A website owner plans to make a lot of money by renting out its well-situated domain names to asbestos plaintiffs' firms. The existence of the market demonstrates the effective cartelization of asbestos plaintiffs' practice: if asbestos firms competed on price, instead of consistently overcharging clients with riskless "contingency" fees, there would be no incentive for third parties to try to grab a share of the rent-seeking through the race to elbow one's way to the top of the search results for asbestos litigation websites. (See also the phenomenon of "chicken catchers" and "chicken pluckers.") Money that should end up in injured plaintiffs' pockets is instead finding its way into website-owners' pockets, via lawyers' excessive fees. I'm quoted in the LNL coverage. Earlier on POL.
Asbestos litigation and search-engine optimization
Related Entries:
- Garlock Ruling a Blow for Double Dippers
- Judge Sanctions Porn Troll
- FACTA shakedown files: Albright v. Bi-State Dev. Agency
- CAFA violation in Korean Air Passenger settlement
- Dennis v. Kellogg on remand
- Silverman v. Motorola
- $3M more for Wyeth shareholders after CCAF objection
- The dishonesty of NALFA and Terry Jesse
- CCAF Sixth Circuit victory in Pampers Dry Max
- $26.7 million victory for CCAF in Citigroup Securities case
- Sullivan v. DB Investments: Judge Jordan's dissent was right
- LaGarde v. Support.com: $31,475 for the class, $700,000 for the attorneys
- CCAF objection in Southwest Drink Voucher case
- CCAF objection in Fraley v. Facebook sponsored stories class action settlement
- Two CCAF victories