Hacker News Reader

The point of the comments here is that $BIGCO is outside of the law from a risk measured standpoint (ie: they’ll bankrupt you if you fight them given their bigger bankroll).

I think that's likely mythical thinking, and not something based in data. It's fairly common for plaintiff-side lawyers to work on contingency when they believe you have a case.

Less likely here, given the somewhat unexplored territory, but still, the history of class-action litigation evolution is largely of lawyers/firms taking a chance such as this.

"It's technically possible for you 30 Spartans to defeat 100,000 Persians so go ahead, good luck" doesn't sound like a winning strategy.

I think the overall point here is to have the support of law that says they DO have a duty to you, by benefit of their hosting your account and authenticating you elsewhere.

Then, WHEN someone goes to sue them, the person has much stronger legs in court rather than lone Peggy Sue trying to defeat Google's 300-strong team of lawyers who exist just to eat little guys for breakfast.

Has this ever been done successfully in this situation?