« Don’t frivolous lawsuits “drown out” lawsuits with merit, and end up hurting everybody? | Main | Trial Lawyers Under Attack by U.S. Chamber of Commerce »



It is very difficult to take your argument seriously. Advertising generates economic activity while meritless lawsuits crush it. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that eliminating advertising would cause a decrease in spending and harm the economy. No such claim can be made for frivolous lawsuits. If there were a government program that burned $200 billion each year in a massive bonfire, reasonable people would rightly oppose it. What intelligent person would contend otherwise?

As for your second point, do you seriously believe that lower costs do not lead to lower prices?

Justinian Lane

Matt, I'll address your points in reverse order.

I do not believe that companies lower their prices to directly correspond with savings. They often pocket some or all of the savings as profit.

Now about advertising. I'm not suggesting we eliminate ALL advertising, just as I'm sure you're not advocating the elimination of ALL tort suits. But why not eliminate the meritless advertising?

Probably because there is no ex ante way to eliminate meritless advertising without eliminating at least some useful advertising. The principle is the same with lawsuits; no "reform" will eliminate ONLY meritless lawsuits.

Maybe you're comfortable throwing some injured citizens under the bus so we can have lower bus fare... but I'm not.

The comments to this entry are closed.