| ▲ | freejazz 4 hours ago |
| What are the grounds for the appeal? How does NM law look on that issue? It's a significantly reduced judgment too. Like, yeah, you have a point in the abstract, but barring any actual supportive facts, it doesn't seem like a good point. |
|
| ▲ | gruez 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| IANAL, but it's not hard to find answers with a trivial search, eg. https://kieferandkiefer.com/understanding-how-jury-verdicts-... https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R331... |
| |
| ▲ | freejazz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not a jury verdict, and I am a lawyer... Also, a paper from RAND from 1987? Are you for real? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | aprilthird2021 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's a very good point. The further upon appeal Meta goes, the more removed they get from a jury and they'll be more likely to get a favorable ruling due to the company's negative approval rating amongst the public |
| |
| ▲ | freejazz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not a jury verdict. Crazy how much that needs to be repeated in this thread. | | |
| ▲ | loeg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A jury is involved in the process. If the jury doesn't find violations, the judge can't assign penalties for those violations. > The jury concluded that Meta had more than 43 million violations of the state’s unfair practices act, with each transgression carrying a civil penalty as high as $5,000. Note that this is like, 20 violations per resident of New Mexico. And also ~50% of Facebook's total revenue (more than 100% of income) at the time of the CA scandal. | |
| ▲ | cwnyth 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No one reads the article anymore. They're just vibe commenting. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway894345 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Presumably it’s also easier to influence judges than random jurors. |
|
