I don't understand why parties who claim to have slam dunk winning positions would roll over like a scared puppy rather than go to court and prove they were right.
Do you?
So it's not everywhere, the prevailing party can't demand, and the judge isn't required to grant. So by your own words it isn't without risk. "Slam dunk winning positions" may occur in chess, but in a court of law such doesn't exist. Most cases don't go to court just because one or both parties don't want to take the risk, or spend the time and energy to go through a trial. Which is a good enough reason to avoid a lawsuit by simply removing a symbol.
Speaking from personal experience, I was involved in an arbitration in a real estate deal. The evidence and witnesses should have made it a "slam dunk" win, however the judge sided with the defendant, yet made them pay their own legal costs. That one case refutes every claim you are making.
I know of accounts that were closed for cheating that did not get the "cheater" label, and other accounts that were closed for reasons other than cheating that received the "cheater" label.
Post-Dembo I'm not sure what the procedure is for closing accounts of suspected cheaters. In the Dembo case, the account holder convinced chess.com to remove the cheater label.
Basically, Dembo threatened a lawsuit and chess.com relented. The "official" story was that chess.com didn't want the costs of defending a lawsuit. Some of us who were closer to the facts believe that chess.com felt they would not prevail in court and that's why they removed the "cheater" label from that particular closed account.
Remember that in most civil cases the loser has to pay legal costs of the other party in addition to damages. So chess.com's contention that they didn't want to bear the cost of defending the lawsuit suggests to me anyway that chess.com knew they wouldn't win.
Your posts suggests, really outright states, you don't know legal strategy. As you pointed out "in most civil cases", however not ALL civil cases, the loser covers all legal costs. So there is a risk of having to pay ones own legal expenses even if prevailing. But that aside, the time and energy (as well as costs until the case is resolved and the judge decides who covers what legal expenses) spent to engage the case is more simply resolved by removing a cheater symbol.
I know enough about legal strategy (which varies from state to state and country to country anyway) that in most places prevailing parties can ask the loser to pay legal fees/costs for the prevailing party, and if the judge agrees then kaboom! it's part of the order.
I don't understand why parties who claim to have slam dunk winning positions would roll over like a scared puppy rather than go to court and prove they were right.
Do you?
Will you please tell us about the (il)legal machinations of facebook; particularly as concerns parental rights of access?
Please?