Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#131

Post by eximius »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #78
dionidium wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, not the same Monsanto that did any of that. They spun off their chemical division in 1996. [0] More philosophically (and despite what SCOTUS has to say about it), companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency. And the people who did the things you mention here are dead . [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-t.…

The people running Monsanto are buffered - if not always protected entirely - by numerous laws from facing the consequences of their actions, precisely because they take those actions in the context of a corporate entity. If I poison my neighbour and I'm caught, I'm going to jail. (In the US I may face the death penalty.) If I'm working inside a corporate and my decisions poison [unknown power of ten] people and caus…

I've said it before, I'll say it again: all companies should be Public Benefit Corporations. PBCs are companies which, in addition to having a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, may add benefitting the public to their charter.

"Dump our waste in the river which is the water supply in order to save 2% on downstream costs? Sorry investors, no can do. That harms the public."

Make it part of CEOs job to benefit the public instead of make the rich richer. Why would we ever want a company that doesn't benefit the public?

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#132

Post by eximius »

tptacek wrote: post #121
christophilus wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My answer is in the linked video, and doesn’t fit into a sound bite. If I understand your question, you are asking for evidence that corporations get away with things that normal citizens wouldn’t. The answer is that history provides ample evidence to back up this claim, and my link is one such piece of evidence.

No, you don't understand my question. My question is: is there some legal basis for the idea that a corporation serves as a liability "buffer" for the actions of its employees?

If corporations can get away with things individuals can't and, as someone above said

> companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency.

Then that implies there are individuals using companies to get away with things they otherwise wouldn't be able to.

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#133

Post by tptacek »

eximius wrote: post #132
tptacek wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don't understand my question. My question is: is there some legal basis for the idea that a corporation serves as a liability "buffer" for the actions of its employees?

If corporations can get away with things individuals can't and, as someone above said > companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency. Then that implies there are individuals using companies to get away with things they otherwise wouldn't be able to.

It’s fine if you don’t have an answer to my question. You weren’t expected to.

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#134

Post by shawnz »

ScottBurson wrote: post #29
shawnz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you made an honest effort to understand the parent's point. They are saying that the jurors might have been biased against Monsanto due to the widespread fear of GMO, and glyphosate being a symbol of that fear.

I can't speak to what was in the jurors' minds, but in my opinion that's backwards: it is concern about glyphosate that is primarily driving fear of GMOs. If we got rid of glyphosate, I for one would not have any problem with the other GMOs I am currently aware of, though I would of course reserve the option of objecting to specific GMOs I might learn about in the future.

> it is concern about glyphosate that is primarily driving fear of GMOs.

In my experience the two most common anti-GMO arguments that I hear are: A) that GMOs can be patented, which creates IP problems when they spread, and B) that somehow human-designed species might be less safe than natural ones due to unintended health consequences of the modifications (not really sure the rationale for that one.)

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#135

Post by ethbro »

tptacek wrote: post #130
ethbro wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For starters, there are a number of recent Supreme Court decisions (interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act) that allow ToS to prevent consumers from suing as a class [1, 2], thereby ensuring disparate legal resources in favor of a corporation. Generally speaking, the difficulty in bringing criminal cases against employees of corporations is convincing a court to pierce the corporate veil. Unfortunately, this presen…

I'm not sure I find this argument credible, since "piercing the corporate veil" is mostly a civil law concept; as I understand it, the model "veil" case is one in which Joe performs some service for BobCo, which promptly goes out of business upon receiving Joe's invoice. Joe would like to sue Bob, but his contract is with BobCo. There are instances where Joe can in fact sue Bob; those are the typical "veil" cases. Th…

(IANAL) I believe the definition of corporations varies widely enough from state to state that there may not even be an answer to this question.

My understanding is that there is still generally a veil in tort law, except when the tort was committed personally by an agent of the corporation.

I hit you in a company vehicle through my own negligence, you sue me.

I hit you in a company vehicle because I wasn't properly trained, you sue me and my company.

I hit you in a poorly maintained company vehicle and the steering column failed... who knows?

Fairly simple. But all cases of tort law are not personal.

Example being the Volkswagen emission case (okay, criminal too, but let's say a citizen is suing under tort law). Who's at fault?

As soon as I (the plaintiff) lose the ability to clearly point a finger, things get much murkier. Now I have to prove participation or a handful of other caveats to pierce and sue an employee. Probably by digging through thousands of emails.

This is where I'd say from a system perspective corporations provide a de facto buffer, even if it's not a legal one. Compared to simply suing an individual, proving all of this is much more expensive. Which now can't be aggregated (why I highlighted arbitration) so costs can't be divided.

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#136

Post by tptacek »

ethbro wrote: post #135
tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I find this argument credible, since "piercing the corporate veil" is mostly a civil law concept; as I understand it, the model "veil" case is one in which Joe performs some service for BobCo, which promptly goes out of business upon receiving Joe's invoice. Joe would like to sue Bob, but his contract is with BobCo. There are instances where Joe can in fact sue Bob; those are the typical "veil" cases. Th…

(IANAL) I believe the definition of corporations varies widely enough from state to state that there may not even be an answer to this question. My understanding is that there is still generally a veil in tort law, except when the tort was committed personally by an agent of the corporation. I hit you in a company vehicle through my own negligence, you sue me. I hit you in a company vehicle because I wasn't properly…

I think we are now trying to work from axioms to a legal question neither of us are qualified to answer. But my current understanding is: working for a giant company while knowingly breaking the law, whether or not your company tells you to do it, does not shield you in any way from criminal liability.

As I understand it, the "interesting" questions here are the extent to which you can hold directors or even major shareholders responsible for criminal conduct --- people who may not have been directly implicated in crimes themselves. But if you commit a crime while working for Dow Chemical, or instruct someone to commit a crime who then does so, Dow's liability shield can't keep you out of prison.

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#137

Post by singularity2001 »

wslh wrote: post #41

They are running a big campaign in favour of glyphosate in Reddit. in Argentina at least. Subreddit admins have cobtacted Reddit to suspend the campaign because of false claims going against the rules. The campaign also tricks people because they post links to popular media sites. There is more information about this (in Spanish) here: https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/95m863/followup_...

Would be interesting to analyze whether their propaganda machine tried to manipulate opinions on HN too

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#138

Post by singularity2001 »

wslh wrote: post #41

They are running a big campaign in favour of glyphosate in Reddit. in Argentina at least. Subreddit admins have cobtacted Reddit to suspend the campaign because of false claims going against the rules. The campaign also tricks people because they post links to popular media sites. There is more information about this (in Spanish) here: https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/95m863/followup_...

With all this new censorship creeping in it would be a constructive innovation to force corporate commenters to reveal their affiliation. Something like an obligatory checkbox: "[] are you posting on behalf of your employer?".

And then make it a punishable offense to "conceal corporate propaganda" if someone didn't check the box.

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#139

Post by SpecialistEMT »

ppflwn wrote: post #52
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, Monsanto is pretty good at SEO. Here's the first result that came up for a search of the video: https://i.imgur.com/JiZjlVL.png

Is that SEO, or them just paying to be there?

SEO

Re: Monsanto ordered to pay $289M damages in Roundup cancer trial

#140

Post by ethbro »

tptacek wrote: post #136
ethbro wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(IANAL) I believe the definition of corporations varies widely enough from state to state that there may not even be an answer to this question. My understanding is that there is still generally a veil in tort law, except when the tort was committed personally by an agent of the corporation. I hit you in a company vehicle through my own negligence, you sue me. I hit you in a company vehicle because I wasn't properly…

I think we are now trying to work from axioms to a legal question neither of us are qualified to answer. But my current understanding is: working for a giant company while knowingly breaking the law, whether or not your company tells you to do it, does not shield you in any way from criminal liability. As I understand it, the "interesting" questions here are the extent to which you can hold directors or even major sh…

I'm certainly going to ask my corporate lawyer friends next time I see them. But my disagreement is with the "does not shield you in any way", and where I say there is a de facto buffer.

If I commit a crime while working for Dow Chemical, the plaintiff must prove that (1) a crime was committed and (2) that I was personally responsible for it being committed.

This sounds exactly like what would need to be proved if I were unemployed and committed a crime, but the different regimes of tort, criminal, and corporate law that bank switch into play when a corporation is involved mean the lawsuit proceeds under different rules.

Essentially, I'd argue that case law affords someone working for a corporation far more options for defense than an average Joe, thereby making it unequal (aka buffering).

Post reply on HN