New Twist On Anti-Terrorism – Sue The Victims

MGM Resorts International has filed nine lawsuits against victims of Stephen Paddock, who shot and killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more from his suite at the Mandalay Bay hotel, an MGM property. It is a legal maneuver that asserts an interpretation of novel legal issues under the Support Antiterrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (the “Safety Act”). The law was passed after lawsuits were filed against United and American Airlines, airport security companies, Boeing and other firms for security lapses after the 9-11 attacks. Congress wanted to avoid such suits in the future, while encouraging companies to develop antiterrorism technologies, including cybersecurity programs, without fear of litigation. The liability protections provided by the Safety Act include a cap on the amount of damages victims can recover and permit only a single lawsuit or “federal cause of action” when there’s an “act of terrorism” and a Safety Act qualified product or service is involved. MGM argues that the Act’s protections extend to it as a buyer of a security firm’s services. If the court accepts that argument, the security firm will be liable for damages, most likely limited to a cap established by the Department of Homeland Security.