It would be a better analogy if tobacco companies sold ad space on their packs and chose not to do business with a private for-profit anti-smoking solicitation group.

Literally every ceo

I understand the impulse, but there are not only significant differences, i.e., the requirement to add labeling to cigarettes was mostly a judicial or legislative action, but there is also that rather perverse fact that this kind of legislation that people are championing is often funded by profit and greed just like the harm being sued over.

The article even at least mentions that at least one of the suits is private equity funded; which generally will result in the partners and/or investors of the private equity firm and the attorneys suing, which are often all one and the same in what is just a financial and legal shell game, net tens of millions of dollars, while the supposed victims will end up with nothing but pennies on the dollar of harm and injury.

I get the impulse to also “cheer” for the lawsuits, but if you thought Meta, etc. are bad; you really don’t want to look into the vile pestilence that is the law firms that are basically organized crime too by the core definition of crime being an offense and harm upon society.

I don’t really know a solution for this problem because it is so rooted in the core foundation of this rotten system we still call America for some reason, but for the time being I guess, the only moderately effective remedy for harm and injury is to combat it with more harm and injury.

"But Black Dynamite! I sell drugs to the community!"

Imagine NYT banning an ad in it's newspaper telling people how to cancel and sue NYT?

Wild stuff

Wow this is a really good idea. I wonder if the various state trials happening as well should use this for remediation too.

It's not a hard thing to implement on their end and should be mandated by a judge as you said.

Filing this away for later use.

Not likely to survive 1st Amendment challenge - it is possible to compel somebody to certain speech as a result of losing a case, but doing this as a prerequisite when the case has just started is not likely to fly. Otherwise I could force Facebook (or any other platform) to publish anything just by suing them - and anybody could sue anybody else on virtually any grounds.

How do you know that? How could you know that?

These people are one of the few people holding Meta accountable for their evil acts and because of that you call them "scummiest people in the US"

That's nonsense.

You may think Meta is bad. But plaintiff counsel like this are generally the scummiest people in the US. (Maybe not universal, but 90% are morally repugnant).

As they say, "95% of lawyers give the remaining 5% a bad name."

At the same time, 99% of social networks give the remaining 1% a bad name.

> I mean those class action lawsuits enrich trial lawyers

The entire point, of course, is to encourage such suits by incentivizing those able to bring them.

I'm not sure if the lower price means that class actions shouldn't still be taken.

It's to allow companies to not have to deal with individual claims for each person. I see that the ranges can be substantial though, several thousands, but seems to be criteria.

> Nearly nine months later, Mark received a notification that his claim had been approved. Two weeks after that, $186 was deposited into his bank account. While the amount wasn’t substantial, it covered a grocery run and a phone bill—and more importantly, it reminded him that companies can be held accountable, even in small ways. [0]

[0] https://peopleforlaw.com/blog/how-much-do-people-typically-g...

If the fine's don't dissuade companies from bad practices, the class actions with theoreticaly no upper limit might be a better option to enforce proper behaviour.