New App Allows People to Sue from the Comfort of Their Own Phone

DoNotPay is a new app that allows individuals to fight for their rights by simply pressing a screen. The app is advertised to put justice in the hands of everyday individuals, allowing them to "sue anyone by pressing a button." The idea is to empower individuals with the knowledge of the law that they would typically not be able to attain unless they have studied law or have a companion to consult privately about their grievances.

The aim of this app is to allow individuals to claim money that does not belong to them on the premise that corporations have committed wrongdoings that you can profit off of. The company makes the claimant that with access to legal information, you too can level the playing field against large corporations, without the need of a lawyer.

However, giving the authority for every individual to use the judicial system to sue for the sake of profit extorts a system meant to defend the rights and freedoms of individuals who have truly experienced discrimination under the law. With individuals abusing the system with claims that aim for profit instead of the purpose of the defending the rights of people, it creates an illegitimacy around cases that truly claim that their rights have been violated.

With illegitimate claims for profit for wrongdoings not done to you, the judicial system will be overloaded with many a people who are referred to as scammers who wish to manipulate the system. This app provides information on the law with is an admirable feature, however, it also provides a means for people to claim money for themselves, instead of the victims affected by the issue.

A feature of this app that stands to corrupt the judicial system is its provision of the documentation necessary for individuals to submit such illegitimate claims for profit. In doing so, the judicial system becomes backed with up these claims for profit that restrict from applying the law to more pressing cases of individuals violating the law, or those who have had their rights violated. As a Canadian, I shouldn't have much to worry about, for the app does not pertain to Canadian law, but American law. However, this app attains the ability to be transferable to Canadian law as well, putting the Canadian judicial system at risk. In the case of R v. Askov in 1990, his trial date was unconstitutionally pushed back longer than it should have due to a lack of resources in the system to hear his case, as well with many others. As a result, Askov's case, along with 47,000 others in lower courts had been dismissed due to an unconstitutional wait time. This goes to show that the implications of such an app may only hinder the ability of any country's judicial system to effectively apply the law with more cases than it was designed to handle.

Unlike some jobs in the workforce, this app that claims to put the power of the judicial system in your hand cannot replace real lawyers and judges who are connoisseurs in the study of law. When interpreting the law, there are plenty of grey areas in certain subsections of law that are dependent on the situation and evidence presented to provide the answers, evidence that could be different in a similar, but different case. This is an area in which lawyers excel over software. Unlike menial labour, program software cannot replace the roles of occupations that require a high level of intelligence, as well as the ability to articulate information and apply it to a current situation.

However, the issue at hand is not of the replacement of lawyers, but the invitation of anarchy if the public is allowed to sue anyone they so wish, as many times as they want, until they receive their desired outcome. The fees to hire a lawyer for representation in a court to allow for quality concerns and complaints to be considered, in opposition to anyone making any claimant for any reason. The fact that an individual can sue a company that has done no wrongdoings to them, displays the corruption within the users of the app who wish to profit.

With the immaturity of an app that allows for chaos to exist, it displays a lack of common sense in the creator and for the consumers using this service who have not considered the repercussions of the service they are using.

Fredrich Nietzche, a well-renowned philosopher once made a claim that 'God is dead'. This statement was not a dislike towards religion, but an observation of his time. The scientific revolution had just taken off, with people buying into the belief of positivism (the theory that science is the only truth), or deism (belief in a divine creator, as well as in science. Charles Darwin was a diest), and abandoning their previous beliefs for new beliefs based upon the systematic gathering of evidence in experiments. This lead Fredrich Nietzche to make the claim that 'God is dead'. With that in mind, it becomes apparent with this app that 'common sense is dead', with people speaking or acting before considering the percussions of their decision.

Apps that provide a service in replacement of human interaction poses a threat in society with the dehumanization of social interactions. With the only social interaction being conveyed is through you and your phone with another person receiving your request of order on the other end then negates the need for a face to face interaction. This has been seen with apps such as 'Skip The Dishes' and 'Uber Eats' with people placing an order of whatever they wish, paying online and meeting the person delivering the food for only a glance until you begin to chow down on your meal.

Aside from the negative implications, the app may have on society, the goal of educating citizens of their rights and what rights have been violated is crucial in keeping the integrity of the rule of law. This is the true purpose of lawyers and law professionals, to inform individuals if they feel their rights have been violated. It is noted that lawyers can be a costly endeavor, even if only used for consultation. What this app does lack is its intent of retaining the integrity of the law, as it allows individuals to profit from the system. This app may be amended in order to educate an individual of the rights they are entitled to under their governing body's legislation in order to achieve its intention of putting the power in the hands of individuals, through education, instead of cheating the system.