What replacement services are available? The American service actually works. Making your own would cost an order of magnitude more (as your contractors mysteriously “lose” half the money and bill the defence ministry 10 million roubles for “pens”) and a decade of your time.
Maybe they could hire Chinese firms to do it but I think China has a tendency to keep its military technology to itself.
That would be a dream come true. AI agents are not legal entities with the right to own or inherit property. Therefore, all of his stuff has no legal owner. By the principle of escheat, it now belongs to the State.
Sadly, I doubt Elon’s lawyers are quite this dumb.
I remember when Musk was the cool electric car guy and not the chief accomplice to the dismantling of Western democracy.
Copyright infringement is not suitable as an analogous case because the law specifies statutory damages for it, so proving damages is not typically necessary for the types of works which you are thinking of.
Let me give a detailed analysis with some concrete, but arbitrarily-chosen numbers, and then I’ll show you what a lawyer representing Amazon would say to attack the argument you’ve presented.
Suppose you notice that 5 per cent of people whom you ask to subscribe to your mailing list actually subscribe (it is almost certain a real number would be much lower). Then, of those who subscribe to your mailing list, 10 per cent of them make a purchase when you send an advertisement to them through that mailing list. And then, of those who make a purchase, the average sale is $50, of which $20 is profit. Therefore, you argue damages of 5% × 10% × $20 = $0.10 per customer. Suppose Amazon placed 1,000 orders this way. You therefore plead damages of $100 (the fact that this is a trivial amount is not relevant to the legal analysis).
The legal method for the calculation of damages is to compare what your financial situation would have been had Amazon not done the thing they were not supposed to. Amazon will argue that had they complied with your terms of service, 0 orders would have been placed as you forbade AI agents from placing orders, and therefore the profit can be calculated as 5% × 10% × $20 × 0 = $0. After this argument is made, it then becomes your burden as the claimant to rebut it. You will have to prove what percentage of people ordered through Amazon, who would have otherwise ordered from you directly (and thus you would have the opportunity to advertise to). This is a fundamentally very difficult task. Amazon would probably propose to the court that you ask all of the customers to testify that they would have otherwise ordered from you directly, and then you can count it as ten cents per witness.
All of that notwithstanding, Amazon will still argue your damages are zero, because you have not actually lost the ability to connect with the customers they have given you, because you still have the ability to ask them to subscribe to your mailing list by including a card to that effect in the package you send them. The fact that both of us very well know that nobody will do that is not legally relevant: the action is possible and the law does not particularly care about whether it is easy or effective.
I know it’s tempting to call me a bootlicker or whatever, but the fact of the matter really is that the law is not favourable to the claimant in this case. This is just a bad argument to make with no sufficient legal justification to claim anything more than a nominal amount of damages. Yes, Amazon are a bunch of assholes, but sometimes, being an asshole really is legal. The law is not a proxy for morality and the courts are not infallible guardians of justice. They are institutions that interpret fallible, imperfect, human-made rules.
No, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If you sue Amazon, you have to prove your claims to a perponderance of the evidence.
Can you prove that these people would have visited your site had Amazon not intervened?
If you think you can find a way to quantify damages in a legally sufficient way then go ahead.
That’s a different thing. In that case, Doordash actually blocked people from ordering from the restaurant in question and redirected them elsewhere. Had the restaurant been listed without its permission and all it did was cause a Doordash employee to appear at the restaurant, place an order on the users behalf, then go deliver it, it would be a similar case to this one.
I doubt many restaurants would have a problem with Doordash listing them without their permission if all that happened when someone placed an order, is that they get a call from Doordash (automated or not) to place a to-go order, and then someone picks it up later and pays for it.
It is a conditional argument. It is vacuous if the court rules that the AI is an agent that can bind a principal. If and only if the court rules that the AI agent can’t contract on behalf of a principal (for the purchase of goods or otherwise), then Amazon should get a refund.
In Hong Kong, after a Category 5-equivalent typhoon hit, the metro system was back up again within two days with apologetic announcements that some trains were slightly delayed due to debris on the track.
Most of the time, it’s the store being open that causes customers to come in. People expect places to be closed on holidays, so they check online. If the store’s listing on Google Maps or whatever confirms it is indeed closed, most people will just say “oh dang, too bad”. If it actually ends up being open then they go, buy their stuff, and then make a sympathetic comment to the employees.
Weird clauses in terms of use are frequently just toilet paper when it actually comes down to enforcing them in court. You can “sue” but you might just win $1 because the judge would find that you have not suffered any monetary damages. You got paid for the item, after all, and “building a relationship with your customers” has no quantifiable and measurable value which can be proven in court, so judges default to one dollar.
There is also the aspect of whether an AI agent has the legal capacity to contract on behalf of Amazon or the buyer, and on whose behalf they contract if they do. I’m not aware of any American cases which have held that AI agents are “agents” (an entity with the legal power to act on behalf of another) within the meaning given to that word under the law of agency. The Civil Resolution Tribunal in British Columbia, Canada, ruled in Moffat v. Air Canada that AI chatbots can bind the organisation who uses them and makes them available to customers. This opinion is not binding precedent, but I think courts worldwide should use it as a template for AI agency powers. If the AI has no power to contract, then the sale is void in its entirety.
I believe Amazon would argue three points:
“Der Führer is leading this,” Göring told Das Reich.
“It’s his play call to do it this way,” the Reichstag president said, adding that the NSDAP chancellor has “already conceded that he wants to turn down the volume” on anti-Jewish operations.
I don’t think the majority of people ever viewed Polymarket as anything but gambling.
Yeah, don’t mess with the wife of a guy who’s friends with the chief of police.
Interesting development that the response from Israel is to kick out South Africa’s ambassador in return.
Not the South African ambassador to Israel, though. They said they want to kick out South Africa’s ambassador to Palestine.
It means “the leader” in Italian. It was used by Mussolini, leader of the Italian National Fascist Party in the same way “der Führer” was used to refer to Hitler.
At the same time, it’s hard not to understand where he’s coming from as well. Throughout the campaign he and his family would be subjected to the full force of the MAGA hate machine. This can have deadly consequences for candidates perceived to not be loyal enough to Il Duce.
Kind correction: the past tense of “pay” is spelled “paid” not “payed”
LLM: $20 per day and 49104503 gallons of water
Clock app on cell phone: free