Hacker News Reader

Comment by ticulatedspline | Hacker News Reader

Honest question, isn't that like OK?

Like if you have a product, and the government says the product is ok, and it's labeled per regulation and later that product turns out to be deleterious to people's health should the company be liable?

Guess we should already have precedent but my google-fu is failing here. I can't seem to find the resolution of Felix-Lozano v. Nalge Nunc , Felix sued Nalgene over their use of BPA which at the time was not illegal to use in the bottles.

PFAS will probably be the next battleground here. They've been used in lots of products. And have some lawsuits https://www.cbsnews.com/news/firefighters-pfas-lawsuit/ . In your opinion should every manufacturer of a product that uses PFAS be legally liable?

View on HN

I'm not a lawyer, nor a judge, so I can't say. All I can tell you is that it feels wrong that [Monsanto/OpenAI] can lobby a state's legislature to prevent you, the average joe and potential lucrative victim, from filing a lawsuit against them when it seems clear to any reasonable person that people are developing [cancer/mental health issues] due to the use of [pesticides/AI].

Perhaps something like anti-SLAPP rules for the ignominious corporations would be a happy middle ground? I don't know if that would "fix" anything – or if there's anything to fix – so don't take that as a super serious suggestion.

If companies can't lobby, so many "safety" regulations will pass that you will simply suffocate and kill private industry.

This is why most promising drug candidates never see light of day.

I'm generally open to lobbying, but I'm not generally open to "you can never file a lawsuit against the comically evil pesticide corporation standing behind us twirling their mustaches." There needs to be a middle ground.

I don't think itd be ok, personally. My impression is regulations and regulatory institutions can be very slow to evolve after technological advances, unless the government is financially liable. A scheme I would be more comfortable with is mandatory insurance and insurance companies with a financial incentive absorbing the liability. On top of that probably add some bare minimum regulatory requirements/certifications.

"Like if you have a product, and the government says the product is ok, and it's labeled per regulation and later that product turns out to be deleterious to people's health should the company be liable?"

Mesothelioma is the precedent.

100% yes. If you've never seen the hell that people go through with these cancers, you are blessed, but it is hell, especially in the US medical system.

> Like if you have a product, and the government says the product is ok, and it's labeled per regulation and later that product turns out to be deleterious to people's health should the company be liable?

But like, what if you like, totally bribed the shit out government people and like totally fabricated scientific evidence to make it seem like it was safe but then you sold it anyway?

Aren't you then like a total piece of shit?

It's going to be okay. Stop watching movies and thinking they correlate to real life.

Cigarettes and asbestos are just two examples of where this absolutely did happen with plenty of public evidence, including successful legal cases.

Damn. Wish you'd told me that before I finished Schindler's List and Angela's Ashes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com