There is a risk that settling sweeps chronic, bad behavior under the rug. Which is especially bad when powerful actors can use settlement to coerce victims into hiding the truth, and enabling future bad behaviors.
Sure, I think it's clear that settlements work from a game theory perspective, in the sense that two rational actors working for their own best interest can accept one.
But the larger question is about whether this state of affairs is good for society. As citizens of a democracy, we (theoretically) get to have a say in how courts are run, and if the way the courts are run permits wealthy corporations to buy their way of repeated violations and be utterly unrepentant about it, maybe the rules need re-examining.
> As citizens of a democracy, we (theoretically) get to have a say in how courts are run
That’s not the point of civil cases between 2 private parties.
If you want your say, call your congress person and vote for platforms which intend to introduce legislation. (Or whichever process your country uses).
Not every proceeding has to be about deciding good vs evil. Things have their place.
That is what the comment is talking about. It says "maybe the rules need re-examining". That is not about a particular civil case. That is proposing exactly what you are saying.
> If you want your say, call your congress person and vote for platforms which intend to introduce legislation.
Or they also can post publicly on a forum where people discuss things. Such as this one. As such raising awareness about the issue by bringing it into the public consciousness, thus making it vastly more likely that the issue will be addressed.
You are acting as if that is not a valid use of this forum. As if private letters to your congress person are the only permissible avenue to discuss issues like this.
"You are acting as if that is not a valid use of this forum."
I didn't read it that way. GP wasn't suggesting calling a congressman as an alternative to posting on a forum, but as an alternative to a civil suit.
AIUI their point is that the purpose of civil suits is to settle disputes between two parties and (unlike calling your congressman) not about establishing laws defining good and bad.
You neglect that civil trials often result in relevant case law, which benefits society when similar actionable events occur. This is a clear benefit to society which settling cases destroys. Legislation is the start of the law, judicial interpretation is the implementation and will of it. This too applies to civil cases to which the state is a party - if you want to avoid any possibility of creating case law, binding arbitration is what you desire. If you want the power and will of the people to solve and enforce the solution to your civil problem, you owe the people something also.
Settled out of court does not mean not involving the court or using those resources - of course the use of the court and those resources is a strong means of coercing parties and, as such, yes they very much have used the courts' resources to secure a settlement instead of a judgement. Be it settlement or judgement, they will again use those resources if the party who settled or was judged violates that contract and or judgement. It's not nearly as simple as you suggest.
Settlements apply to anyone who could be a potential victim and strip them of their rights to sue, unless they opt out (this is insane to me!). So in this case the lawsuit filers settling actually does enforce bad behavior for society at large.
> Settlements apply to anyone who could be a potential victim and strip them of their rights to sue, unless they opt out (this is insane to me!).
How would you solve the problem that class action suits are trying to solve while fixing the problem that someone else might end up speaking for you without you wanting them to? Note that this feature isn't specific to settlements; it also happens with judgments.
Direct government intervention seems like a better solution to most class action lawsuits.
Company causes significant harm to millions of people, gets shut down or massive fines seems like a better solution than having them send out a token payment vastly smaller than the harm caused. The first is an existential threat, the second just becomes the cost of doing business.
Class action lawsuits sit in a strange middle ground where reputation damage isn’t enough but the government doesn’t care or the penalties are too small.
This is the issue though with these large companies. They have such immense wealth and power in the courts that they're basically untouchable. They do what they want and then pay people off without ever admitting guilt to make the flies go away.
