The meaning of cause in civil law differs from its meaning in scientific applications. Civil law is a dispute resolution process and must reach a decision attributing an observed harm to the defendant’s acts or omission at the conclusion of a trial. In contrast, when the evidence in favor of a causal relationship is not conclusive, scientists can carry our new studies designed to resolve open issues. Courts often require plaintiffs in tort cases to prove that “but for” the acts or omissions of the defendant, the
1. Brief review of the “more likely than not” criteria used in civil law—contrast with criminal law’s “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Brief review of the elements a plaintiff needs to prove in a typical tort case OR in a typical trademark infringement case to prepare the audience for the cases that will be discussed.
2. A case where plaintiffs, who suffered loss of smell after using a product lost all tort law cases requiring “but for” causality, while investors prevailed in a securities law case using a different criterion: Was the information about adverse reports the company withheld material” to a potential investor? The Matrixx Associates case.
3. Many nations have laws protecting the trademarks of well-known products from infringement and from competitors from advertising that misleads potential consumers. Such ads might make some consumers believe the product was made by the competitor instead of the or that the competitor’s product is superior. Consumers are also protected against misleading advertisements that induce them to purchase items that are inferior to what is advertised.
3a. A case using surveys to show that a reasonable fraction of consumers is misled (roughly corresponding to the “but for” criteria. Here surveys need to
incorporate a control group or control question(s). A case concerning whether a label and related ads for a product misled potential consumers.
3b. The case against Trump University, were the misleading advertisement, vastly exaggerating Mr. Trump’s involvement with the University, material to a potential student’s decision to enroll. Survey evidence was used to demonstrate that a reasonable fraction of potential students was misled. The decision to accept the survey noted the difference between surveys designed to satisfy the but for criteria The case was settled for $25 million in 2016.
