Those with deep pockets can threaten expensive legal action even if they know they won’t win, simply because those without deep pockets cannot afford to fight the legal battle without going bankrupt.
Yeah, I mean, that’s the gist of it. Corporations are utterly amoral and value only profit, not things like “not helping genocide along” or “preventing fascism”.
Those with deep pockets can threaten expensive legal action even if they know they won’t win, simply because those without deep pockets cannot afford to fight the legal battle without going bankrupt.
but its unilever. they have nearly unlimited funds to fight musk… if they wanted to
i suspect they just didnt want the unilever name and its bazillion brands brought into public lawsuits for marketing reasons
Oh, I know nothing about Unilever specifically, you may be right. In either case, the basic “Cost not worth the price” reasoning still applies.
You probably know some of their brands
… a lot of those are repeated multiple times?
To answer the question as written: yes.
I think it’s the continents the brands are
Edit: actually “cif” is called “vim” in canada, so maybe there wasn’t that much thought put into it.
Here’s a Wikipedia list instead.
you spelled ‘losing potential profits not worth fighting nazis’ wrong
Yeah, I mean, that’s the gist of it. Corporations are utterly amoral and value only profit, not things like “not helping genocide along” or “preventing fascism”.
See my response to @Docus. They own half the brands in half the houses in the world.