Why is Dyson being sued for actions taken by their suppliers? This is setting a bizarre precedent.

There were two reasons the Court of Appeal hearing held that the complaint could be heard in UK courts:

1. They relate to alleged harm caused by decisions and policies made centrally by Dyson UK companies and personnel

2. There was substantial risk that they would not be able to access justice in the Malaysian courts

Both seem reasonable. The UK personnel may have engaged in an activity they knew were illegal. Foreign citizen can generally sue in another country, if they must establish that the court has jurisdiction over the matter -- which they seem to have done.

If anything, it should make the anti-slavery mandates of manufacturers, particularly fashion, sit up straight.

	▲	philipallstar 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The fashion industry does feel like such a big, endless duality of incredibly wealthy people doing little difficult work and having loads of awards and shows and fun events, and factories full of people in faraway countries barely subsisting.

▲

teekert 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it? Can we be a just society if we allow any company to close their eyes to bad things in their supply chain? Should we not just call this "failure of due diligence"?

Otherwise none of our environmental and worker protection laws make any sense. Anyone can just do the unethical thing and move everything to a country that does not care about the rights we have set over here. Do our values not apply to any human? Including to those that happen to live outside our rough geographical area?

▲

xyzzy123 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why not push it all the way to the consumer? Why shouldn't you be liable if you buy a wrench, but actually the worker who made it was mistreated? That would make people think twice before buying products of unknown provenance and supporting slavery.

	▲	belorn 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The customer is sometimes liable for a purchases. If a person go and buy a known stolen item, pay money to known criminal activity/terrorists, then they may end up being punished for it. The relevant question is what knowledge the buyer had, which the Court of Appeal did consider. Dyson UK companies and personnel was aware of the crime being done by the supplier. The general legal question is not if a customer can be held liable for purchases. They can. It is how much due diligence is expected before someone should be held liable.
	▲	KineticLensman 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		In the UK, if a homeowner (customer) pays a company to clear domestic rubbish, and the company illegally fly-tips it, it's the homeowner who gets chased. The law requires them to check that the company is legit.
	▲	randlet 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I considered this too, but I think it's unreasonable in the end, since there seems to be a fundamental difference/motive between an individual consumer and an entity trying to generate profit. A consumer should be able to trust that the product they're buying was manufactured in an ethical manner.

▲

philipallstar 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Anyone can just do the unethical thing and move everything to a country that does not care about the rights we have set over here

Well, instead of using North Sea oil in the UK we buy it from Norway, who got it from the North Sea. We have hilariously high energy prices because of green energy policies, so we import more and more things from other countries that have workable energy policies.

So - yeah.

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

bjackman 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, it's bizarre that this isn't normal.

The law is an expression of our desire that our industry doesn't exploit forced labour. The fact that this mostly only counts when the forced labour takes place in our own country is a weird historical detail, long outdated by globalisation.

Either you think that forced labour in Malaysia is OK in which case this seems bizarre, or you think it's not OK in which case we need a way for the law to discourage forced labour in Malaysia. The only way it can do that is through the supply chain.

▲

randlet 3 hours ago | parent [-]

"Either you think that forced labour in Malaysia is OK in which case this seems bizarre"

It would be an interesting poll to see what the populace actually things about this statement...

	▲	bjackman an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think revealed preferences are more useful than a poll would be. "Do you think forced labour in Malaysia is OK" - nobody answers yes to this. "Are you willing to make sacrifices, such as imposing liability on local business, in order to discourage forced labour in Malaysia?" - this is the question. This pattern applies to a lot of stuff. All politicians claim to have a solution to the housing crisis. But most "solutions" are suspiciously absent of downsides. If nothing you propose involves sacrificing anything or creating any losers I conclude you don't actually care about the housing crisis. You can use this on your managers too. "What are we gonna do about the tech debt?" If the answer doesn't involve delaying features then you should interpret it as "nothing".

▲

afandian 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you can't globalise without maintaining standards then don't globalise. If you do, that's your liability.

▲

bobmcnamara 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Otherwise it's "just slavery with extra steps"