Mostly because international litigation is, let's say, fraught issues (as in "good luck!")
> Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators.
What is the thought process of someone writing this? Does this article have any meaningful or critical thought behind it?
Many people do not, which is why it is noteworthy, even if it is standard.
Maybe let's make it not normal?
I don't understand the rest of the article, tho... It complains that company that (officially) left the US market and already blocks US ips from participating... isn't doing enough? Officially there's no ground to demand more
If you really want to solve the problem - start hunting down unofficial means. Investigate influencers that started mentioning Polymarket out of the blue. Look into news outlets that decided to start mentioning polymarket as supposed proxy of popular opinion. Start advertizing campaigns against gambling addiction the same way as against smoking
I stopped reading here, as the only purpose I could see for this intro is to prime the reader negatively before any argument.
It would help a lot actually for protecting people's money instead of driving it offshore.
But it doesn't look like making USA compete in this $15B market is NPR's goal with this article.
ChrisMarshallNY•54m ago
jcgrillo•43m ago
If the shoe fits..
londons_explore•11m ago