Originally Posted by
zombietooth
I understand that pets are only property, but in this case, UA is representing their product as a sort of "Cadillac" pet transportation service, and the woman has video evidence showing the truth! So, to buy that evidence from her, they should have offered an actual cash settlement, in addition to her vet bills, and a heartfelt apology to get a NDA.
Oh, I agree entirely.
Legally, though, there has to typically be intentional malice or intentional neglect to get more in damages.
But UA should have definitely offered far more than they did and should have handled the situation far better.