News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human” by throwbigdata on Thursday March 24, 2022 @12:30PM (#30792158)
Respectfully, you’re begging the question that it would be frivolous. If the contract says they must have a human respond within so much time and the company fails to do that, the lawsuit would not be frivolous to a rational person.
Re:Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human” by msla on Thursday March 24, 2022 @04:09PM (#30794754)
It wouldn't be frivolous, it would be called frivolous.

Like how the McDonald's coffee case was called frivolous even when it manifestly was not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

> The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

[snip]

> Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20°F (11°C) lower than McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds.