It's a bluff. Nintendo wouldn't involve lawyers over a Switch, it makes zero financial sense. What happened likely is some tech support drone made a threat, which the corporate never approved.

It make zero financial sense to send 3 switches. But here they are.

This itself is an interesting question. The foundations of the justice system talk about testing everyone equal in the eyes of law but somehow equal access to legal resources is never talked about. I think we need to think over this as a society. There are some countries like Germany where for people with low income the state pays money to hire a lawyer rather than providing a lawyer.

But that is also problematic. What if you have an average income, are part of middle class and have normal job. Now according to this system you are not poor so state won't provide lawyer to you. But hiring a lawyer to represent you against some ridiculous lawsuit by company with huge bankroll and lawyer company on retainer will ruin a person like this. You might have to sell your house just to afford it or something similar and this would financially ruin you and your middle class family.

> Now according to this system you are not poor so state won't provide lawyer to you.

I never said that is system is perfect. You can create mechanisms where you look at incomes and look at percentage of fees to be paid to a lawyer. Similar to how fines are calculated in some countries.

The larger point being made was the current system of representation of giving a public counsel definitely doesn't work. We need to move towards better systems.

I agree. Also law firms used by companies have massive resources (thousands of employees) so a regular person can't fight against a machine like that even if he/she can afford to hire a single lawyer. The system needs to be changed from ground up to give people better options to defend themselves.

> A pity that multinational companies can usually afford much better lawyers than the average Joe.

I'm always amazed at how afraid customers are of companies in the US/UK. Like this article, where they threaten legal action and make the customer responsible for being available to hand off the third Switch. As a customer in a western European country, I'd laugh straight in their face and wouldn't lose a second of sleep over threats like that. I may live in a country that has a weird and at times annoying obsession with rules and regulations, but when it comes to being a consumer, it's great.

The UK is a western European country, and still part of the EU (and therefore bound to its regulations).

Wouldn't a solution be either to:

Force both parties to pool resources, and hire legal help from that pool and no others. So if a large company sues an individual or small one, it pays a large percentage of the latter's legal costs.

Simply to ban private legal representation and have everyone represent themselves in court?

I'm sure large companies would act a bit more nicely if any court case meant the CEO had to personally leave the office and fight it out in court.

It is my understanding that if you win a case, you can request that the other party pay for some legal fees, within reasonable degrees, of course.

Banning private legal representation would be more likely to hurt everyday citizens, rather than CEOs. Large companies would just start to hire lawyers or equivalent as their CEOs. The law system is incredibly complex because our society is equally complex. This is why we train professionals for so many years, and expect them to take regular classes every year so their knowledge is kept up date.

I think it would be interesting to review outcomes of cases where a regular person or small company challenged a large company, as well as the inverse. Just how much power do large multinational companies have? I'd also expect more leniency to be shown to individuals and smaller companies acting in good faith. As I understand it, intent is a large factor in many cases.

Yea but a case like this doesn't need high-powered lawyers. Usually a high-street solicitor will write a letter outlining what's happened, objecting to the legal threat and asking for information on how to return the merchandise. All in all, it should cost ~£60.

£60 is a hell of a lot of money to buy nothing. He doesn't need to do any of that, just arrange to return the item and if Nintendo (or The Hut Group, which is sounds like) screw up the collection, it's their problem. Just keep records of all correspondence.