Hacker News Reader

That kind of policy should mean that in any court case where a customer's version of events/conversations differs from Tesla's, the customer is assumed to be telling the truth until definitely proven otherwise. The legal liability of this policy should be so great that no sane company would have this policy over just creating a paper trail in the first place.

View on HN

lol, thats not how it works at all.

I think that's why the parent comment was using the word "should" a lot

For those unclear on the definitions, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119

How would you interpret the following:

if electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party fails to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information to use in the litigation may presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com