I dunno, Perk. One of the more disturbing things about our legal system is the practice of suing the deep pocket defendant even when their culpability is contrived. It happens all the time. I worked as a hotel bellman long ago & the amount of stuff some people brought with them was ridiculous. It's all packaged up so we had no idea what it was so we just carried it to the rooms. I'm having trouble seeing how MGM was really at fault.
I'm having a hard time feeling much concern when the deep pockets are faaaaaaaaaar more likely to be the ones doing the suing. You just don't hear about that much because its common and its against people that can't mount a proper defense and/or have no ability to fight back with PR (so they settle or get railroaded). And people got gaslit with the "frivolous lawsuit is the worst thing about our justice system" mentality. Which, by the way, I hope you realize that was an actual targeted PR campaign. Corporations actively worked to spread this belief that there's a rampant amount of frivolous lawsuits in order to try to game the system. Its why we've seen the rise of forced arbitration and other shit limiting people's ability to sue corporations.
Its the legal equivalent of trickle-down economics. They fed you bullshit and people believed it and now can't figure out why things got worse while the corporations continually gloat about how great things are for them (but its not enough, damnit, they need moooooore!).
On this specific subject, I think their argument that they needed to sue the victims first to head off frivolous lawsuits is specious at best. They're looking to push an advantage and it will set precedent in ways you won't imagine if they get their way. Personally, I hope they get fucking slammed and go out of business because of how incredibly fucked up this is. I don't give a shit if they assumed they'd be facing mountains of frivolous lawsuits, them suing the victims in advance is just plain fucked up.
Facebook
Twitter