Grievances Can Get Plaintiffs Desired Outcomes

In the United States, there is technically no restriction as to what kinds of possible grievances any plaintiff can sue any other party over. As such, there is similarly no technical limit as to how frivolous a lawsuit can be. What is ideally supposed to restrict frivolous suits from occurring is how expensive they are to pursue and how uncertain it can be for a hired lawyer to win a suit filed even over a legitimate and understandable grievance. Plaintiffs, by default, put a lot about their finances and social profiles on the line when they file a suit. Since being named as a defendant forces a party to have to pay for their own lawyer in order to earn their chance at winning the argument, however, certain individuals see fit to merely threaten another party with a suit in order to extract a desired outcome or concession. For example, the owner of a digital marketplace would usually not expect any legal confrontation with a business partner whose brand and products are currently being sold on the website and who is profiting handsomely from the arrangement. However, the owner of that brand may come to the conclusion that their business is suffering in terms of its SEO because the storefront happens to be ranking higher than it on SERPs. Ideally, that owner may request that the storefront discontinue the partnership and stop selling the products on its behalf, and the storefront could collaborate with the business to get all of the latter's brand content deleted so that it no longer conflicts with the brand's own SEO efforts. The brand owner in this case may act unreasonably and threaten a suit over the fact the storefront is effectively performing its SEO better than its own former partner. While this is not expected to make it to court because of how infeasible it would be for the brand owner to win this particular argument in a legal context, the storefront should nonetheless consider removing all mentions of the brand's copyrighted materials and listing the products as "discontinued" to appease the brand owner. For more information click here https://www.reddit.com/r/SEO/comments/at4btb/weownastoreweoutranksomeofthebrandswe/.