In a civil lawsuit, the actual legal standard is "preponderance of evidence".

Factor that by cost of defending the case and potential risk of payout in that and future cases as well.

A multimillion dollar settlement suggests some doubt on the part of the defendant to establish their case.

If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

I was speaking scientifically.

i was speaking legally

Agreement on terms and context is critical to discussion.

(Applies to this entire thread, not just parent comment.)

... and just because this is still bothering me:

A surprisingly common form of conversational failure is when two (or more) parties are discussing some matter all with different ideas as to what is being discussed or the context of the discussion.

I'd run across a good description of that recently though I can't seem to recall where / find it presently.

It's not included in this discussion of Wiio's Laws, though there's enough other material there that's excellent guidance for communication that I'm linking it regardless:

https://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

Considering how much money they have and the size of their very highly paid legal team, I'd say that says a lot.

Actually, for _most_ products, the best they do is _in different trials it appears safe_. They don't even try and prove the product isn't safe.