> The line between marketing and misleading isn't always so clear.
In the general I kind of disagree with this. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know all the details, but if you look for it, you should be able to find the line since it's generally illegal to mislead customers. There's also a whole set of contractural and perhaps even legal obligations when it comes to investors.
For contracts and the law to be enforceable, they need draw lines as clearly as possible. There's always some amount of details that are up to interpretation, but companies make sure to pay legal counsel to make sure they don't cross these lines.
Now, specifically in this case, I do agree with you. This case doesn't seem to be a legal matter of customer or investor misleadings (thus far). Viola Credit did seize $37 million, so IMO there clearly was a violation of contract in all this, but it seems like that had nothing to do with the whole AI overselling.
In the general I kind of disagree with this. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know all the details, but if you look for it, you should be able to find the line since it's generally illegal to mislead customers. There's also a whole set of contractural and perhaps even legal obligations when it comes to investors.
For contracts and the law to be enforceable, they need draw lines as clearly as possible. There's always some amount of details that are up to interpretation, but companies make sure to pay legal counsel to make sure they don't cross these lines.
Now, specifically in this case, I do agree with you. This case doesn't seem to be a legal matter of customer or investor misleadings (thus far). Viola Credit did seize $37 million, so IMO there clearly was a violation of contract in all this, but it seems like that had nothing to do with the whole AI overselling.