[fattire]

It's always suspect when a big company asks for more regulation-- OpenAI, FTX, etc. It's usually in the name of the public good or fairness etc, but they may actually be looking for legal recognition of otherwise dubious activities, ways to block out new competition, or they could be trying to curtail inevitable regulation by writing the law themselves in the most favorable way possible.

[FireBeyond]

Similar with the Texas Two Step Bankruptcy (create a subsidiary when you're facing massive lawsuits, offload everything that relates to those lawsuits to the subsidiary, promise to fund it to be able to pay out expected judgments, then don't, or massively underfund it, declare bankruptcy, and walk away with no further liability while still making massive profits).

One law firm specializes in this, and the story above has been the case in each of the five or six times it has been done.

Yet they claim, with a straight face (and even have writers like Matt Levine carrying water for them) that really, truly, honestly, they're not doing this to avoid liability, they're doing it "to make the process easier for the plaintiffs and streamline their legal efforts".

Like how utterly stupid do they think we are? Why on earth would a multinational for profit company spend considerable effort to actively assist people who are suing them?

[thedevilslawyer]

> Why on earth would a multinational for profit company spend considerable effort to actively assist people who are suing them?

Because the work overall the organization is doing becomes more valuable with this change. As an analogy, it's akin to saying you'll deal with a specific problem for this part of the day - and the rest will be focussed on other productive things. For a whole class of problems, your overall day would go better.