Let Consumers Sue Companies
A slightly related issue that I find somewhat unsettling is how easily big companies that are being sued by state or federal governments are able to settle in out of court proceedings.<p>From my understanding, the argument for allowing settlements is to help one or both parties somehow save face, time, or money. However, what everyone (including people who are not affiliated with either party) loses out on is the possibility to establish a precedent. Some of the cases that come to mind are the HSBC case where some people who were following the court proceedings started to sense and publicly state the real possibility of actual criminal wrongdoing (<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/hsbc-agrees-470m-settlement-over-alleged-u-s-mortgage-abuses-1454689803" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/articles/hsbc-agrees-470m-settlement-ove...</a>). Compare that to a guilty plea by BNP Paribas here (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/30/bnp-paribas-pleads-guilty-criminal-charges-sanctions" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/30/bnp-paribas...</a> and <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bnp-paribas-sentenced-conspiring-violate-international-emergency-economic-powers-act-and" rel="nofollow">https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bnp-paribas-sentenced-conspir...</a>).<p>In comparison, see what happens to an individual (<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/19/soc-gen-rogue-trader-kerviel-heading-for-jail.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/19/soc-gen-rogue-trader-kerviel...</a>), and how people try to avoid it (<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-09/ex-socgen-banker-charged-in-insider-case-tied-to-airgas-takeover" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-09/ex-socgen...</a>).<p>TL;DR: Big companies get to settle all to easily in cases brought forward by government attorneys without admitting guilt or wrongdoing, which is in contrast individuals (even wealthy ones) who often basically become the targets of what effectively becomes (sometimes faux) moral crusade. Companies end up:<p>1. Doing something that breaks the law, but in a sufficiently obfuscated manner.
2. Getting caught by government usually via the observation and study by keen citizens and/or outright whistleblowers. 
3. Involving their legal team to both prepare for fighting the case, and to give PR guidance and statements. Marketing and salespeople downplay the concerns from both consumers and customers. 
4. When the case becomes sufficiently uncomfortable, settle it with government for some fraction of the total estimated damages and not admit to wrongdoing.
5. Write off the settlement amount in the most tax-friendly manner possible via in-house or third-party accountants.
6. Get praise internally and externally for being <i>scrappy</i> and <i>disrupting</i> the <i>establishment/government/noun-used-as-a-pejorative</i> (yes, you too dear HN contributor/lurker).
7. Rinse and repeat 1-6.<p>I think a few of the things that Uber and AirBnB have had to settle essentially map to the steps I outlined above.<p>Note:
a. The sources above that I cite might not be the best ones to support my claim, but the general issue and the unwillingness to resolve it properly remain.
b. I realize that step 6 is mean/snarky/typecasting. My aim was to remind the reader that audible/silent praise/rebuke do have power, and that <i>doing nothing does register as a signal in some situations</i>.