The article criticizes United Healthcare for prioritizing legal actions over patient care, suggesting that increased spending on cancer patients would have prevented negative public backlash. It highlights a troubling trend in which powerful organizations use defamation and copyright laws to silence critics through low merit lawsuits. Additionally, it notes a major law firm's recent removal of 'diversity' language from its website amid rising government threats against private companies. Finally, the ABA's call for the Supreme Court to implement ethical rules is mentioned as a necessary step in addressing these concerns.
If United Healthcare considered spending more on a cancer patient and less on lawyers to sue doctors for pointing out they didn't spend on the cancer patient they wouldn't be getting so thoroughly dragged online.
This underscores the dangerous weaponization of defamation (and also copyright) laws, allowing deep-pocketed antagonists to squelch criticism by filing low merit suits.
A Biglaw firm quietly scrubbed its website of a lot of its 'diversity' language as the government steps up threats against private companies.
The ABA thinks the Supreme Court needs ethical rules.
Collection
[
|
...
]