Evidence for the hypothesis that modern life in the USA is increasingly Dickensian: Big Retail Chains Dun Mere Suspects in Theft. Incredible. And right here in Florida…
Recent Bluessky Posts- @wendyg.bsky.social is our defacto historian. May 4, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- 5th Circuit not likely to be as welcoming to this argument upon the inevitable appeal. May 4, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- A case study: Real wages below the median were stagnant for decades, but when elites’ wages stagnated after COVID-19, the narrative about affordability and inflation took off. And this was the first time wages below the median were outpacing inflation and growing faster than wages at the top. May 3, 2026 Trevon Logan
- Cold War and Peace May 3, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- "the differences are large enough to cause a hypoglycaemic emergency. [] it has direct implications for anyone using AI-powered carb counting in a diabetes app." "Claude’s confidence has literally zero correlation with whether it’s right or wrong." May 1, 2026 Natanael, Tech janitor
When the law is a tool used by the wealthy to control and hurt the poor.
We as consumers have been been sliced up into tranches and sold off. Its really as simple as that.
Does this kind of predatory legal practice appear on the ethics exam? (I thought not).
As the article makes clear the Florida Bar Association has yet to take any of the complaints about predatory lawyering, including harassing telephone calls, seriously. Zealous advocacy is one thing, but this type of behavior goes beyond the norms sanctioned by the rules of professional conduct.
Down in the WSJ story we read that several of those who were wrongly accused and threatened later won suits against the retailers. Great, but what bugs me is that the settlements are secret. Big contradiction to the ideal of transparency, and it’s all over the place.
Well… I understand the concept of zealous representation, but this is pretty over the top. The FL Bar really needs to address this.
@ Joe— Good point!!
In the UK the handyman could sue Home Depot for slander by deed. The precedent is a case involving W.H.Smith. Accuse a person of theft and get it wrong and you stand to loose rather more than the $3000 being demanded by Home Despot.
I don’t see why the same principle should not apply here. I have no problem with the stores being able to sue rather than bring criminal charges. But they have to be accountable for errors.