I will extend if the lawsuit is still ongoing.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ64 | |
| 2 | Ṁ47 | |
| 3 | Ṁ19 | |
| 4 | Ṁ16 | |
| 5 | Ṁ13 |
People are also trading
@Thomas42 resolves other: default judgment and permanent injunction. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/judge-orders-annas-archive-to-delete-scraped-data-no-one-thinks-it-will-comply/
@prismatic I don't see why this should be other? Since the financial outcome of the suit was $0, "No damages" is the only accurate resolution based on the final court filing in my view.
@Thomas42 I disagree entirely. They have a permanent injunction on them and are ordered to take down all offending materials. How is that not considered some form of "damage?"
@prismatic an injunction is not the same as damages as far as I know? Sorry about the resolution before discussion, happy to discuss some more but it seems pretty clear cut to me.
@Thomas42 In U.S. civil litigation, monetary damages and injunctive relief are different AND distinct forms of relief, with damages compensating for past harm and injunctions operating as equitable remedies that order a party to do or refrain from specific conduct. Reagrding this case, this means that the the absence of damages does not mean the absence of relief where a court grants an injunction.
Federal courts are clearly empowered to issue injunctions as a separate remedy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized injunctions as an independent form of equitable relief, not a subset of damages (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391–92 (2006); see also Cornell Law School, Wex, “Injunctive Relief”).
Based on my best interp of the law, this means that classifying the case as “no damages awarded” is incorrect because that label captures only the absence of monetary compensation and ignores the court’s grant of affirmative equitable relief. “Other” reflects a default judgment with permanent injunctive relief as the operative legal resolution.
@prismatic I still fail to see how the presence of some other aspect of the ruling like an injunction means "no damages" does not apply. Clearly no damages were awarded, to resolve it as "Other" because of an injunction would be like resolving a market on "Who will win the Super Bowl?" N/A because the winning teams quarterback was injured during the game. The injury is a notable fact, but it doesn't change who won the game.
@Thomas42 Then what is the point of having an “Other” option at all? This ultimately comes back to the lack of resolution criteria. If the intent was for outcomes to be classified purely by monetary damages, the onus was on the market creator to specify that. Absent such criteria, any resolution should just rely on standard legal terms. To me, this means the disposition of the case and the relief granted, not solely by whether money was awarded. I don’t see how someone can argue that there were “no damages” in any meaningful sense when the court granted affirmative, merits-based relief that materially altered the defendant’s legal rights and obligations. “No damages awarded” is a subset description of one remedy not granted; it does not describe the case’s disposition. “Other” exists only to capture non-monetary resolutions like injunction-only judgments, which are neither dismissals nor damages awards.
I’ve already cited relevant material above, but Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311–13 (1982), and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also distinguish between equitable relief and damages.
Regarding your analogy, it doesn't make sense because a properly formed question will never have the "Other" option as a choice. It's presence means that there are certains resolutions that fall under it, hence my position on it.
@prismatic I don't understand the relevance of the rulings you are citing, I'm completely on board with damages being different from an injunction? I don't think I can cite any legal cases since it seems we are mostly talking about the semantics of the different resolution options, not so much the legal terms.
I do see how the presence of an Other category confuses things here a bit, I included it to catch outcomes that don't fit the primary binary - like a case being dismissed without prejudice or a judge refusing to rule (similar to the settlement option that I explicitly spelled out). However, a final judgment where the court grants an injunction but awards $0.00 in damages is not an "Other" outcome, it is a literal "No damages" outcome.
@Thomas42 I think this just comes down to ambiguity in how the resolution options are meant to be interpreted. You’re reading “No damages” as “final judgment with $0 awarded,” which is reasonable, but I was reading the options as describing the overall case disposition, not just the damages line item.
Once an “Other” category exists, i believe it to be natural to use it for outcomes where the plaintiff prevails through non-monetary relief rather than a dismissal or a damages award. If the intent was purely to classify monetary outcomes, that wasn’t made explicit, and under that ambiguity, I still think “Other” is the better fit. But I agree this is a semantics and market-design issue (which has been proven as a valid option in many past manifold resolutions).
I would like to call a mod to this chain and have them be the final arbitrator if you are willing, since it seems we are both opposing sides, and I still firmly believe I am technically and faithfully true.
@prismatic sounds reasonable to me, I empathize with your point (though I think you also have a substantial stake) and I will take it as a lesson to be clearer about what is meant by other, but I stand by my interpretation in this case of what the semantics should be in the absence of any clarification of resolution criteria.
Fwiw I asked perplexity again as I did earlier in the market (see comment below)
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-did-the-lawsuit-accusing-a-Zbd5nnZoQ.CU5r7dA50bhA#0
@prismatic @Thomas42 I don't see anything in the criteria that speak to this outcome; the resolution seems compatible with the title and outcome text. I think this sort of outcome was an obvious candidate for how things might conclude, and I think traders who had a specific interpretation in mind should have asked about it before trading, or after making a trade with an understanding that you're guessing and making a bet about both what happens but also how the creator decides to interpret it.
This market would also have been improved by a brief addition to the description and consideration of other possible outcomes; nonmonetary judgments are a fairly common thing.
In general, Manifold tries to let market creators manage their markets as they wish; this is an important part of helping deal with the complexities of the real world and strange outcomes. This helps let markets to resolve to what the creator was intending. In practice, this often means that question creation is also a collaborative process that happens after the original post, via requests for clarification in comments and responses to them.