Because when you have lots of money, you can afford to use the threat of expensive libel lawsuits to keep people in line. The prospect of dragging someone into litigation is enough of a chilling effect they don't even have to commit to it for it to be effective.
Like a Universal Health Care you could have a "Universal Law Care", a per se legal costs insurance for every natural person. You might have to pay low fares measured in daily rates calculated from your rate of income/wealth for any legal action you take, but nothing that would put your way of life at risk. With automated processes in law becoming more and more of a thing, it would be possible to handle cases faster and on a much finer grained basis, without sucking so much time and resources. Think of a fully-automated arbitration process. There would still be "manual law", where you could always escalate to, if you think Robo-Judge is wrong. Meanwhile wet-ware judicature would also get much more efficient/cheaper by help of automation (I think a wide-spread acceptance of teleconferencing into court would also help).
In a scenario like this, such obvious fraud would not be a thing anymore imo. And we could be there soon (except maybe for the Universal Law Care part).
Legal aid (and no-win, no-fee class action lawyers for "obvious" cases) already exists. But that doesn't mean that corporations don't have deeper pockets and a stronger interest in winning in many circumstances. And unless you've got hard AI, RoboJudge isn't going to understand the intricacies of how PayPal markets its donation service to consumers and distributes revenues and whether its disclaimers were sufficiently clear and obvious to its intended audience
"Obvious" to whom? There's been a lawsuit filed, that doesn't mean it's "obvious." We are certainly aware of PayPal's history as slimy (and my inclination is to side with the plaintiff in this suit), but suppose the plaintiff also is aware of this reputation and is lying in an attempt to simply cause PayPal harm?
