The Terror of Temu, Postscript
One of the questions that I had when reading what the online boosters of Temu have written was this: Were these the opinions of actual human journalists, or simply more examples of AI generated Slop masquerading as real journalism? The common thread among these journalists is that the serious and quite disturbing findings of Grizzly Research regarding the online shopping app Temu cannot be taken seriously because Grizzly Research is primarily a short-seller who stands to profit if the stock price of Temu's parent company PDD Holdings declines in value. While true, it is nonetheless also true that the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas found Grizzly's research credible enough to cite as substantiating evidence in AG Griffin's Complaint filed against Temu; as did two separate law firms prosecuting class action civil cases against Temu. It is clear to me that not one of these Temu promoters seem to have an inkling about how lawsuits are prosecuted in real courts of law.
Attorneys are assumed to have, and in fact are required to have, performed due diligence in the prosecution of their cases. When it becomes clear to the court that insufficient due diligence was performed by a law firm when bringing an action, then that case could be deemed a frivolous lawsuit; monetary sanctions could be levied against those attorneys; and, more than likely, the case would be dismissed. Moreover, Defendant's attorneys could petition the court to make those sanctioned attorneys liable for Defendant's legal fees. It is, therefore, inconceivable that AG Griffin, nor the private law firms, did not interview Grizzly Research about their findings regarding Temu before citing the Grizzly Research in their Complaints. To do otherwise would be legal malpractice.
So, the findings of Grizzly Research cited in the various Complaints will be key evidence at trial. It is also reasonable to assume that representatives of Grizzly Research will be called upon to testify as expert witnesses under oath about its findings regarding Temu. Moreover, if Grizzly does testify at trial, then its experts will be subject to rigorous cross-examination by Temu's attorneys. The preparation for Grizzly testimony will, therefore, be a large part of the due diligence the various prosecuting attorneys are required to perform in preparation before bringing their actions to trial.
It is also inconceivable to me that neither the Arkansas Attorney General, nor two separate law firms, all had lacked the foresight to do their due diligence, which I have laid out here, before citing Grizzly's research with such depth and granularity as evidence in their Complaints. On the other hand, if Grizzly is not prepared to testify in court, Grizzly Research would have to provide some convincing reason why it had declined to testify. The refusal to defend its findings in court and under oath, after being cited as evidence in three separate legal actions, would be tantamount to Grizzly admitting that it knows its research is faulty. In that case, Grizzly Research might well be held liable for defamation charges that could be brought by Temu. This is not high stakes poker — this is how the law works everyday in every courtroom in America.
It is, therefore, sloppy journalism at best, or clear examples of puff journalism, when these Temu booster dismiss out of hand the work of Grizzly Research, and how that work is included in several court actions taken against Temu, simply because Grizzly is also in the business of short-selling stocks. Furthermore, their easy dismissal and outright disdain for Grizzly and its work, which has been so compelling to the jurists cited thoughout this series, demonstrates a total lack of knowledge and understanding of how law suits are prosecuted in these US of A. Either that, or the AI scraped the wrong websites.
To all Consumers who have succumbed to the lure of cheap goods make by forced labor, I highly recommend that you do some due diligence on your part and then the follow advice of my mythical Uncle Sam below:
... like the profane and slavish Esau, would sell their birthright for a
mess of pottage;
would sacrifice their duty to their interest;
and, unconcerned what becomes of the rest of mankind,
would promote
tyranny, if they might but shine in its trappings.
—
Cato's Letters/Letter 56 (London, 1721)
Gerald Reiff
| Back to Top | ← previous post | next post → |
| If you find this article of value, please help keep the blog going by making a contribution at GoFundMe or Paypal | ||