this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
56 points (93.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7108 readers
354 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Doesn't this set the precedent that you don't have to be directly or indirectly harmed? I feel like this is the most dangerous part of the ruling and I haven't seen much discussion about it.
Imagine someone gets injured at a restaurant, so they could file a suit for negligence. But instead, I sue the restaurant, even though I wasn't there and I'm not related or involved. Isn't that what they just opened up?
It definitely opens the door for a lot more frivolous litigation, though you could state that Texas kicked that door open with their vigilante abortion laws...