# Toyota to be sued for cyberstalking ad campaign **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 13, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166 "2011-09-13T16:08:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/21 "2011-09-14T14:31:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So Ford decided it was cheaper to let their customers die than to fix the problem. They kept selling the flawed Pintos for another eight years after this study was made. This may be another case of the facts getting overwhelmed by what everybody knows: > **[Ford Pinto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Allegations_and_lawsuits)** > > The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car that was manufactured and marketed by Ford Motor Company in North America from 1970 until 1980. The Pinto was the first subcompact vehicle produced by Ford in North America. > The Pinto was marketed in three body styles throughout its production: a two-door fastback sedan with a trunk, a three-door hatchback, and a two-door station wagon. Mercury offered rebadged versions of the Pinto as the Mercury Bobcat from 1975 until 1980 (1974–1980 in Canada). Over three ... > [@](#): > > According to [Gary T. Schwartz’s 1991] study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited NHTSA database. Given the Pinto’s production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed “smoking gun” document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford’s callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford’s potential tort liability. > > Schwartz’s study said: > > The Pinto Memo wasn’t used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study). > The Pinto’s fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was “commonplace at the time in American cars” (p. 1027). ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/22 "2011-09-14T14:58:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The Ford company produced the Pinto model back in the seventies. Ford became aware that the Pinto had a serious design flaw with gas tanks which could cause the car to catch fire in a relatively minor accident. > > Ford did a study of the flaw and concluded that fixing the problem would cost $137,500,000. But if they didn’t fix the problem they would be sued by Pinto owners who were killed or seriously injured in fires. However accountants estimated that the cost of these lawsuits would be $49,500,000. > > So Ford decided it was cheaper to let their customers die than to fix the problem. They kept selling the flawed Pintos for another eight years after this study was made. What a chilling tale … and yet, I can’t help but wonder: Doesn’t every fast-moving, two-ton-weighing motor vehicle also create a certain amount of excess mortality? Aren’t there modifications that would make your already acceptably safe car even safer? And so what if adding those features means a Chevy Malibu would sell for 40 or 60 thousand dollars? If it upsets you that car companies are permitted to inflict this excess mortality on the world, then what you must also believe is that you want all cars off the road. (Or, more likely, you are in desperate need of an economics course.) Otherwise, I fail to see what really is so incinderiary about a car company refusing to install a safety measure whose cost is not justified by the expected injuries averted. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/23 "2011-09-14T15:19:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Summer’s Eve, and it’s a major campaign. I don’t know if the ads are working, but they’re getting laughed at for the whole vagina hand puppet thing AND criticized for the stereotypical elements in their Latina-directed ad. Other than that, everybody loves it. And yes, the Toyota ad sounds horrendous. I didn’t find any handpuppets, but I did find this Summer’s Eve commercial – “Hail to the V” – which is kind of brilliant – [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxW\_ZCd64tg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxW_ZCd64tg) ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/24 "2011-09-14T15:21:22Z")
> [@Foggy](#): > > 😕😕 > > Googling didn’t help, just a list of companies. It was alleged (I don’t know if it was true) that Ford was aware that the nearness of the gas tank to the exhaust pipe or something else hot was dangerous and would likely result in some deaths but that the resultant costs were lower than the cost of repairing the problem. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/25 "2011-09-14T16:17:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I didn’t find any handpuppets, but I did find this Summer’s Eve commercial – “Hail to the V” – which is kind of brilliant – [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxW\_ZCd64tg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxW_ZCd64tg) Just great! I bookmarked it. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/26 "2011-09-14T16:32:56Z")
Whatever the facts of the Ford Pinto case, $10 million dollars is probably more than she deserves to get but it is probably what Toyota deserves to pay to not do that idiotic shit again. ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/27 "2011-09-14T16:58:37Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > So you’re thinking the meeting went something like [this?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqq051BU2MY) (kinda NSFW) That’s pretty good 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/28 "2011-09-14T17:06:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This may be another case of the facts getting overwhelmed by what everybody knows: Perhaps. But from what I’ve heard the original studies were presented in court in lawsuits in the seventies and eighties and were accepted then. The fact that ten years later somebody is putting forth a different version of what happened sounds like a possible spin campaign to me. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > What a chilling tale … and yet, I can’t help but wonder: Doesn’t every fast-moving, two-ton-weighing motor vehicle also create a certain amount of excess mortality? > > Aren’t there modifications that would make your already acceptably safe car even safer? And so what if adding those features means a Chevy Malibu would sell for 40 or 60 thousand dollars? > > If it upsets you that car companies are permitted to inflict this excess mortality on the world, then what you must also believe is that you want all cars off the road. (Or, more likely, you are in desperate need of an economics course.) Otherwise, I fail to see what really is so incinderiary about a car company refusing to install a safety measure whose cost is not justified by the expected injuries averted. This is not a case of a theoretical Malibu and a design change that would cost tens of thousands of dollars and might not even save anyone’s life. This was a specific car with a specific design flaw that Ford recognized was a flaw - and then kept installing in cars it was making. And the documents show that Ford knew what the cost of fixing the flaw was - eleven dollars per car. You made a ridiculous claim that I must want all cars taken off the road. So I guess now that I should include a ridiculous claim of my own. If you’re willing to accept the death of five hundred people, then what you must also believe that the death of twelve million people in the Holocaust was no big deal. (Or, more likely, you are in desperate need of an ethics course.) Otherwise, I just want to remind you of who else thought the Holocaust was okay - Hitler. How was that? Did I do it right? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/29 "2011-09-14T17:41:15Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is not a case of a theoretical Malibu and a design change that would cost tens of thousands of dollars and might not even save anyone’s life. This was a specific car with a specific design flaw that Ford recognized was a flaw - and then kept installing in cars it was making. And the documents show that Ford knew what the cost of fixing the flaw was - eleven dollars per car. There is nothing “theoretical” about the potential safety improvements that could be made to any make and model of car on the road. The manufacturers all know the actual limitations–and expected excess mortality–associated with each kind of vehicle on the market. So your point about “this particular model of Ford” is not well-taken. Automotive engineers do this for every model of car and assess whether or not it is worth adding another safety feature. Such memos exist for any car that has been designed. It doesn’t matter whether the per capita rate is only $11. Eleven dollars times 12.5 million Pinto owners means spending $138 million to install a safety feature that will eliminate only $50 million in injuries. Or to put it another way: Everyone in America should give me one dollar. Then I will be $300 million happier and everyone else will be out just one measly dollar! Who could be so cold-hearted as to begrudge me $1 for my ecstatic joy?!? What we understand is that when dealing with mass produced products, we have to look to the aggregate to get a sense of what’s rational. > [@](#): > > You made a ridiculous claim that I must want all cars taken off the road. So I guess now that I should include a ridiculous claim of my own. If you’re willing to accept the death of five hundred people, then what you must also believe that the death of twelve million people in the Holocaust was no big deal. (Or, more likely, you are in desperate need of an ethics course.) Otherwise, I just want to remind you of who else thought the Holocaust was okay - Hitler. > > How was that? Did I do it right? But every car could be made safer, don’t you agree? So, you tell me: What rule shall we use to determine when an imperfect car (and remember, all cars are imperfect, all cars can be made safer) should be allowed to be sold? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/30 "2011-09-14T17:44:50Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Perhaps. But from what I’ve heard the original studies were presented in court in lawsuits in the seventies and eighties and were accepted then. Here’s the problem with that: > [@](#): > > The Pinto Memo wasn’t used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study). ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/31 "2011-09-14T17:58:02Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Otherwise, I fail to see what really is so **incinderiary** about a car company refusing to install a safety measure whose cost is not justified by the expected injuries averted. Nice! (But I think you meant incendiary). ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/32 "2011-09-14T18:07:35Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > Nice! (But I think you meant incendiary). Haha, I forgot that my work browser doesn’t have spellcheck and it lulls me into a false sense of security when I don’t see the tell-tale red lines! ---
**Author:** ![Tess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e480ec/32.png) [@Tess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tess)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/33 "2011-09-15T01:10:23Z")
What kind of reaction was Toyota hoping for? “I’ve never been so friggin’ scared in my life! I’ve been sitting up nights with a baseball bat for almost a week! Even though I don’t need a new car, I’m running out and buying a new Matrix right away!” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166/34 "2011-09-15T01:51:41Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > What we understand is that when dealing with mass produced products, we have to look to the aggregate to get a sense of what’s rational. So what you’re arguing is that a company can look at two proposals and make the following determination: “Option A would cost us $1000. Option B would cost us only $500 and a human life. Well, Option A is clearly cheaper so, economically, that’s what we pick.” Now some of us would agree that while this logic makes sound economic sense, it also raises other non-economic issues. And perhaps this decision shouldn’t be made on just the economic issues alone. But we’re aware that other people might choose to ignore these non-economic issues and just focus on the economics in their decision making. And that’s why - to bring it back to my original point - we have large punitive damage awards. It makes it economically rational for companies to eliminate known design flaws and not knowingly kill people. Most people will decide to avoid killing people for moral reasons. And economic rationalists will decide to avoid killing people for economic reasons. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/toyota-to-be-sued-for-cyberstalking-ad-campaign/596166.md?page=1)