This is still nasty for the less advantaged individuals when faced with a claim that could lead to, say, a $10k maximum fee, but for smaller businesses any reasonable claim amount is still affordable and the "drain the other party's legal funds" tactic is practically outlawed.
I remember reading about a culture in east asia or the pacific where farmers did not have written contracts and usually had very little problems. Everyone knew what was expected and fell in line. If a farmer were to break with the norm, I am sure it would have resulted in them being ostracized.
I hope one day we expect more from each other, and expect more from ourselves.
The problem is the justice system accept this behaviour. We can not and should not depends on the public opinion in general to determine injustices to happen. That's why we have a justice system after all.
Judges already have the ability to throw out a case of it has no merit. Why are obvious cases like this possible is a question I'd like an answer to.
We already depend on public opinion in general to determine criminal Justice norms. In place of apple put a prosecutor, in place of pear company put suspect. Every single one of us commits infractions every day we exist in the USA. Protectors use prosecutorial discretion. They do not charge us for every single crime that has technically been committed, because the populace would be up in arms and the prosector would lose their job. Each plaintiff is like a prosecutor. They should be beholden to popular opinion, and that opinion should be that behavior like this should be unacceptable.
Justice cannot behold on popular opinion at all. There is a reason for 'her' to be a blindfolded lady.
If 'every single of you are committing infractions everyday as you exist in USA' and black represents 40% of male prison population while are just 12% of the whole population and while black youth comprise 14% of the national youth population, 43% of boys and 34% of girls in juvenile facilities are Black, we could easily conclude that this system is highly unfair.
Note: while writing this comment it got my attention that in my mother language the words for justice and fairness are the same.
Extraordinarily lax antitrust laws (in both Republican and Democratic administrations, you'd expect the Dems to be tougher on this but follow the money trail and it's simple to see why), a general disdain for shareholder activism, and corporate culture in all of the aforementioned companies prioritizing the needs of advertisers over the needs of the end user.
> The media we are sold and consume should reflect what is important to us. If cases like this were blasted across the twitter verse and people actually cared, it would stop
I would have agreed with you fifteen, maybe ten years ago. The point of no return has been passed. Apple and Amazon alone are worth enough combined for public opinion to matter nil in terms of their actual business practices. They could suffer millions of dollars in bad press and shareholders would continue to invest and consumers would continue to buy product. Look at TSLA as a fantastic example -- Elon consistently sticks his foot in his mouth and makes a mockery of himself but TSLA short sellers continue to lose big time.
The only solution at this point in my view is a fundamental overhaul of antitrust law and safeguards to ensure competition in cutting edge industries, and collectivization of essentials like public internet and public utilities so the profit incentive doesn't get in the way of service. We're already seeing how terrible the outcome is with the Post Office, we don't need any additional privatization in the world of tech.
The postal service is not private in any way shape or form.
This makes big cos more risk averse - not a win, but likely no different in practice to the current US litigation landscape.
But it also makes them consider their relationship with Rest of World more carefully.
On top of that the burden should be made equal by having the CEO participate when I am forced to, or to personally discusd with their lawyers.
In other words, a trial should be for the company a similar pain in the ass as it is for me.
Tricky case where both sides have a legitimate reason to believe they are in the right - no costs awarded. Borderline barratry - full costs awarded.
One FAANG sues another - full costs awarded to the winner. Owner of a small corner shop wins against a FAANG - full costs. Other way round, no costs.
Also to set appropriate levels on what costs can be awarded (kinda like the German model). You want to spend 10M on suing a street market stallholder? Knock yourself out, costs awarded = 10k.
I think it'd encourage companies to only sue, if the expected value from winning, was large in comparison to one's litigation costs times two.
Which seems ok to me
So I have to work 9 hour days, come home and cook dinner, do family time, put kids to bed and then go shame random corporations for not following the spirit of the law?
I think that’s unreasonable. Ain’t nobody got time for that, and we have a lot of people who can get paid to do that if we just change the laws.
Dead simple : don't buy Apple at all and every time you can, explain why you don't and don't spend time explaining "how good Apple is a t anything". That single action wipes anything good they could do.
And whenever someone sends you a link to a tweet , tell them... ?
Dead simple?
It is also ultimately the profound failure of society.
This is a clear failure of our justice system.