It's an accurate statement. The US (specifically Delaware) has a world-class corporate law system. Delaware has a court dedicated to only corporate and commercial disputes, with 200+ years of case law.
Man, good thing no one’s ever done something like reincorporate Tesla and SpaceX in Texas after loosing a court case in said Delaware court and having a pissy fit about it.
The state of incorporation doesn't often matter in interstate contracts. Usually they will include a choice of law and forum selection clause specifically to avoid this kind of thing.
It does until you're embedded enough with the surveillance system [1]. If a company was able to get immunity in the wat AT&T got it, no contract would protect the other side.
I guess as a European I want the legal system to be robust in terms of protecting the citizen’s interests against corporations. I can see how you can also want robustness in terms of protecting corporate interests against citizens, so, yes, the statement remains technically true in terms of robustness.
In terms of justice, again as a European, I think of Justitia, the Roman Godess, who judges based on “ideals of truth, fairness, honesty and justice“, “applied without regard to wealth, power, or other status”, evaluating “the goodness of the heart”. I don’t see these values represented much in the US so-called “justice” system.
Both aspects sufficiently documented for example over and over again in Matt Levine’s financial reporting.
The top-level discussed a theoretical risk of data being exfiltrated by third parties for training. Other comments discussed contract law and legal remedies, including Delaware’s excellent court system for handling business disputes.
None of this means you don’t have the same rights as an individual to enforce contract terms. I think the top commenters discussed corporate law because that is where most IP theft occurs, and corporate customers have strong contracts covering data protection.
When I chuckle because of the idea that one sees the US corporate legal system as “robust”, and then give an explanation for why I (me! personally!) chuckled, what is the point of trying to argue? For what exactly?
To give yet another personal reason for my chuckle besides the ones I already gave: I don’t consider a legal system where I can simply move state when I don’t like the law not very robust. Or one that can “look back to (a mere) 200 years of case law” - especially given how that is being (re)interpreted in recent years.
That is my personal opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion, your definitions, your perspectives. I remain chuckling :) we don’t have to always agree or dig holes of rational debate, we can just find stuff funny or not. I volunteered why it is funny to me when that causes irritation with some. I read the high number of upvotes as potential agreement.
Cambridge Dictionary: “the quality of being strong, and healthy or unlikely to break or fail”
I provided two dimensions in which I consider the US justice system to have failed. I can provide more. You of course can prioritize different dimensions, but that doesn’t invalidate that I am also talking about robustness. Robustness is not an absolute, but always an adjective - related to a specific aspect.
Thanks for the chuckle. ;)