Profiting from the Covid-19 Pandemic: Pain-and-Suffering Lawsuits and Predatory Price-Gauging

This is the sixth in a series of blog posts about judicial systems’ response to the coronavirus outbreak (SARS-CoV-2 is its technical name; Covid-19 is the disease it causes)  and the justice systems’ active participation in a whole-of-society-approach (WOSA) to national security and safety threats such as Covid-19.

Two developments related to the virus pandemic reported in today’s Wall Street Journal are likely to impact courts and the justice system. Like almost everything about Covid-19, how much of an impact is anyone’s guess.

First, under the heading “Pain and Suffering for Profit,” the  Journal’s opinion page describes  two lawsuits filed by a Florida law firm, Chalik and Chalik Law, against the Princess Cruise line for gross negligence in causing “emotional stress” to passengers recently quarantined on a cruise ship off the coast of California. “We believe the cruise lines have a pattern of putting profits over their passengers,” Attorney Jason Chalik is quoted saying. He says that more lawsuits may be coming, as hotels and restaurants are also sued under the “gross negligence” standard used in the two Florida lawsuits against the cruise ship line.

The second development is a surge in predatory price-gauging driven by the virus panic. As reported by the Wall Street Journal’s Alexander Berzon and Daniela Hernandez, a U.S. PIRG Education Fund study found that a case of 320 disinfectant wipes manufacture by Lysol that typically sold for $13.57 on Amazon rose to $220 by March 3. Amazon is said to be working with several state attorneys to combat price-gauging as well as other related abuse such as the sale of dangerous, banned, counterfeit, and deceptively labelled coronavirus-related products such as face masks and hand-sanitizers.  At least 34 states have price gouging laws; and several impose criminal charges on top of civil liability when a business is found guilty of price gouging. California anti-gauging law, for example, prohibits sales of consumer goods and services at a price of more than 10% above the price charged for those goods and services immediately prior to a federal, state, or local declared emergency. Each violation carries a penalty of $2500 plus injunction and/or restitution, criminal penalties also are available.

In his 2009 book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? the political philosopher Michael J. Sandel argues that price-gouging in a natural disaster offends a just society, one that maximizes welfare, respects freedom, and promotes virtue among its citizens.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2020. All rights reserved.

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more