cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/41122324
Google did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement of the class-action case, which accused the firm of “unlawful and intentional interception and recording of individuals’ confidential communications without their consent and subsequent unauthorized disclosure of those communications to third parties.”
I don’t think it should be acceptable to buy your way out of a court case which reveals truth and justice.
But are you sure you don’t want to opt out and go 1v1 vs a trillion dollar company???
It is kinda problematic that it matters how deep pockets of both parties are in court, isn’t it? This system does not seem fair to me, unless fair means “the biggest guy always wins”. Ahhh the American dream, how amazing…
Not kinda, it is problematic.
These are civil cases, buying your way out is all that happens in the best of circumstances in a civil case. It is just a matter of how much you have to pay to buy out. Punitive damages might do some extra justice, but what would that be? In the end you have to imagine that some radom person has sued you unjustly and decide how you want an innocent person to be treated, or perhaps they sued you with some small real point to their lawsuit, do you want the default to be that you are ruined? Maybe you didn’t intend harm, but want to either make amends or at least get past the lawsuit so you can get on with your life, do you want no recourse possible?
In the end, if Google was forced out of business, many(most) of us would be way worse off. That is not the ideal outcome. Ideally, the case brings enough money to the plaintiff to right any hardship caused and, in the case of punitive damages, does just enough hardship to the defendant that they are dissuaded from pursuing that course of action, but you aren’t trying to kill them.
That’s the entire point of a civil case, money exchanging to pay for damages. If the plaintiffs are happy then fuck it, they wanted money and now they have it