• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Those with deep pockets can threaten expensive legal action even if they know they won’t win, simply because those without deep pockets cannot afford to fight the legal battle without going bankrupt.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      ·
      1 month ago

      but its unilever. they have nearly unlimited funds to fight musk… if they wanted to

      i suspect they just didnt want the unilever name and its bazillion brands brought into public lawsuits for marketing reasons

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Oh, I know nothing about Unilever specifically, you may be right. In either case, the basic “Cost not worth the price” reasoning still applies.

            • rmuk@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah, I was like, “Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Madrid. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Vladivostok. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Anchorage. Wow, I’d didn’t know Slim Fast was from Tiksi. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Chihuahua. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Jaipur. Wow, I didn’t know Slim Fast was from Alert…”

              “Waaaaiidaminute…”

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yeah, I mean, that’s the gist of it. Corporations are utterly amoral and value only profit, not things like “not helping genocide along” or “preventing fascism”.