Interesting.
It depends upon the manner of redress one seeks. Other methods of redress have been mentioned, by me, and I think others.
Again, you return to legal recourse and the right to legal redress. Again, I will state I will not argue either side of that issue. Because quite simply, I believe under US law they have the legal right to do so. But again, legal right does not equal moral justification.
I believe that in a case such as this, if the judges became aware of illegal activities, they had other ethical and legal courses they could have taken.
Also, responsibility is not a one party or another. In this case both parties, IMO, held responsibilities and therefore are not unlimited in their ethical choices for redress. And I do not see how such a belief leads to a moral black hole.
But, I do see how a view that when one is wronged that they have an universal right to legal recourse could lead to a society ripe for excessive litigation, bureaucracy and moral decline.
But, again, you have no idea what was done. Did they try other means? Who knows? Is this the first thing they tried? Perhaps, but, again, unlikely. It's far, far more likely that they actually tried talking to WotC first to redress what they saw as a wrong doing and nothing happened. I'm pretty confident in saying that people don't plunk down the time and money to sue someone as a first option most of the time.
Really? You don't see how "I agreed to X and anything that happens after X is my own responsibility" isn't a moral black hole? I can think of all sorts of current events occurring on college campuses involving women that might disagree with you.
Sorry, but, the universal right to legal recourse has been part and parcel to virtually every civilisation for thousands of years. A viking was far, far more likely to sue you than sack your village, just as an example. There is absolutely no "moral decline" in anyone attempting to redress what they view as a wrong by appealing to a neutral party. That's how the system is supposed to work. Earlier an example was given of simply quitting and then going online or other venues to complain about your treatment. Only problem there is, it's effectively blogging. You have no proof. It's simply an appeal to the public.
I'd much, much rather have people present whose job it is to determine the truth, whatever that truth is. If WotC did nothing wrong, then the case will go away and no problem. If WotC did do something wrong, then they should stop whatever it is they are doing. In any case, since we're talking about morals and ethics, you are morally bound to address wrongdoing simply to prevent it from happening to someone else.
Since we don't know the events leading up to this case, i'm not going to simply presume that they jumped on the litigation bandwagon, just because. I'm actually going to assume good faith on all parties and presume that an amicable solution wasn't possible, thus, now, we go to litigation. Because, quite frankly, that's how the system should work. IANAL, but, I'm pretty sure that if the first thing they did was go to a lawyer, that lawyer would advise them to try to resolve things before suing. After all, if they didn't, then WotC could simply turn around and play victim. "Hey, what? We didn't know you were this unhappy. If you had just talked to us, we could have saved everyone all this time and money. Why didn't you talk to us?"
There are processes that are followed when you sue someone. Failing to follow those processes can lead to your suit not being successful. Presuming that the lawyer these guys got is worth his salt (and if he's willing to go to court with a pretty big company, I'd hope he is) he's not going to just jump on the litigation bandwagon on the say so of a few guys.
