this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
1035 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
59311 readers
4999 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean lookingbat the details for the basis of the suit. They think they can sue someone for teaching a criminal how to do something. They think they can sue the makers of body armor for selling a guy who was not a criminal at the time of purchase, an unregulated commercial product. They think they can sue YouTube for providing motive for whatever he did.
In the law world theres a word for this. Its called a shakedown. This is grieving family's who are vindictive. They dont care who pays, but somebody has to pay in their eyes. Sadly on the merits this case will die in court pretty fast and nobody is gonna see a dollar unless alphabet and spez's lawyers decide they are feeling charitable. Which they won't because settling would cause implications of guilt in the public eye.
I'd blame it on the lawyers.
The family's lawyer is getting paid either way.
Yeah some families are vindictive but ALL lawyers are ready to press a case like this as long as they think they can win.
If they think they can win it's another matter, what I think is happening here is the lawyer is pushing for the case regardless, because they get paid regardless.
I’m not sure that’s true. Families don’t always have deep pockets. The lawyer is paid a % of the settlement, which is probably more money than the family could just pay out of pocket. But it does mean they need to win, so they pick their cases. I mean if you pay them well in cash they’ll likely take any case. But a lot of personal injury cases and such are paid on a percentage.
Not necessarily, if that was the case I would expect it to be very likely they would win - a lawyer isn't going to take a case on contingency if they don't think they will win. More likely the family have a little bit of money saved up and the lawyer is taking advantage of them in their emotional state by encouraging them into a frivilous lawsuit.
Former Australian Deputy Premier won a case against Google in 2022 arguing that the YouTube platform enabled journalist FriendlyJordies to make fun of him, and he won a $715,000 settlement.
Edit: Thanks for the correction, guys
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/06/google-ordered-to-pay-john-barilaro-715000-over-friendlyjordies-youtube-videos
Also, not a former Australian prime minister. He was the deputy premier of New South Wales.
I'm still learning Australian political terminology, you are right, I had prime minister and deputy premier confused.
FYI, the premier is like the state governor and the prime minister is like the president.
YouTube may end up being protected by Safe Harbor laws:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/08/powerful-us-laws-could-shield-google-from-paying-john-barilaro-defamation-damages-experts-say
715 thousand. Not millions
Changed it. What's a zero here or a zero there between politicians though...
True
nailed it
Yeah, they should also sue the ISP, the power company, the company who built the criminal's house and the people who paved the road he used. /s
Oh not wait they are suing ISPs for zeroes and ones that flow through their cables. Strange world we live in. No one would have sued the postal service for a letter they got, or their telco for a call they received before the www.
Only part I disagree with. It's a very good thing that this case dies in court. It really does suck for the families, sure, but if these kinds of lawsuits worked it would cause a whole lot more problems than it solves.
How is this a "shakedown"?
They literally explained why it was a shakedown. I don't know what else needs to be said.
The parents of the victims are suing organizations that have no chance of being held liable in the hopes that they get some form of payout. That's what a shakedown is.
It's tragic and I get their anger, but this isn't going to succeed. Any legal team worth its retainer fee will successfully defend this.
There's no blackmail or extortion of money, it's a litigation suit on companies to be held liable. That's not defined as a shakedown.
The term "shakedown" has been used to describe frivolous lawsuits seeking to strong-arm settlements from defendants for decades. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
I don’t think that ordinary non-billionaire humans suing Google is strong-arming by any sense of the imagination. Google has the deep pockets and the top legal team. Google could invent lawsuits about whatever the fuck it wanted to and destroy each and every one of these people until the end of time. PR is the only reason they don’t. Not fear of court imposed sanctions—they’re too slick for that.