any influence?

[BrandoElFollito]

Yes, and this is when I discovered this system which looks quite crazy to me.

I am coming from abroad with experience nedded in a US company (and therefore in the US at large) and I start my finance as if I was 18.

Then if there is a problem with my PII I have to worry about why it was lost. The company that lot it is going to give me a year of some kind of monitoring.

Well, no. I am not really interested to depend on some proprietary system that can make my life difficult just because someone fucked up. Or go through hoops to build it without consideration of my past outside the US or my job.

[aamoyg]

I thought our government was dysfunctional on purpose?

[dylan604]

working as intended. won't fix. <closes ticket>

[wharvle]

1) Common law versus civil law. We rely a lot more on private lawsuits than on regulator action. This is probably a mistake, given that it sure looks like it adds costs to common law countries with little to no benefit (and, arguably, harm) but it’s what we have.

2) The consumer protection laws we do have, and the bodies to enforce them, are relatively weak and enforcement is spotty at best. The most recent serious attempt to kinda fix this is the formation of the CFPB, and one of our two relevant political parties deliberately prevents it from working when they hold the White House (sample size of one, admittedly) and has been trying to totally kill it, in the legislature or (better, because it’s popular and this is deniable) in the courts.

[mistrial9]

> consumer protection laws we do have, and the bodies to enforce them, are relatively weak

IANL - however, in the US and in US States, many serious cases have been decided in favor of the consumer, over decades. It is the most recent waves of privacy versus ad revenue that are indeed, very weak. It is awkward to defend these regulators since their failures are sometimes glaring, however it is my impression that serious settlements against industry can have silence or "gag orders" attached, and they often do. The industry lawyers can argue that the news of the settlement alone constitutes additional commercial damage to the company, and of course they are right in a narrow sense.

[zlg_codes]

> The government is supposed to represent the interests of citizens.

I'm not sure that's ever happened in this country. They pay all sorts of lip service, but when challenged or under pressure, the US makes a lot of excuses for leaving its own people behind.

Thankfully we can repay that favor and see how they like it when there's nobody left to defend them.

[listenallyall]

Who is "we" and "them" in your statement?

[losteric]

It's not true that individuals need to band together. A single individual can kick off a class action lawsuit, private litigators can even kick start a lawsuit themselves (though ultimately the lawsuit will bring in impacted individuals).

The idea of private litigators is to complement the innate limitations of federal/state lawyers, by offering profit as an incentive.

Ideally yeah Americans would have stronger laws around TOS, customer privacy, data handling and security, and robustly funded state lawyers... but we don't.

Practically speaking, such gaps are not unique to technology. Every industry has this same problem, and your awareness of those problems is reflective of the general public's political engagement with this thread's topic. So having gaps that private litigators address is really quite normal and part of the incremental progress of legislation and state enforcement.

[dylan604]

Lobbying. Citizens United. Disinterested populace.

Do you need a longer list?

[tacocataco]

First Past The Post voting discouraging competition in the electoral system.

[lp0_on_fire]

Exactly. Same reason construction vehicles have "Stay back 200 feet: not responsible for broken windshields" written on the back.

[constantly]

Yep. A small tangent for anyone who has seen these: they’re very clearly not specifically enforceable. I got a window banged up by things falling off a truck with this signage, and the first thing they said when I called their “How Am I Driving” number the first thing they said was that they were not responsible citing this sign. Fortunately that sign was non binding. :)

[jstarfish]

Georgia (state) takes it a step further. They wrote an exemption to the license plate law that allows dump truck owners to display the plate only on the front of the vehicle. Makes it that much harder to hold them accountable.

[sonicanatidae]

Its like they don't know drivers and their willingness to make "for damn sure" the other side is made aware of their displeasure. lol

[lelandfe]

“If you can read this bumper sticker, the occupants of your vehicle agree to…”

[Rayhem]

"Private sign, DO NOT READ"

[eweise]

At least in California, its illegal for anything to fall from a vehicle except water and bird feathers so not sure how that sign help them.

[eshack94]

If I'm not mistaken, that's the point the person above you was making. Those stickers on dump trucks that say "Stay back 200 feet. Not responsible for broken windshields" are worthless from a legal perspective.

They do absolutely nothing to remove liability from the truck driver/company. If a rock falls from their truck and cracks your windshield, they absolutely are responsible for any damages.

Rather, their sole value is to convince drivers that the trucking companies aren't at fault, so that drivers whose vehicles are damaged from falling rocks erroneously elect not to press charges or pursue damages.

[dexterdog]

Isn't their sole value to keep most people back far enough so they don't get their windshields broken?

[eshack94]

Actually yeah, you're probably right. That's probably their main value followed by what I commented originally (in the case drivers aren't far enough back and get hit by a rock).

[ironick09]

i’m guessing you have a problem with signs that say “danger, do not enter” as well

[listenallyall]

Such a lawsuit, if one was filed, would be in civil court, where nothing is guaranteed. If, in the unlikely case that the suit was not settled and it actually went to jury, no judge would direct that jury that truckers "absolutely are responsible for any damages."

If you are tailgating directly behind a rock truck with a big sign "stay back 200 feet" for an extended period of time, or end up right behind the truck because you're in a big hurry, or because you thought you could squeeze through an empty lane, a good lawyer could absolutely argue, successfully, that you are at least halfway responsible for the damage, if not 100%.

[eweise]

I disagree. Likely this type of suite would be handled in small claims court so there is no jury and no lawyers. Also, the law is really clear. There is no scenario where trucks are allowed to spill stuff on the road. The only argument they might try is to say that the rock didn't come from the truck but was kicked up off the road as they drove. But you know, that's probably not going to work if the truck was indeed carrying rocks. I think you might be giving lawyers too much credit. Really all they will do, is make it so painful for you to get in front of a judge, that you give up.

[listenallyall]

Small claims court is civil court

> the law is really clear

what law are you quoting? in what city/state/country?

I certainly agree that in many cases a rock truck causes damage to entirely innocent drivers who happened to get in the vicinity of spilled rocks without ever intending to (for example if the rock truck passes them, or at intersections, etc.

However -- you said "they absolutely are responsible" and I'm saying, no, it depends. Rock trucks are annoying and dangerous but are clearly necessary for cities to build roads and other infrastructure. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to fully, absolutely secure a rock truck. If a rock truck company came to court prepared with evidence that it had followed (or exceeded) every safety and regulatory procedure, and perhaps that its accident rate is lower than industry average, and further, that the "victim" was tailgating right behind the rock truck (probably in attempt to pass) despite a prominent "stay back 200 feet" sign, even a small-claims judge might say, it's half-and-half, or -- especially if the truck had video of the other driver performing a dangerous maneuver -- that it's actually the driver's fault and therefore no liability from the rock truck company.

> Really all they will do, is make it so painful for you to get in front of a judge, that you give up.

because a dangerous driver will realize that their case is extremely weak due to failing to follow the 200-ft sign. mission accomplished.

[padjo]

The point being that while it’s not at all enforceable there’s a non zero number of people who will think it is and not fight it

[quickthrower2]

What about fallen leaves?

[chihuahua]

Straight to jail!

[quickthrower2]

Or at least probable cause for a search :-)

[dotnet00]

or the "Warranty void if removed" stickers on electronics, which are not legally enforceable in the US.

[arwhatever]

“Not responsible for black eye if something falls from your vehicle and damages my vehicle.”

[andrei_says_]

Except that the truck driver has zero fault for the gravel on the road and the spacing between the tires and the mud guard of the truck his employer maintains.

Or did you mean you’d seek out the ceo of the truck company and give them a black eye?

[wongarsu]

If it's gravel they are transporting it's obviously their fault, it's the responsibility of the driver to secure the load (with some blame falling on truck companies for providing insufficient equipment).

If it's random gravel from the road it's more understandable. But even then the driver is very much responsible for the mud guards on the truck they are operating, just as the police would write a ticket to the driver for worn down tires or broken lights.

[andrei_says_]

But are they “a punch in the face”-responsible?

I lived in Boston for a while. Cracked windshields were extremely common. No one was ever upset at another person.

[squeaky-clean]

I think you're missing the joke. If truck drivers could actually put up a sign saying they are not liable for any debris falling from their vehicle, and have it be a valid defense in court. Then they would just put up a sign saying they are not liable for any black eyes given when they see debris falling off a truck.

They're taking the unrealistic expectation of the truck driver's sign protecting them from doing something illegal and flipping it. In other words "If you coul just put up your own sign and get legal protection to break my windshield, then I could just as easily put up a sign giving me legal protection to break your nose."

[93po]

A driver has a legal obligation to not drive a vehicle that is spreading debris on the road, which they are often doing and that debris often comes from their construction sites. There are places that use track washing stations at entrances and exits to prevent this.

[sithlord]

This is usually related to drivers who do not use the cover of their truck they are legally supposed to. So rocks fly out the top.

[londons_explore]

And usually because the truck is over full too. For almost any load, if you fill the truck to the brim you have overloaded it. (Unless you're moving styrofoam)

[Tempest1981]

Or dump trucks, which leak out the seams as they go over bumps

[whaleofatw2022]

Or smaller contractor type trucks with tools in them.

Ever have to dodge an axe at 35MPH? Not fun.

[arcanemachiner]

Also mud flaps

[candiddevmike]

Does this apply to shopping carts in parking lots?

[batch12]

I wish a class action could include those of us who have never used their service, but whose relatives have.