 Clearly, an exchange still counts as exploitative even if \(A\) does not benefit on net. If \(A\) derives unfair benefit from his interaction with \(B\), but suffers unforeseen costs such that she ends up worse-off after the interaction than she was before, then \(A\) has still exploited \(B\). Less clear is the question of whether \(A\) must derive any actual benefit at all, or whether it is enough that \(A\) merely intend to benefit. Suppose a sweatshop owner works his employees ruthlessly in order to extract as much profit as he can from the workers’ labor, but that the product the laborers produce turns out, due to an unforeseen turn of events, to have zero market value. Have the sweatshop workers nevertheless been exploited?