It'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.
reply