Why is it OK for an American company to headquarter in one state then cherry pick another in which to file a lawsuit? Surely a company should be governed by the laws of the state in which they are based.
It seems weird to choose the set of laws you want to be judged by when the defendant cannot do the same.
Surely a company should be governed by the laws of the state in which they are based
This is not true and wouldn’t make why sense: let’s say you are a delivery company and one of your drivers runs over a dog in Texas. The lawsuit can be filed in Texas, regardless of whether your company is in Texas, California, or even outside the united states. The place you are incorporated in doesn’t change the damages or laws you violated when running over the dog. Of course you can also move the venue to the state the company is based in.
You cannot (generally) move it to another state, since that state doesn’t even have jurisdiction over any part of the incident.
The internet is just special in the sense that really something that happened on the internet happened everywhere on earth at the same time, meaning any venue is a place where potential damages were accrued.
Agree that if an incident happens in a particular jurisdiction, the local court should handle it. That makes sense, no argument here.
But here they get to choose the set of laws because there was no physical location? That just feels wrong somehow. Anyway there is a physical location and if anything, the incident was ‘perpetrated’ by a person who was physically located somewhere at the time. It should be handled by the court local to them at the time. In the case of organisations, I guess this would mean where the defendant company operates from. Or if we accept it is virtual and everywhere then, it should be governed by federal laws not state laws.
Makes sense, but how can things like the slapp suit from bob murray have been in a state (west virginia) neither hbo ( who called bob a lot of shit and is located in new york ) , bob murray ( utah) or his company were in?
Edit: excuse me, i meant bob murray, not bill murrey
It shouldn’t be OK and Media Matters will surely file for a change of venue. They’re located in DC and Twitter in California. Heck, Twitters own TOS says that your use of the service is governed by California law, so any claim that they fraudulently used the service should be handled in California.
But activist judges are also known to deny motions for made up reasons, so Twitter starts in Texas in hopes an activist judge keeps the case there to “stick it to the liberals.”
Texas is famous for judges that keep the venue there, with laws that are friendly to corporations. It’s why it’s the most popular state for these shitbird corporate lawyers to file suits.
Why is it OK for an American company to headquarter in one state then cherry pick another in which to file a lawsuit? Surely a company should be governed by the laws of the state in which they are based. It seems weird to choose the set of laws you want to be judged by when the defendant cannot do the same.
Because the system is set up so that the powerful can fuck over the powerless in any way they want.
This is not true and wouldn’t make why sense: let’s say you are a delivery company and one of your drivers runs over a dog in Texas. The lawsuit can be filed in Texas, regardless of whether your company is in Texas, California, or even outside the united states. The place you are incorporated in doesn’t change the damages or laws you violated when running over the dog. Of course you can also move the venue to the state the company is based in.
You cannot (generally) move it to another state, since that state doesn’t even have jurisdiction over any part of the incident.
The internet is just special in the sense that really something that happened on the internet happened everywhere on earth at the same time, meaning any venue is a place where potential damages were accrued.
Agree that if an incident happens in a particular jurisdiction, the local court should handle it. That makes sense, no argument here. But here they get to choose the set of laws because there was no physical location? That just feels wrong somehow. Anyway there is a physical location and if anything, the incident was ‘perpetrated’ by a person who was physically located somewhere at the time. It should be handled by the court local to them at the time. In the case of organisations, I guess this would mean where the defendant company operates from. Or if we accept it is virtual and everywhere then, it should be governed by federal laws not state laws.
Makes sense, but how can things like the slapp suit from bob murray have been in a state (west virginia) neither hbo ( who called bob a lot of shit and is located in new york ) , bob murray ( utah) or his company were in?
Edit: excuse me, i meant bob murray, not bill murrey
Wait, what is this about Bill Murrey? I’m out-of-the-loop…
Bob Murray
Eat Shit, Bob.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Eat Shit, Bob.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Eat shit, bot.
It shouldn’t be OK and Media Matters will surely file for a change of venue. They’re located in DC and Twitter in California. Heck, Twitters own TOS says that your use of the service is governed by California law, so any claim that they fraudulently used the service should be handled in California.
But activist judges are also known to deny motions for made up reasons, so Twitter starts in Texas in hopes an activist judge keeps the case there to “stick it to the liberals.”
Texas is famous for judges that keep the venue there, with laws that are friendly to corporations. It’s why it’s the most popular state for these shitbird corporate lawyers to file suits.
Apparently X is registered in Nevada.
It was filed in federal court. Why they filed in a federal court in Texas is not yet clear.