ABSTRACT
Apology laws, which exclude evidence of an apology from trial, were widely introduced to reduce litigation. The evidence shows, rather, that these laws have been counterproductive: increasing litigation, primarily by discouraging plaintiffs from dropping their claims. We explain this evidence by extending settlement negotiation models to allow the plaintiff to quit at any stage and by introducing defendants who care about their future relationship with the plaintiff. Apology laws oversubsidize apologies, preventing any defendant type from credibly signaling via an apology; and no plaintiff type then quits before trial.
Seidmann, Daniel J and Frones, Luis, Why Have Apology Laws Failed?. Posted on SSRN 18 August 2025.
Leave a Reply