Up a ways the post that started the run of quotes from old plays and then the contemporary death threats completely lacking a sense of irony, in that post the argument that frivolous lawsuits are good and should be allowed to continue because they are the American Way is like arguing that we should tolerate child molesters and not speak out against them because having your children molested is part of the risk of having children. We are not compelled to accept the bad with the good without attempting to fix the bad. The right in this country to sue anyone for anything is important policy; the right to chastise some plaintiffs' attorneys for abusing that right is just as important.
But it should be understood this is *not* about protecting consumers from Apple's "reckless" online receipt displays. It's about money, and not for consumers "damaged" by this practice. This isn't a bunch of Apple customers who noticed this practice potentially in violation of federal consumer protection laws who then found a trial firm willing to take the case on contingency and thus moved forward with aiding in protecting us all. These are plaintiffs' attorneys who go out and *troll* for these sort of violations on potential technicalities and then *recruit* clients to act as named parties for the class. That's indefensible on ethical grounds. It's one thing to say it's important we should be able to sue anyone for anything no matter how trivial, it's another thing to say it's okay to subvert reasonable ethic to actually do it just for money. Do I think greater restrictions should be placed on the right to sue in the States? No. Do I think the plaintiffs and attorneys in some ridiculous suits should called upon to apply higher ethical standards in exercising this right? Yes.
As for the McDonald's case the punitive reward was far out of scale with what happened. As I recall, and I'm not bothering to look up that case so grab a grain of salt, the actual damages award was rather small and reasonable, chiefly covering the woman's medical expenses. And a punitive award was called for; the woman was after all somewhat permanently disfigured. But tens or hundreds of millions in punitive damages should be reserved for cases of gross misconduct -- discovering from human trials that will be redacted or buried that a new drug developed to treat a trivial or non-critical condition will kill or injure lots of people, but marketing it anyway; not incorrectly following the procedure for making fast food coffee -- and the same in actual damages is reasonably reserved for the chronic lifelong care of some who has been severely, permanently disabled by negligence. Also, as I recall, the punitive award in that ridiculously infamous coffee case was significantly reduced upon appeal. That's how it goes with awards of that size: the popular press makes sure *everyone* hear about it, but 18 months later when the award is reduced on appeal, there's little but a brief mention.
The Monkey sounds like he might be a trial lawyer, related to one or aspiring to the profession. May he and any other trial lawyers feeling put upon please see my postscript to a previous post a few pages back: to wit, I don't hate you, I think most of you serve us all well and play an irreplaceable role in defending the public and our limited resources against professional malpractice big business and with their often massive war-chests. But you can't justify fishing for stupid cases like this merely to make a buck.
This receipt case is just stupid, even if "printed" can be interpreted to mean an online display. If the plaintiffs' attorneys are so altruistic, why not merely write a few letters to Apple's corporate counsel explaining why they think Apple may be in violation of a federal consumer protection law?
This happens all the time. The trial firm found the potential case and then recruited clients. No one complained before they were enlisted by the attorneys. Unethical as all hell, but hardly uncommon.
