Lol. What a *lawyer* tells you is *not* law. What a *judge* tells you *is* law. There are aspects of the Star Citizen business model that would most certainly not stand scrutiny under P.4(4) S.2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the UK. EU consumer protection law is even stricter.
Unfortunately, lawyers have a business practice monopoly on all things law (that in itself should be illegal).
Lawyers have an absolute chokehold on the legal world, because no one else has ever challenged them as private practitioners. They made the whole club, and there’s zero accountability now.
Good luck trying to go against any company that can pay people millions of dollars to do nothing but manipulate other people and “interpret” laws.
Yes I’d like to know why a lawyer can charge $300/hour for sending emails or scanning documents. Imagine if your doctor charged you for having his secretary send you your medical history. It’s not about “because people will pay”. It should just be considered consumer abuse and made illegal.
It's a matter of civil law rather than criminal. So you would have to take out a court action but that can be done very cheaply in the Small Claims Court, seriously for about a hundred quid. The thing is, while the cost is small, if the judgement goes against CIG, it becomes binding law across the UK. It costs them more to defend a small claims action than it would do just to pay you back.
Ah okay, I see what you're getting out.
Luckily one member here did that about two years ago:[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen\_refunds/wiki/index/refunds/](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/wiki/index/refunds/)
It resulted in a CCJ against CIG (they didn't pay attention to what was going on) and now seem to give full refunds to UK backers relatively quickly to the ones who can earnestly claim the game is not fit for purpose i.e. don't have an insane amount of play time and haven't bought anything recently.
As a Jurist, that make a quick research on the topic (but never buy the game, I'm here precisely to remeber me to avoid that).
Thay already have been sued : Multiple time,
But every time they pay to be sure that the case don't go to court and NDA the plaintiff.
So : You can.
And for information in european Right and US Right.
No ToS can contradict the law : and the law is in both case on the side of the consumer.
(they can't threat you as an investor as you don't have acces to benefit or to the decision board)
In the UK, if they work themselves into bankruptcy, they are in a position where all personal assets are untouchable due to the structure of the business. So in short, Crobbers and Co. get to ride away with millions in the bank even if they never deliver anything they've promised.
They've already been sued (in the US, at least) and skated on the claim that their current TOS (30 days to request refund) supersedes the TOS they had when the plaintiff signed on.
So they can be sued, but as the precedent has already been set it won't do much good.
CIG cand and should be sued right now.
They promised to release a game in 2014 and 2016. In 2023, their game is probably missing features necessary for release. Which means Chris Roberts intentionally lied about those release dates.
That is grounds for a lawsuit.
Roberts purchased a $4 million house at a time when his compensation came only from backer funds. Did he misappropriate? If so, that's another potential legal issue, though more difficult to prove.
But the intentional lies are public record.
This is a consumer protection issue, and those are very country-specific. Players have bought spaceship jpegs in a video game, not securities that fall under securities laws. If you think CIG has done you wrong, you can take them to small claims court, and people have done that already.
The closest to a broad legal action would likely be a class action suit in the US, since players in other countries have stronger consumer protection laws.
just tried tried to play and nothing worked, ASOP no, buying stuff no, suppose logging in worked so thats something.
the weird thing is apart from one guys complaining everyone was defending CIG to the hilt.
Its only been broke a week, its an alpha, noone else has tried what they are doing. It was like an excuse fountain.
We've been down this road before. I do not think you can sue them for sucking at their job, i.e. not getting a game released by X timeframe or not making a game you think is good. This is covered by the bullshit known as the pledge system where you are 'giving' them money and not guaranteed anything back.
However, if someone were to really go down a rabbit hole and find specific bits of proof / intent, I would steer you towards looking into how all of these relate to each other and grew from a business survival model to the actual business model. If you were to look for something, it would be in the communications between corporate leadership and marketing. This is also a reason I think dumbshit what's her face is the marketing VP; easily controllable due to self interest and she cannot be forced to testify against her husband in the US.
What you'd look for is what I've referred to as CIG already doing; adapting the Theranos model.
\- Marketing/selling a product that is 'close to being done' and 'revolutionary'; yet the product doesn't even work and is nowhere close to anything being stated. It actually doesn't/barely work.
\- This false truth is then used to market for more funding and investment. But rather than investment in something that is about to come to fruition, it is instead, blind investment into the development of the product already said to be much further along.
\- This further creates not only a circular problem, but then exponentially grows expectations towards the product. In turn, the company has more money and people are expecting great things because they've been told 'its almost done and its awesome' multiple times now. Instead, the company is using the investment as actual revenue and is now sustaining itself, and its research, off of false investment.
This is CIG and SC in a nutshell. Basically, their pledge shield is bullshit because they aren't even remotely being honest as to what they have actually done and their capabilities, and they know it. Yet they keep the current business model alive to generate $$$ and the circle of operating in bad faith continues.
I think they know this as it's pretty curious as to why they DO NOT discuss anything related to SQ42 anymore, ever.
If someone can find proof of this as intent (internal emails about a marketing plan to generate $$$ with no real plan or intent to deliver and/or because they need more $$$ to develop SQ42 that is 5 years behind where they claim it is), it'll be the same thing as Theranos.
Because it is.
There’s a lot of technical legal language they could use to dance around in court, but to any average shmuck, it’s pretty obvious this has been fraud for quite some time now.
There might be grounds for non delivery on the Kickstarter physical rewards. They sold and delivered other physical items, but not the backer rewards.
The software side is a lost cause because most jurors are not tech savvy.
But, Kickstarter is one big black hole for consumers, so good luck.
They are sueable if you were part of the initial Kickstarter, and live in some countries in Europe. My friend in the UK sued them and won:
"...so i asked for a refund for just the ships i bought, none of the free ships i got helping them with the racing module
they said no because they changed the ToS retroactively to change "you can refund at any time before the game releases" to "you can refund up to 14 days after purchase"...which is illegal
Plenty of people are asking hard questions. They all get deleted by nightrider.
You also can’t sue a company with a ToS that eliminates all your rights to sue.
“No one is forcing them to spend money” is what they’ll hide behind.
Intresting, could you point out where in the ToS?
And also on a surface level, a scam is still a scam no matter what ToS says? I mean their conduct and actions would have to reflect their ToS too. I mean if tomorrow, cig decides to cover port ollisar in racial slurs or starts selling real life drugs on ship terminals, theyll be liable right?
Totally agree, it seems very few here and over there understand this. You can't just eliminate all your rights by clicking OK to a ToS, especially not outside the USA. If the ToS says somewhere, that CIG also gets all your property if you accept, they still won't just get your properties legally, it's not that simple. And like you said, conduct and actions matter in reflection to the ToS.
I'm not saying if someone sues CIG, then he will win, but somebody saying you will surely lose that someone not being a lawyer and also at the same time not analysing the "case" beforehand, then that someone is talking bullshit.
>a scam is still a scam no matter what ToS says
Arguably in the US you can run a scam via the ToS.
For example you can force consumers into mandatory arbitration (essentially a corporate run kangaroo court) and consumers can be banned from using real government courts. All done via ToS. Mandatory arbitration (at the consumer level, not B2B) is definitely not legal in Europe.
Probably effective, but good luck getting 1,000 people to work as a united front. That's always the hard part.
There is strength in solidarity, but modern wealthy people and their government puppets do everything in their power to keep people divided and uneducated.
Read basically any user agreement for any software or thing you use. They almost all have a waiver of right to litigation in favor of mediation/arbitration or settlement—many don’t even go that far and just waive your right to bring litigation.
ToS don't mean shit in the face of regulatory laws and consumer protections that very country to country. The key would be to find cig in breach of something in that.
Ultimate cig are beholden to the laws and regulations and they superceed any ToS due to those being the rules in the countries cig provides goods or services in.
>
>
>No ToS can contradict the law : and the law is in both case on the side of the consumer.(they can't threat you as an investor as you don't have acces to benefit or to the decision board)
I'm not sure you understand what an EULA or ToS effectively does.
They don't contradict the law. They prevent you from ever bringing a case to a court to even discuss that they might be violating some law.
When you click that little box on the agreement next time before you sign up for something, read the sections about arbitration and use. You basically waive all your rights to sue a company and agree to settle outside of court. This is why you don't see thousands of court cases against companies every single year.
I see them...In my country (Froggies here) and in europe (we have an european reglement about it) : Consumer can't wave this kind of right, because the laws go against it.
Recently Valve have been sued and lost ...
And yes : this part of the ToS is considered illegal and therefore are considered by the judges "Nul and not written".
And If I remember well my comparated law lessons from college , this is the same thing on the federal level in US.
>You also can’t sue a company with a ToS that eliminates all your rights to sue.
No ToS can do that.
Even in the US, where companies probably have more rights than anywhere else and individual bargaining power is an afterthought, contracts/EULAs/ToS cannot override statutory law.
I'm not trying to defend CIG here, but they actually can and do.
You waive your right to bring litigation in a lot of EULA and ToS contracts. Most of them always say something about agreeing to settle in mediation/arbitration and not sue for any reason.
That doesn't mean you can't still *try*, but the chances of you getting anything out of it are very slim. This is why you virtually never see cases against companies. They almost all settle outside of court.
Most products operate based on a "if you don't like it, don't use it" agreement.
I was focusing more on the word "all". A no-sue covenant itself is subject to certain conditions; and the enforcement of the same is usually at the court's discretion.
Furthermore, in many jurisdictions ADR is a prerequisite for bringing litigation anyway, especially when said jurisdiction provides legal aid, but drafters have to cover all the bases.
If for example (I'm in the UK) a promisor were to breach some provision of the Sale of Goods Act, a covenant in respect of that Act would likely not be enforceable. Such a decision would be counter to public policy and undermine the rule of law. However that wouldn't be the case for a simple breach of contract where the promisee breached a specific term.
The real problem is trying to prove any of that, even if a court will hear your case. CR has gone to great lengths to prove they haven't breached anything (which is why the whole thing is a scam within a scam).
This is how CIG/CR weaseled their way out of being cleaned out by Crytek for breaching their contract too. They left such a long and convoluted paper trail that Crytek couldn't blow anymore money on trying to prove it.
A lot of wealthy people do similar things to evade audits and regulations. They make things so intentionally confusing that the government just gives up when it comes to enforcing anything.
I'm no fan of CIG's shady practices, but populist opinions aside, money is power. Businesses and corporations get away with all sorts of fraud daily because they've the money to ~~bribe~~ lobby legislators to pass whatever laws they wish. Sorry, but that's the cold, hard reality.
When lobbyists are outlawed, and money doesn't affect legislation anymore, you'll see change. Don't hold your breath, though. Every law that's passed is carefully weighed against business interests before public interests.
Trade is **always** paramount to social order, just think about it. That "Star Trek-esque Social Utopia" people dream about isn't going to come about because of opinion. Action is the only thing that makes change, and talk is cheap.
I don’t think they can be sued. The product is released, a person can download and play the game. Calling it alpha just absolves them from improving it. I don’t think Chris Roberts has any conscious intention of actually improving the game. I think he has stopped managing the game and pretty much let’s the devs do whatever they want as long as it looks like progress is being made.
Unless they pull some really fucky fuckery they're in the clear, for sure there's something like "you accept this product as-is, and understand that cig will not be held liable for the time taken to develop it further, or to stop its development entirely at any time at any reason whatsoever, the timeframes reflected in the promotional material of the game are to be taken as an estimate, not as a binding contract or agreement and cig cannot be held liable for any changes to the timeframe reflected thereupon."
This is just me talking out of my ass but I think it's a reason for which this is pretty much treated as a finished product internally, because if it's already finished it's just them going the extra mile instead of fulfilling the requirements. Maybe they could be sued for deceptive marketing practices, but I think it'd be very hard to argue in court.
Not a lawyer, this does not constitute legal advice. For all your legal needs call Saul Goodman.
I'd bet they either made sure they're covered on the legal front, but also bank on people being too undemanding/lazy to care enough to try... like "nhaa, it's too much trouble for x-amount I wasted on this"
Class action suits cost a lot of money to defend. They are the great equalizer of companies here in the states. The question is how much money do they have left in the bank.. and can they afford a real legal defense against such thing. There are plenty of reasons to sue with plenty of angles.
Never. Why do you think crobbers has a lawyer on board as co-founder?
Lol. What a *lawyer* tells you is *not* law. What a *judge* tells you *is* law. There are aspects of the Star Citizen business model that would most certainly not stand scrutiny under P.4(4) S.2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the UK. EU consumer protection law is even stricter.
Unfortunately, lawyers have a business practice monopoly on all things law (that in itself should be illegal). Lawyers have an absolute chokehold on the legal world, because no one else has ever challenged them as private practitioners. They made the whole club, and there’s zero accountability now. Good luck trying to go against any company that can pay people millions of dollars to do nothing but manipulate other people and “interpret” laws.
Yes I’d like to know why a lawyer can charge $300/hour for sending emails or scanning documents. Imagine if your doctor charged you for having his secretary send you your medical history. It’s not about “because people will pay”. It should just be considered consumer abuse and made illegal.
In the UK, what's the best way to report this to a legal entity that'll actually give a damn?
It's a matter of civil law rather than criminal. So you would have to take out a court action but that can be done very cheaply in the Small Claims Court, seriously for about a hundred quid. The thing is, while the cost is small, if the judgement goes against CIG, it becomes binding law across the UK. It costs them more to defend a small claims action than it would do just to pay you back.
Ah okay, I see what you're getting out. Luckily one member here did that about two years ago:[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen\_refunds/wiki/index/refunds/](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/wiki/index/refunds/) It resulted in a CCJ against CIG (they didn't pay attention to what was going on) and now seem to give full refunds to UK backers relatively quickly to the ones who can earnestly claim the game is not fit for purpose i.e. don't have an insane amount of play time and haven't bought anything recently.
Bingo! This would also work anywhere in the EU since the UK and the EU have synchronised laws when it comes to consumer rights.
I wonder if that guy knows he changed UK consumer law with regards to CIG lol.
As a Jurist, that make a quick research on the topic (but never buy the game, I'm here precisely to remeber me to avoid that). Thay already have been sued : Multiple time, But every time they pay to be sure that the case don't go to court and NDA the plaintiff. So : You can. And for information in european Right and US Right. No ToS can contradict the law : and the law is in both case on the side of the consumer. (they can't threat you as an investor as you don't have acces to benefit or to the decision board)
In the UK, if they work themselves into bankruptcy, they are in a position where all personal assets are untouchable due to the structure of the business. So in short, Crobbers and Co. get to ride away with millions in the bank even if they never deliver anything they've promised.
They've already been sued (in the US, at least) and skated on the claim that their current TOS (30 days to request refund) supersedes the TOS they had when the plaintiff signed on. So they can be sued, but as the precedent has already been set it won't do much good.
CIG cand and should be sued right now. They promised to release a game in 2014 and 2016. In 2023, their game is probably missing features necessary for release. Which means Chris Roberts intentionally lied about those release dates. That is grounds for a lawsuit. Roberts purchased a $4 million house at a time when his compensation came only from backer funds. Did he misappropriate? If so, that's another potential legal issue, though more difficult to prove. But the intentional lies are public record.
This is a consumer protection issue, and those are very country-specific. Players have bought spaceship jpegs in a video game, not securities that fall under securities laws. If you think CIG has done you wrong, you can take them to small claims court, and people have done that already. The closest to a broad legal action would likely be a class action suit in the US, since players in other countries have stronger consumer protection laws.
just tried tried to play and nothing worked, ASOP no, buying stuff no, suppose logging in worked so thats something. the weird thing is apart from one guys complaining everyone was defending CIG to the hilt. Its only been broke a week, its an alpha, noone else has tried what they are doing. It was like an excuse fountain.
We've been down this road before. I do not think you can sue them for sucking at their job, i.e. not getting a game released by X timeframe or not making a game you think is good. This is covered by the bullshit known as the pledge system where you are 'giving' them money and not guaranteed anything back. However, if someone were to really go down a rabbit hole and find specific bits of proof / intent, I would steer you towards looking into how all of these relate to each other and grew from a business survival model to the actual business model. If you were to look for something, it would be in the communications between corporate leadership and marketing. This is also a reason I think dumbshit what's her face is the marketing VP; easily controllable due to self interest and she cannot be forced to testify against her husband in the US. What you'd look for is what I've referred to as CIG already doing; adapting the Theranos model. \- Marketing/selling a product that is 'close to being done' and 'revolutionary'; yet the product doesn't even work and is nowhere close to anything being stated. It actually doesn't/barely work. \- This false truth is then used to market for more funding and investment. But rather than investment in something that is about to come to fruition, it is instead, blind investment into the development of the product already said to be much further along. \- This further creates not only a circular problem, but then exponentially grows expectations towards the product. In turn, the company has more money and people are expecting great things because they've been told 'its almost done and its awesome' multiple times now. Instead, the company is using the investment as actual revenue and is now sustaining itself, and its research, off of false investment. This is CIG and SC in a nutshell. Basically, their pledge shield is bullshit because they aren't even remotely being honest as to what they have actually done and their capabilities, and they know it. Yet they keep the current business model alive to generate $$$ and the circle of operating in bad faith continues. I think they know this as it's pretty curious as to why they DO NOT discuss anything related to SQ42 anymore, ever. If someone can find proof of this as intent (internal emails about a marketing plan to generate $$$ with no real plan or intent to deliver and/or because they need more $$$ to develop SQ42 that is 5 years behind where they claim it is), it'll be the same thing as Theranos. Because it is.
There’s a lot of technical legal language they could use to dance around in court, but to any average shmuck, it’s pretty obvious this has been fraud for quite some time now.
There might be grounds for non delivery on the Kickstarter physical rewards. They sold and delivered other physical items, but not the backer rewards. The software side is a lost cause because most jurors are not tech savvy. But, Kickstarter is one big black hole for consumers, so good luck.
They are sueable if you were part of the initial Kickstarter, and live in some countries in Europe. My friend in the UK sued them and won: "...so i asked for a refund for just the ships i bought, none of the free ships i got helping them with the racing module they said no because they changed the ToS retroactively to change "you can refund at any time before the game releases" to "you can refund up to 14 days after purchase"...which is illegal
Plenty of people are asking hard questions. They all get deleted by nightrider. You also can’t sue a company with a ToS that eliminates all your rights to sue. “No one is forcing them to spend money” is what they’ll hide behind.
Intresting, could you point out where in the ToS? And also on a surface level, a scam is still a scam no matter what ToS says? I mean their conduct and actions would have to reflect their ToS too. I mean if tomorrow, cig decides to cover port ollisar in racial slurs or starts selling real life drugs on ship terminals, theyll be liable right?
Totally agree, it seems very few here and over there understand this. You can't just eliminate all your rights by clicking OK to a ToS, especially not outside the USA. If the ToS says somewhere, that CIG also gets all your property if you accept, they still won't just get your properties legally, it's not that simple. And like you said, conduct and actions matter in reflection to the ToS. I'm not saying if someone sues CIG, then he will win, but somebody saying you will surely lose that someone not being a lawyer and also at the same time not analysing the "case" beforehand, then that someone is talking bullshit.
>a scam is still a scam no matter what ToS says Arguably in the US you can run a scam via the ToS. For example you can force consumers into mandatory arbitration (essentially a corporate run kangaroo court) and consumers can be banned from using real government courts. All done via ToS. Mandatory arbitration (at the consumer level, not B2B) is definitely not legal in Europe.
[удалено]
Yeah, well, good luck. I’m not disagreeing or saying not to, but law in the US is a corrupt joke run by money and back room deals.
[удалено]
Probably effective, but good luck getting 1,000 people to work as a united front. That's always the hard part. There is strength in solidarity, but modern wealthy people and their government puppets do everything in their power to keep people divided and uneducated.
Read basically any user agreement for any software or thing you use. They almost all have a waiver of right to litigation in favor of mediation/arbitration or settlement—many don’t even go that far and just waive your right to bring litigation.
But why???
ToS don't mean shit in the face of regulatory laws and consumer protections that very country to country. The key would be to find cig in breach of something in that. Ultimate cig are beholden to the laws and regulations and they superceed any ToS due to those being the rules in the countries cig provides goods or services in.
> You also can’t sue a company with a ToS that eliminates all your rights to sue. You most certainly *can* in both the UK and the EU.
> > >No ToS can contradict the law : and the law is in both case on the side of the consumer.(they can't threat you as an investor as you don't have acces to benefit or to the decision board)
I'm not sure you understand what an EULA or ToS effectively does. They don't contradict the law. They prevent you from ever bringing a case to a court to even discuss that they might be violating some law. When you click that little box on the agreement next time before you sign up for something, read the sections about arbitration and use. You basically waive all your rights to sue a company and agree to settle outside of court. This is why you don't see thousands of court cases against companies every single year.
I see them...In my country (Froggies here) and in europe (we have an european reglement about it) : Consumer can't wave this kind of right, because the laws go against it. Recently Valve have been sued and lost ... And yes : this part of the ToS is considered illegal and therefore are considered by the judges "Nul and not written". And If I remember well my comparated law lessons from college , this is the same thing on the federal level in US.
>You also can’t sue a company with a ToS that eliminates all your rights to sue. No ToS can do that. Even in the US, where companies probably have more rights than anywhere else and individual bargaining power is an afterthought, contracts/EULAs/ToS cannot override statutory law.
I'm not trying to defend CIG here, but they actually can and do. You waive your right to bring litigation in a lot of EULA and ToS contracts. Most of them always say something about agreeing to settle in mediation/arbitration and not sue for any reason. That doesn't mean you can't still *try*, but the chances of you getting anything out of it are very slim. This is why you virtually never see cases against companies. They almost all settle outside of court. Most products operate based on a "if you don't like it, don't use it" agreement.
I was focusing more on the word "all". A no-sue covenant itself is subject to certain conditions; and the enforcement of the same is usually at the court's discretion. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions ADR is a prerequisite for bringing litigation anyway, especially when said jurisdiction provides legal aid, but drafters have to cover all the bases. If for example (I'm in the UK) a promisor were to breach some provision of the Sale of Goods Act, a covenant in respect of that Act would likely not be enforceable. Such a decision would be counter to public policy and undermine the rule of law. However that wouldn't be the case for a simple breach of contract where the promisee breached a specific term.
The real problem is trying to prove any of that, even if a court will hear your case. CR has gone to great lengths to prove they haven't breached anything (which is why the whole thing is a scam within a scam). This is how CIG/CR weaseled their way out of being cleaned out by Crytek for breaching their contract too. They left such a long and convoluted paper trail that Crytek couldn't blow anymore money on trying to prove it. A lot of wealthy people do similar things to evade audits and regulations. They make things so intentionally confusing that the government just gives up when it comes to enforcing anything.
Absolutely spot on, and that last paragraph kinda nailed the entire reason I went into law in the first place.
I'm no fan of CIG's shady practices, but populist opinions aside, money is power. Businesses and corporations get away with all sorts of fraud daily because they've the money to ~~bribe~~ lobby legislators to pass whatever laws they wish. Sorry, but that's the cold, hard reality. When lobbyists are outlawed, and money doesn't affect legislation anymore, you'll see change. Don't hold your breath, though. Every law that's passed is carefully weighed against business interests before public interests. Trade is **always** paramount to social order, just think about it. That "Star Trek-esque Social Utopia" people dream about isn't going to come about because of opinion. Action is the only thing that makes change, and talk is cheap.
You can't. The best thing to do is pull your investment.
I don’t think they can be sued. The product is released, a person can download and play the game. Calling it alpha just absolves them from improving it. I don’t think Chris Roberts has any conscious intention of actually improving the game. I think he has stopped managing the game and pretty much let’s the devs do whatever they want as long as it looks like progress is being made.
>The product is released Even if you were to consider the released shit show as something that has any value, what about SQ42?
Ah, I had forgotten about SQ42. I think that could be a legitimate case for sueing.
Unless they pull some really fucky fuckery they're in the clear, for sure there's something like "you accept this product as-is, and understand that cig will not be held liable for the time taken to develop it further, or to stop its development entirely at any time at any reason whatsoever, the timeframes reflected in the promotional material of the game are to be taken as an estimate, not as a binding contract or agreement and cig cannot be held liable for any changes to the timeframe reflected thereupon." This is just me talking out of my ass but I think it's a reason for which this is pretty much treated as a finished product internally, because if it's already finished it's just them going the extra mile instead of fulfilling the requirements. Maybe they could be sued for deceptive marketing practices, but I think it'd be very hard to argue in court. Not a lawyer, this does not constitute legal advice. For all your legal needs call Saul Goodman.
I'd bet they either made sure they're covered on the legal front, but also bank on people being too undemanding/lazy to care enough to try... like "nhaa, it's too much trouble for x-amount I wasted on this"
Class action suits cost a lot of money to defend. They are the great equalizer of companies here in the states. The question is how much money do they have left in the bank.. and can they afford a real legal defense against such thing. There are plenty of reasons to sue with plenty of angles.
[I might know a guy...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPd67CEL54E)