I'm not saying how anything should be. These types of deals are risk-management for FedEx. It seems highly unlikely that FedEx did no homework on businesses that it was entering into risk-management deals with.

> Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies?

Why do you feel the need to trot out strawmen already?

I was just saying that FedEx entering into such agreements just increases the likelihood that they knew something. I didn't even say by how much. I definitely said nothing about whether they should be criminally or civilly liable for anything. The question that you posted wasn't even meant to be rhetorical. I was actually raising the question because it's relevant information.

I'm basically siding with no one here, and just making passing observations. It would be nice to not be attacked for it.

[Edit: I guess I should add that the 'something' they might have known need not have been actionable information, or even information that makes them liable for anything. I'm just stating that it makes them more involved with said companies than, say, me if I ship a package from a FedEx store. FedEx, for example, probably knows about their revenue and shipping logistics to be able to evaluate their risk-management formulas...]

I didn't intend my comment as a personal attack, or even a direct reply. So I apologize that my wording gave that impression.

However, I stand by my position that it shouldn't matter what FedEx knows or "could/should have known." FedEx is not the police. I also stand by my slippery slope straw man, because history has already shown that this type of expansion of civilian liability and law enforcement powers doesn't have an end goal. There is no "enough."