This is the first time anyone has applied for a No Adverse Cost Order
If I'm being honest... that does not inspire a lot of confidence.
You have to do something that's never been done before to proceed?
Yikes.
You know I've heard of counter-suing for legal fees, but on a class-action lawsuit it's pretty ridiculous that one would even need to take this step, as it's already hard enough to get the ball rolling on a class-action.
It's also like... okay so you can just spend infinite resources on a legal team, crush the opponent, and then not even have to pay for the legal team? So ridiculous. That's the legal system for ya.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
You can't change the world without doing things no one has done before!
I actually have a pretty good chance of getting the No Adverse Cost Order. Its a newish provision that is practically written for my situation (someone small suing someone big for a competition law breach that of broad applicability).
I was actually thinking this was the case, or at least should be the case.
I still think you are going to have a very hard time quantifying the losses sustained and pinning it on them.
They may have catalyzed the bear market but... by all accounts the bear market was coming either way.
I'd definitely try to play the monopoly angle by which they were clearly engaged in censoring a product that competed with their own platform. Although that argument is much easier to make against Facebook over Google methinks. Meh who am I kidding I'll leave the strategizing to you.
The most common type of class action is a shareholder class action when a company fails to disclose something bad on time and then when it comes out later the share price drops.
Despite the fact that it is mathematically impossible to prove any probability for a single correlation event like this, Courts have found causation and damages. The standard is only balance of probabilities (50.01%).
I have 4 bans and 4 very large drops which are mathematically very strongly correlated (99.999%) and have no other plausible explanation.
All other similar or larger drops over 5 years have a clear outside explanation.
Its a much stronger case on damages than people realise.
Ah wow that sounds very promising.
I forgot how much different civil law is vs criminal.
This provision is almost miraculous in the way it is worded for us.
You can read the full details in the last part of this post but I'll copy them here. You also have to understand that this doesn't apply to all laws in Australia, it's pointed very tightly at the laws we're suing over. Go through the points one by one and decide if we tick the boxes. My favorite is section 5(c): I'd love to hear a counter argument from the other side on that one!
https://peakd.com/cryptoclassaction/@brianoflondon/what-are-the-actual-provision-of-law-in-australia-which-we-use-in-our-case-against-facebook-google-and-twitter
No adverse costs orders
(3) A person who brings an action under subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of a provision of Part IV may at any time during proceedings on the matter seek an order under subsection (4) from the court hearing, or that will hear, the matter.
(4) The court may order that the applicant is not liable for the costs of any respondent to the proceedings, regardless of the outcome or likely outcome of the proceedings.
(5) The court may only make an order under subsection (4) if the court is satisfied that:
(a) the action raises a reasonable issue for trial; and
(b) the action raises an issue that is not only significant for the applicant, but may also be significant for other persons or groups of persons; and
(c) the disparity between the financial position of the applicant and the financial position of the respondent or respondents is such that the possibility of a costs order that does not favour the applicant might deter the applicant from pursuing the action.
(6) The court may satisfy itself of the matters in subsection (5) by having regard only to the documents filed with the court in the proceedings.
(7) A person who appeals a decision of the court under subsection (4) is liable for any costs in relation to the appeal.