Ruth was right
Comments
-
-
Yes, there were actually victims here.
Dunce Cap is comparing the federal government fining a global corporation for violating privacy rights to Donald Trump taking out re-paid loans approved by banks. Loans that ultimately added people working for Trump projects and properties who paid NY state taxes.
This is stupid even for you, H.
-
I'm not a fan of the FTC
I hate Facebook so I never signed up
Sell that Zuckerberg
-
Your quarrel is with the statute enacted in the1950s, by a Republican controlled New York legislature. Apparently, they believed lying to lenders was deserving of punishment.
-
And the damages were what again? Court awards have to bear some due process connection to the actual damages. It's almost like you have a hypothetical law degree. The only good thing for New York will be the flight of capital from the reach of New York courts.
-
Gasbag dropped out of law school before learning about disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
-
Facebook Market cap in 2019 was $585B so less than a 1% fine for the crime of "deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information"
Vs Trump fine of $464M on estimated net worth of $2.6B or 17.9% of his net worth for a crime that the "Victim" said would be happy to do the deal again.
So, apples to aardvarks
-
H and his bumper sticker posts. “Disgorgement” is something he heard Rachel Maddow say. My idiot mother uses the same buzz word logic. Embarrassing.
Simpleton, but most cultists are also followers.
-
Hey, can I borrow money from you
poor unsophisticated 80 year old widowJP Morgan with your army of MBAs (real MBAs) and real estate financial specialists who conducted their own detailed due diligence? Then pay it back and have the dazzler talk about ill-gotten gains? Is ill-gotten gains a legal term? Repaying a loan is an ill-gotten gain? You suck at this. -
This decision teems with the muddled thinking from mixing law and equity. The statute (law) enables the Attorney General (law enforcement) to use civil discovery (from equity) to investigate fraud (a potential crime) and bypass the Constitutional protections granted to someone accused of a crime (e.g, search warrants). Is that justice? Oh, it’s OK because restitution limits what can be extracted from the target. The AG is just getting compensation for victims, that’s all. “Restitution” is an equitable remedy, so there is no jury to try facts.
Wait, the AG is a party in a civil suit, so don’t our rules of procedure allow access to all equitable remedies? This new-fangled “disgorgement” is floating around as an equitable remedy. They say it discourages wrongdoing by stripping the accused of their ill-gotten gains. Nothin’ wrong with that. Since disgorgement has no accepted legal meaning, what if we say that it doesn’t require identifiable victims because we’re discouraging wrongdoing. No victims, uh, who gets the money? Hey, we can put the money in the treasury! Neat, huh? Government employees in black robes gettin’ it done! Thank you, Mr. Field.
