Litigation is not how we fix things in Sweden, the system is very different from the US. The companies will have to take the losses or try to recoup from insurance and update their systems. They might be able to negotiate deals w the fridge install companies.
replyHow do things get fixed if not by litigation?
replyUsually national associations get together, discuss issues, and come to some sort of agreement or recommendation that is then followed by most actors.
replyLitigation does of course occur but it's not the main mechanism.
We try this in the US as well, it’s commonly referred to as “hopes and dreams”.
replyDo you folks coordinate in the way described, and show success with it? (Would most people agree with you?)
Some countries have regulatory bodies that are empowered to effectively regulate industry.
replyIt's a nice thought. I doubt it's true in reality. If it were true in this specific case for example, the industry wouldn't have the freezer situation to begin with (it implies non-effective regulation is already the context).
replyIt is simultaneously true that:
reply1. many countries have higher regulatory burden than the US
2. that does not mean regulatory gaps don't exist
The person above was simply pointing out that litigation is not the only way to solve a problem. Which is plainly true, you can simply require compliance via other legal means. For example, a government could create a regulatory standard for security and require vendors to follow it. Whereas in the US the political appetite is to be more hands-off and allow people make vulnerable products if the market allows.
Isn’t that just litigation brought by the government instead of private citizens?
replyNo, most of the activity or function of regulatory bodies is not litigation. Litigation would be the last resort.
replyLitigation is the last resort in the US system, too. It is the threat of fines/damages that incentivizes a company to do right by its customers/other stakeholders.
replyI never said it wasn’t. What is different in the US is a political reluctance to enact regulatory controls to protect rights proactively.
replyParent is not correct. Litigation certainly is a thing, but it is less prevalent than in the US. Perhaps the food chain will take the loss, be covered by insurance, and the insurance company will sue.
replyIf not buy insurance, the customers will have to pick up the tab. Vendors sell the product/service and are completely responsible for any losses.
replyThat is the same way it works in the US.
reply