If you think you can find a way to quantify damages in a legally sufficient way then go ahead.
- Posts
- 10
- Comments
- 506
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 10
- Comments
- 506
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
That's a different thing. In that case, Doordash actually blocked people from ordering from the restaurant in question and redirected them elsewhere. Had the restaurant been listed without its permission and all it did was cause a Doordash employee to appear at the restaurant, place an order on the users behalf, then go deliver it, it would be a similar case to this one.
I doubt many restaurants would have a problem with Doordash listing them without their permission if all that happened when someone placed an order, is that they get a call from Doordash (automated or not) to place a to-go order, and then someone picks it up later and pays for it.
It is a conditional argument. It is vacuous if the court rules that the AI is an agent that can bind a principal. If and only if the court rules that the AI agent can't contract on behalf of a principal (for the purchase of goods or otherwise), then Amazon should get a refund.
Weird clauses in terms of use are frequently just toilet paper when it actually comes down to enforcing them in court. You can "sue" but you might just win $1 because the judge would find that you have not suffered any monetary damages. You got paid for the item, after all, and "building a relationship with your customers" has no quantifiable and measurable value which can be proven in court, so judges default to one dollar.
There is also the aspect of whether an AI agent has the legal capacity to contract on behalf of Amazon or the buyer, and on whose behalf they contract if they do. I'm not aware of any American cases which have held that AI agents are "agents" (an entity with the legal power to act on behalf of another) within the meaning given to that word under the law of agency. The Civil Resolution Tribunal in British Columbia, Canada, ruled in Moffat v. Air Canada that AI chatbots can bind the organisation who uses them and makes them available to customers. This opinion is not binding precedent, but I think courts worldwide should use it as a template for AI agency powers. If the AI has no power to contract, then the sale is void in its entirety.
I believe Amazon would argue three points:
- That the AI agent has power to contract, but that the "user" of the AI is the shopper, and Amazon is merely providing the agent for the shopper to use.
- That if the clause banning AI agents from buying is enforceable, it voids the transaction in its entirety, and thus the seller owes Amazon a refund.
- That even if the AI had the power to bind Amazon, that the ability to build direct customer relationships has no proven dollar value and thus damages should be limited to nominal amounts (i.e. one dollar).
"Der Führer is leading this," Göring told Das Reich.
"It's his play call to do it this way," the Reichstag president said, adding that the NSDAP chancellor has "already conceded that he wants to turn down the volume" on anti-Jewish operations.
I'm guessing what you're suggesting is that Google's proposal is the same as requiring all packages be signed and accompanied by an Extended Validation or Oragnisation Validation X.509 certificate.
While that would technically work, the problem with using the existing PKI is that it's still very expensive to get EV/OV certificates. And the most common of these certs (those for TLS purposes) will soon only last 47 days which is, to put it mildly, would be a pain in the ass to use for package-signing.
It really does depend on what you're looking for. You can "replace" US Treasuries with comparatively safe assets like British gilts or bonds from large, stable EU countries like France or Germany, but these will be denominated in GBP or EUR respectively, not USD, so they're not a drop-in replacement. The EU itself also plans to issue some joint debt to pay for Ukraine-related expenses, so that might also be available depending on how they do it.
As for stocks and ETFs, there is the Euronext 100, but a cursory web search didn't reveal any ETFs that track it. I'm sure there probably is one, but I just didn't find it.
That being said, the Euronext 100 isn't a replacement for American indexes like the S&P 500 though. The liquidity on the European side is lower (and for EUR securities in general), and because the American stock market in general performs better than the European stock market, you would give up a lot of financial gain. If you invested $1,000 into an S&P 500 index fund on 1 January 2010, that would now be worth $6,111. But if you instead invested 1 000€ into a Euronext 100 index fund on the same date, it would only be worth 2 548€ today. Even if you cut it off before the AI-led growth in the American stock market, the S&P 500 still would have outperformed the Euronext 100 by nearly double.
To be fair, Congress could fix this easily as well:
AN ACT
To enforce the act of November 19, 2025 entitled "an act to require the Attorney General to release all documents and records in possession of the Department of Justice relating to Jeffrey Epstein, and for other purposes."
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short title.
This act may be cited as the Epstein Files Transparency (Enforcement) Act of 2026.
Section 2. Court may order release of files
(a) Notwithstanding any other section of law, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ("District Court") has jurisdiction over and may, upon the application of the Attorney-General, or any authorised legal representative of any State or the District of Columbia, issue a writ of mandamus to order any person who appear to have in his or her possession or control, files, documents, or any other information of any description or type whatsoever, subject to disclosure under the Epstein Files Transparency Act of 2025, to disclose or cause to disclose such material.
(b) A writ issued under subsection (a) of this act may be directed to any officer, agent, secretary, or employee of the United States, or any person under or formerly under the employ thereof, or to the Department of Justice, the Attorney-General, or any person under the employ thereof, or any combination of the above-mentioned persons or organisations.
(c) The District Court has jurisdiction to rule on matters pertaining to whether material is subject to disclosure under the Epstein Files Transparency Act of 2025.
(d) Nothing in this section authorises a court to order a person to testify if such testimony may be used as evidence against them in a criminal proceeding.
Section 3. Penalty for non-compliance
(a) A person who fails to comply with a writ issued under Section 1 of this act, may, at the discretion of the District Court, be held in contempt of court and punished with imprisonment until such time that such person complies with the order of the court, and be issued a formal caution that further non-compliance will result in criminal liability.
(b)(1) A person who fails to comply with a writ issued under Section 1 of this act and who refuses to comply despite a caution issued by the District Court under subsection (a) of this section commits an offence and may be punished with imprisonment for a period not less than four years and not greater than eight years and fined an amount equal to their total taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code from four years before the date of their conviction until the date of their conviction.
(b)(2) The District Court may compel the production of records from the Internal Revenue Service for the purpose of the calculation of fine amounts under this section.
(c) In addition to criminal penalties imposed by this section, the salary of any employee of the United States or person who is entitled to draw a salary paid from funds belonging to the United States, who fails to comply with a writ issued under Section 1 of this act, is five cents per month until January 21, 2029, notwithstanding the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 or any other law to the contrary, and such person shall not be entitled to any payment of any kind or for any purpose whatsoever other than for salary purposes from the United States, or any officer, employee, department, or agency thereof.
(d) A person who fails to comply with a writ issued under Section 1 of this act is disqualified from practicing as an attorney in any court of the United States and/or of the District of Columbia until January 21, 2029.
Place your bets!
jazzy background music starts playing
- Supreme Court allows the California gerrymander: Pays 2:1
- Supreme Court allows the Texas gerrymander: Pays 1:2
- Supreme Court overturns California gerrymandering but upholds Texas gerrymandering: Pays 1:1
- Supreme Court overturns Texas gerrymandering but upholds California gerrymandering: Pays 100:1
- 2026 election not held as scheduled due to Trump activities: Pays 4:1
Bets must be placed in the form of cookies 🍪
While AI obviously is not perfect and is flawed in many ways, having AI sift through the torrent of comments and then flag problematic submissions for human review is likely going to be extremely effective with minimal false positives. Though I do say this as a person whose Reddit account is currently banned for 3 days for "inciting violence" because of a knife-based joke.
Funny, because even though that's a total of 95% tax, it reduces $89 million down to $4.45 million, which is still enough to live a ridiculously luxurious lifestyle. For us plebs, that would mean we have to find some way to spend $370,000 every month. It just goes to show how much we under-tax the wealthy in this country.
If your primary source of income is now being taxed at over 70% (50% "sin tax" + 15% income tax + 8% Medicare/social security tax) then that creates a pretty strong incentive to move, because the cost of not moving is even greater.
There is no "I can't afford to move" at these numbers. At this rate it would make sense to even borrow money to move.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
American law name: Sunshine, Happiness, and Rainbows Act
American law contents: There will be a $500 tax to look at a rainbow and the President is authorised to sell exclusive rights to sunshine at an auction to tech bros. Happiness is now a controlled substance and illegal possession of it without a prescription is now punishable by 30 years imprisonment. Also, strawberry ice cream is now banned, $50 million for a bridge in Indiana, and the salary of the Deputy Archivist is increased by 6% starting next fiscal year.
I've had some people complain about not being able to easily park a large car which made me want to ask why they are driving such a high-difficulty car if their driving skill is low.
I read it as "Let's end anti-consumerism" and thought "Well that's a brave thing to post on Lemmy of all places"
Well, to put it simply, you say "murder" he says "nuh uh". Now you have to prove he's wrong and why or he gets off.
Generally speaking, law enforcement can arrest someone based on arrest warrants nationwide, although typically, what happens is that the governor of the state where the crime was committed will make a written extradition demand to the governor of the state where the accused fled to. The receiving governor is constitutionally bound to turn over the person in question, although in reality, for political cases, this can get bogged down in political arguments, and it can result in the governor or attorney-general of one state suing another to force them to arrest the person in question.
One would describe those as the actions of the prerogative state
It does apply. It's just that for non-high-profile cases, prosecutors are pretty quick to make a decision to prosecute/not prosecute. Years ago, I was arrested and accused of assault, and I was released mere hours after getting to the police station because the prosecutor's office thought my self-defence claim was good and decided not to file charges. Generally speaking, this is what happens. You get arrested, taken to the police station or to the local jail, and then the police department refers the case to the prosecutor's office. Someone at the prosecutor's office reviews the evidence, and then they decide whether they will file charges. If they file one or more charges, then you're brought before a judge for a preliminary hearing, usually within 24 hours (depends on state law). At the hearing, you will make a plea of guild or not guilty, then either arrange for a lawyer, or the judge will appoint a public defender to represent you. Then your lawyer can make a demand for a speedy trial and/or make any other submissions to the court in your defence.
If the prosecutor's office decide not to prosecute, they will instruct the police department to release you. Failing that, someone can make a habeas corpus petition on your behalf and a judge will order your release.
Can you prove that these people would have visited your site had Amazon not intervened?