Clinard And Quinny: The Future Of Corporate Crime

After researching this case, I believe there may have been a potential corporate crime occurring. According to Clinard and Quinney, “Corporate crime are offenses committed by corporate officials for their corporation and the offenses of the corporation itself” (Friedrichs, p. 60). Corporate crime has gone unpunished because for a large amount of time crimes that are labelled corporate crime were not illegal, such as unsafe environmental practices, and in this case, corporate violence against consumers in the shape of unsafe products. Immediately after the hoverboards began to be sold, problems began to arise in regards to fires. There were numerous companies that were producing these boards will all similar designs. Since numerous products were all competing against each other, in my opinion, this encourages these corporations to find the cheapest way to make the largest profit. The drive to maximize profits in the marketplace has taken precedence over a concern for public safety. I believe these corporations have committed a …show more content…
Michael Brown filed the lawsuit on the grounds of “misleading and deceptive” that the product was safe. Brown started using the product on December 6th until the batteries needed to be charged. Brown was charging the product while after 45 minutes the board burst into flames. Lawyers are seeking refunds for consumers who bought a Swagway hoverboard from Modell’s Sporting Good Stores nationwide. This case is occurring as Michael Brown v. Swagway LLC. Since Hoverboard is the name of the product and not the name of the corporation, all cases must be handled individually. In short, this product was misleading, act of omission, unfair practice, which was likely to cause substantial injury. The firm is claiming Swagway breached the Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act. The Schmidt Firm, the firm handling Browns case is currently accepting cases in all 50