In theory it’s based on whether the owner of the company intended to run it under capitalized in an effort to shirk liability.

But the larger point still stands: Limited liability was granted “on the front end” without the entity needing to demonstrate a minimum amount of capital. You’re only pointing out that in the U.S. that it’s possible that “on the back end” the owners of the entity might become personally liable.

Yes, i’m just elaborating on OP’s point. The US system is different and basically more optimistic on the front end.

While extreme cases are the easiest to imagine, in real life the plaintiff almost always argues to pierce the veil and the defendant always argues the opposite, and both sides earnestly believe that they are right.

And in real life piercing the veil is extremely exceptional

It's so exceptional in the UK you can run a series of fraudulent businesses which are incorporated, "buy" services, don't pay for them, then declare themselves insolvent, rinse and repeat, and there's a fair chance you'll get away with it.

It's called phoenixing. There are good few bans for it every year, but almost no convictions for fraud.

Not to mention all the fraud the Turkish barbers etc are up to

Yeah but the veil doesn’t get pierced that’s super rare, which is more important than everyone’s emotional state.

Not in the US it’s not. LLCs don’t shield your assets from personal negligence. So if you have a single member LLC with no employees (very common), an awful lot of what prompt a successful suit will be because of negligence on your part.

Thats cause the software and computing industry early on, disclaimed all liability.

"Computers are hard, yo!". It devalues the profession.

And I thought no liability was bad enough... But no. Now its LLMs and " for entertainment purposes only". I take it management and leadership also read that, and don't give one fuck.

The ability to build reliable software has existed for a long time. Commercial airlines make heavy use of it, and serious failures are vanishingly rare.

The problem is building software to those standards of reliability is expensive and slow. Consumer software never justifies it. Business software rarely does. If you want me to accept liability for the consequences of bugs in code I write, I'm giving you a schedule five times as long and a price twenty times as high.

>Commercial airlines make heavy use of it, and serious failures are vanishingly rare.

Is this a joke? There's a major outage effecting flights at least yearly. The Delta one is from May...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Southwest_Airlines_schedu... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2026/05/0...

The OP is talking about the software onboard airplanes, not the operational software used by airlines.

They should have said aircraft manufacturers, not airlines, but it’s clear what they meant.

And your mindset is the problem.

It does not need 100% error free anything. Hell, our food and goods we buy has error rates. Recalls, replacements, etc. Mistakes happen.

Liability is about taking responsibility for your stuff you emit. And the fact that software companies are getting worse shows me that there isn't any sort of maturity in this industry.

You can't even buy a fucking game without it being encrusted in anti-user DRM. And even on MS Windows with a Windows game that doesn't run, there is no basic warranty of "does this thing run?" You're basically shit outta luck if it doesn't. And if you bought it on Steam, better not charge back or they delete your account as a vengeance response. And lack of any liability and responsibility is why they can.

Its also a whole other thing to then rely on said software for correctness. That's what 'limited liability' is all about. If you need heavier liability, then sure, reach out and pay for it.

But the fact that software has gone from 'No Liability' to 'for entertainment purposes only' is a fucking farce for the software industry.

> You can't even buy a fucking game without it being encrusted in anti-user DRM.

You very much can. And notably, exceptions that do use it tend to be from giant public corporations.

Much the same in the UK. Usually some kind of fraud or failing to stop trading when it was obvious insolvency was unavoidable. No minimum capital requirements either.