They settled, and paid pennies for being able to continue the status quo. Given that the headline is journalistic malpractice at best; and you asking this question kinda proves that.
> While the agricultural manufacturing giant pointed out in a statement that this is no admission of wrongdoing
Welp, gotta sue again in the future, hopefully lobbied laws in place to prevent whatever forced them to settle by then!
The whole point of settling is to end legal action. Admitting wrongdoing will be used as evidence against them by others who weren't party to the original suit. Any future suits will have far higher settlement costs, if plaintiffs are even willing to settle, since there's an admission of guilt right there.
You can thank the plaintiffs and their lawyers for accepting the settlement instead of pursuing a judicial remedy such as an injunction or finding of illegal behavior.
It is going to be tough to get me to think the plaintiff is responsible for John Deere the company continuing to be dickheads.
When I hear these kinds of "blame the consumer" apologetics it never resonates with me - I'm just not going to get on board with some hypothetical natural state where corporations are inherently bad like some sort of sick animal and it's on consumers to sacrifice and plan with care in order to help the rest of society deal with them.
Corporations are just big groups of people. If their victims can choose self sacrifice in order to help the group then the corporation people could just as easily do the same and that feels far more just to me.
I'm not saying John Deere isn't responsible for their own bad behavior. I'm responding to the bit about John Deere not admitting wrongdoing. It'd basically be legal malpractice for a lawyer to allow their client to do such a thing if they didn't have to.
Wanting them to behave better is really a very different topic, and I wholeheartedly agree that they should. I also don't mind that the plaintiffs took settlement money instead of going to trial; that's certainly their right.
IANAL but my understanding with settlements is that It removes the possibility of the defendant risking a judgement of wrongdoing and causing more problems down the road, like having to fix their mistakes.
The market doesn't care. It is a big deal to some people here, but to the vast majority it doesn't change a thing (or doesn't seem to) and so the markets don't care.
Anticipating 10.01 years from now, when John Deere sends a new over the air update and the situation goes right back to where it was, with no one having access to their equipment.
There was a MoU between the American Farm Bureau and John Deere signed in 2023 that outlined right to repair. This consequently already altered Deere's business model with respect to IP and right to repair, and gave signals that a settlement was coming. In other words, the stock price already accounted for the change. Very few things catches stock prices by surprise in the long term.
There is a premium on risk reduction. I believe this is one of the reasons why companies like to incorporate in Delaware as the courts there are notoriously fast (I'm going off my memory of a Planet Money episode so could be wrong here).
