This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn’t change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.

“She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.”

Additionanally:

“According to a 2007 report, McDonald’s had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).”

So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you’re buying hot coffee that’s freshly brewed then it should be obvious it’s hot enough to seriously burn you. If it’s over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.

As to the idea that they had been warned:

“Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”

McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a “warning.”

You can get third degree burns from touching water which is 150 degree F for around 2 seconds. Most coffee world wide is served between 160 and 180 F.

In that case the water was supposedly served at 190 F while competitors coffees were served at 160 F. The lawyers in that suit claimed that if the coffee had been in the 160 range it would have taken up to 20 seconds to get third degree burns. We now know that even at 160 F she would have gotten the same burns within 5 seconds.

What exactly is your point?

Why do you think a business should be compelled to sell something at any given price? I mean sure, you can burn them in the court of public opinion, but it’s another thing when you say that government regulation should dictate the cost of a coffee beverage. I think that’s where most people are landing in this, they agree it’s stupid for Starbucks to do such a petty thing, but when it comes to lawsuits involving ADA regulations it crosses a line for reasonable response.

It’s almost like the lawsuit for hot coffee where the person argued they didn’t know the coffee was hot

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald’s_Restaurants#:~:text=McDonald’s Restaurants%2C also known as,against the McDonald’s restaurant chain.&text=Stella Liebeck v.,McDonald’s Restaurants%2C P.T.S.%2C Inc.)

Most farming is subsidized, the debate then is which one is subsidized more. A bit of a specious argument at the end of the day.

Eh, a quick Google search said that Tesla wasn’t profitable for 17 years and survived due to government subsidies and investor funding. After that they’ve been making ~$15 billion per year and sold around 1.3 million cars worldwide per year.

In contrast Toyota sold 10.3 million vehicles and made $61 billion in profit.

As with their 17 years of unprofitable business they are currently more proportionally profitable, but a big portion of that is Musk fanboys and limited supply. If they actually started selling more cars they probably wouldn’t be as proportionally profitable.

Additionally, Tesla is supposedly becoming less profitable due to several factors including not making a new model in 10 years, reports that they fraudulently marketed features (being sneaky with how range is calculated so that the true range is way less than advertised), and Elon’s antics hurting sales. Elon’s antics are a big deal, some people who wanted Teslas before don’t want them anymore because they don’t want to be associated with him (like flying a Gadsden Flag in the mid 2000s vs now).

Elon’s antics don’t stop there, he’s also hurt the investor’s opinion as well. A big reason Tesla’s stock was so high is because people were buying them and not selling them. This caused their price to stay super high, but when Elon bought Twitter he sold a ton of stock. The price was at an all time high over $400 per share, his selling cratered it to ~$115, and is currently around $165. Investors don’t like it when the owner of a company single handedly tanks their investment so the owner can make a bad investment, even more so when the writing on the wall says he’ll sell even more of the stock to fund the bad investment.