zlacker

We need to make evidence based judgements, not accusation based judgements.

I'm tired of the outage-clickbait.

I'm here to learn, not to be emotionally manipulated.

>>koheri+(OP)
There's evidence from one side in the lawsuits, while the defendants have so far declined to submit any for scrutiny. In any case, the title of this submission says that Fedex is 'accused' of fraud rather than having been found guilty of it, so you knew what you were getting before you clicked; you could have just ignored it.

>>anigbr+x8
When someone files a complaint against you with a court of appropriate jurisdiction to start a lawsuit, your only sane option is to file an answer. The complaint lists their allegations point by point. The answer either admits or denies each allegation, point by point.

It is not surprising that FedEx has declined to submit evidence for scrutiny. It’s not time for that yet. They will be required to do so in discovery and they better hope they can at trial but right now we should not expect to hear anything from them other than “admit, deny, insufficient basis to form a belief and therefore deny.”

It’s just too early for an evidence based discussion. This is the nature of the civil action.

>>koheri+(OP)
Isn't this an example of an "accusation based judgement"?

> This is taken from a complaint in a class action lawsuit. Class action lawyers are very similar to patent trolls whereby they can spin almost any story they want. And journalists go for clicks, so they amplify the sensationalism. It doesn't mean this is one of those, but a class action complaint should not just blindly be trusted.

This amounts to "class action lawyers and journalists are bad so we can ignore what they're saying".

>>single+ap
There's absolutely nothing preventing them asserting their version of events and following up with evidentiary filings within a reasonable timeframe. Just like there's nothing preventing corporations from admitting liability and apologizing, but they generally prefer to settle instead and never ever admit fault, thanks to the pernicious doctrine of maximizing shareholder value.

>>Alexan+rp
I don’t think you have to conclude that was shared for that reason. It could be shared simply as “this is what a plaintiff alleges, and we don’t have any data or anything further to verify that these claims are true.”

>>anigbr+zq
There’s no value in presenting your evidence in the court of public opinion and intrigue. Argue your position in an actual court, where and when it matters. If a bunch of impatient people over-react to hearing only one side’s argument, so be it; you’ll exhaust yourself trying to convince them anyway and, in general, their opinion isn’t worth swaying.

>>sokolo+Xy
Of course there is, perception matters or companies wouldn't have PR departments. They shove their brands in the public's face 24/7 with messages about how great they are but when they look bad they put on an air of injured dignity and cite platitudes about the legal system. The reality is that corporations usually just hope to exhaust plaintiffs in the legal system instead.

I went to law school and am married to someone who works in litigation at a top 10 law firm, I understand very well how the legal process works both technically and in economic/strategic terms.

>>anigbr+YQ
Would companies prefer to have their PR departments talking about positive things the company is doing or refreshing and giving voice to an accusation of odometer rollbacks? I read nothing into FedEx’s silence on the topic, other than they are being run by adults taking competent advice.

>>anigbr+zq
Generally I agree with you but there’s also not anything stopping you from writing me a check for fifty grand. Nothing incentivizes them to disclose anything. I’m not too crazy about the state of affairs either.

>>sokolo+vU
competent advice to minimize liability and downplay unflattering news, or competent advice to behave morally and righteously in the eyes of the public?

seems the former, so you can see why the public is unimpressed