Hacker News Reader

Comment by nlh | Hacker News Reader

Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase:

"The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them."

Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous".

Is there a legal reason why these responses always use the same language? Or is this like an inside joke in legal circles?

View on HN

It's a stock phrase that avoids committing to any theory of the case. (It's overused nature adds to its utility as a generic denial.) "Meritless" is also a bit of jargon that means "the alleged facts don't add up to a legal claim." It captures in one word what would otherwise be a complex phrase: "the allegations are false, and even if they are not, they fail to make up the elements of the asserted claims, and even if they did make up a legal claim, there is an applicable defense."

It's just a cliche, see also "we take your security/privacy very seriously" when disclosing issues

we seriously will take your security/privacy

...which is meritless, after all.

It really just means they believe the allegations are untrue and that they think the evidence will demonstrate they're untrue or there won't be enough evidence to prove them.

The reason this is often stated or quoted is that a defendant has to make a statement to this effect when replying to the complaint. However, at the time of the initial reply, no discovery will have occurred and therefore no evidence will be officially available to either prove or disprove the allegations. Accordingly, all you can really say at that time is "we disagree and believe the allegations in the complaint are not true and/or can't be proven."

Using the cliche allows you to make a statement that contains zero information. If you use different language people might try to read into it.

Yes, the stock phrases are preferred due to having established meaning from case law – interestingly, simple language is less likely to have needed to be tested in court, so this force drives evolution of legalese!

Often when comments on a legal case, what you say could be misinterpreted and used against you at a later time. For example, if you said "we believe the claim that X did Y is untrue", it could be used later to say "they obviously agree the other facts are true then!".

If you use this stock statement, then it won't be used against you at a later time.

Why do anything else but maximize initial position in the case?

Said position being "they" have no case and let us all be damn clear on that.

You should continue reading the statement. While they use a commonly used phrase, there is some colorful language there.

Because when people hear a word they like, they like to try and use it every chance they get. They want to show off their large vocabulary. I remember thinking something similar when the election cycle rolls around and every pundit and news anchor is talking about how an issue "resonates" with voters. An otherwise rarely used word that becomes used to describe something specific becomes almost like a brand name.

See Jeff Sessions recusing himself from Russian collusion for more of these words.

Or because it's a carefully-chosen legalism that appears to say "I am innocent" while actually only saying "the case against me will fail."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com