Archived The Price of Hulk Hogan's Privacy: Here's How Much of the $115 Million He'll Probably Get (eonline.com)
submitted ago by causuistry
Posted by: causuistry
Posting time: 4.7 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 1070
SCP: 38
38 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived The Price of Hulk Hogan's Privacy: Here's How Much of the $115 Million He'll Probably Get (eonline.com)
submitted ago by causuistry
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Donbuster ago
Of course. But making the looser pay all court fees in all scenarios makes it even worse, since the party putting more money into a defense is more likely to win, all things being equal, and lump the cost on the loser. So it becomes a game of not just "Let's drag this out until he goes bankrupt," but also a game of "If we hire a big name firm for 1200 and hour, he will back down instantly, since he knows he will be financially ruined if he fails."
Perhaps it would be reasonable to say that the looser has to pay legal costs matching what they paid for their own council, or the full cost of the opposition, whichever is smaller. So if you aren't willing and able to cough up for a top tier firm for your side, you won't be forced to pay for a top tier firm that got used against you. And if you win, its not like big businesses will be unduly burdened by paying a couple thousand to the family lawyer.
[–] ScreaminMime ago
This tactic would work against the large companies too if they fail.
[–] Donbuster ago
But since pouring more money into legal support generally correlates to a better chance of winning cases, and since no consumer can afford to match even a thousandth of a corporations legal might when they are serious, whatever extra the big company pays will be a drop in the bucket, whereas for a consumer, it means risking financial ruination for justice. Yeah, if they loose, they have to pay for that legal support and get nothing out of it. Guess what? That amount they paid in legal help, even if its a fortune to the average man, is NOTHING to them. Even if they intentionally pay more to intimidate, its a drop in the bucket to the big business. No large corporation will put enough into a legal battle to jeopardize them financially, because, in order to accomplish that, they would have to sell assets to get to that point. Unless the legal battle is literally life or death for the company (Which doesn't happen in america), no company will invest more in a legal defense than they would be fined if they loose the suit plus the predicted loss of value of any public outcry against them (which, frankly, will happen either way). But people? Lawyers cost a lot, and many are buying the best legal talent they can afford, to the point where a loss already jeopardizes them financially because either A. they are making poor choices in how much they spend, since individuals might not always make the best choice in such matters, or B. the number of "win or be ruined" cases for an individual going against a corporation are MUCH higher than the reverse. For instance, someone could loose their largest investment, their house, if they loose a foreclosure case, and, seeing as they just spent a ton of money on a lawyer to try to prevent that, might not have any savings left. Plus they then have to deal with the legal costs for a big company that devoted many times what they did, and likely has a subset of their legal department that does exactly their kind of case for a living (which is brutally effective, and also expensive as hell), its easy to see how a case under these rules could not make a dent in a big business abusing the legal system, but turn someone just getting ready for retirement into a penniless beggar, forced to do the ultimate act of shame, and move in with their kids, or become dependent on the already overburdened welfare system.