The elimination of the gag clauses will reduce payouts, and likely the rate of settlement of these cases, a trade-off I rarely see addressed. Could at be that this change will benefit many, and cost victims?
There's no need to see it so zero sum. Typically in civil cases, especially of this nature, the payment is a combination of restitution ("pain and suffering") and a penalty.*
If the lack of gag clauses means there will be earlier intervention, then there will be fewer cases that are so bad that they need litigation: a good thing (perhaps this is what you mean by "benefit many").
Ones that, despite the removal of the gag clause, become so egregious that a successful lawsuit results, will still be subject to the same calculus: restitution + some penalty that may be higher, same, or lower.
So the victims should suffer no loss: any restitution would be decided the same way as without the gag rule.
* In a just system the penalty should not go to the victim but into the general fund, as punishment is really the responsibility of government, not private actors, and in awarding punishment the jury is acting as part of the court, thus as an organ of government. Giving it to the victim is second best, and better than not assessing punishment at all, and having these fines stapled to private cases is itself a good idea. But they shouldn't go to the victim -- if the restitution is inadequate, address that instead.
It's OK that any lawyer commission includes the total sum, as reasonable restitution alone may not be a large enough figure for a lawyer to take the case.
How much payout is worth silence for the next generation? Im not speaking about Apple specifically but all agreements like this are worse for everyone except the stock holder right? Companies are people (in the US) so its good for one slice of society I guess.
Suppose there is a borderline case. Company thinks they have a 25% chance or more to win in court, but then reporters would write stories about the case it's bad PR. Could be better to settle so nobody ever hears about it, even if they could win.
If reporters are going to write stories about it anyway, might as well fight.
It took me a moment to understand what they’re saying, but I think that they’re talking about post lawsuit settlement restrictions which certainly exist, vs speaking out about issues before a lawsuit.
Restrictions on talking about an event is standard in most settlements as part of the “paying someone to disappear” solution to illegal working conditions. Presumably the “just shut up about it” has some value to the company which would now be lost.
The purchaser of a settlement (in this case Apple) is buying a 'basket' of things (non-disclosure potentially being one of them). Taking one item out of the basket will make the basket less valuable (less worth pursuing for plaintiff lawyers), and disclosure of settlements will (obviously) increase their visibility, which is undesirable (and may increase the number of victims wishing to pursue them).
