|
|
|
|
|
by Karunamon
4422 days ago
|
|
I didn't necessarily mean as a direct action of the participants in the case. Corporations are often compelled to change their behavior regulatorily after losing a lawsuit for only monetary damages due to the findings of the case. Instead, we get an obvious warning on cups to join the other few hundred obvious warnings. Obviously the CPSC/FDA or their local/state counterparts (I'm not sure who would exactly be responsible for such regulation in this case) didn't see the need to get involved. I don't know where you're coming up with "nanny statism". I generally do not hold juries in great respect; they often rule on emotion rather than hard fact. But that is a rant for another time. Have you any other thinly veiled insults you'd like to throw my way as a result of my communicating unclearly? If not, I think we're done here. |
|