Background
The question of China's responsibility for COVID-19 and potential compensation remains contentious. Several US government agencies, including the Department of Energy and FBI, have supported the lab-leak theory, though there is no scientific consensus. Previous attempts to hold China financially accountable have faced significant diplomatic and practical challenges, with China consistently rejecting such claims and characterizing them as "origin-tracing terrorism."
Resolution Criteria
This market will resolve YES if before the 2026 US midterm elections:
A formal request for compensation related to COVID-19 costs is made by the US federal government to China, OR
The US Congress passes legislation demanding payment from China for COVID-19 related costs that is signed into law by the President
The market will resolve NO if:
No formal request or legislation is made before the 2026 midterm elections
Only individual states or local governments make such requests
Only unofficial statements or rhetoric about China paying for COVID are made without formal action
Update 2025-03-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The federal judge ruling likely qualifies for a YES resolution as follows:
The ruling (imposing a $24 billion penalty on China) is interpreted as equivalent to a formal request for compensation related to COVID-19 costs from the US federal government to China.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ189 | |
| 2 | Ṁ136 | |
| 3 | Ṁ83 | |
| 4 | Ṁ21 | |
| 5 | Ṁ19 |
People are also trading
@traders I believe this ruling by a federal judge that China is liable for expenses related to COVID-19 meets the qualifications for a YES resolution on this market, ie this represents, “A formal request for compensation related to COVID-19 costs is made by the US federal government to China.”
I’ll leave the resolution open and listen to any arguments for or against until 15 Mar 2025.
U.S. Judge Finds China Liable for Covid Missteps, Imposes $24 Billion Penalty
Judge Limbaugh, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, imposed the judgment against China, its governing Communist Party, local governments in China, as well as a health agency and a laboratory in the country.
@BlueDragon I think this should not resolve YES, for several reasons.
1) it's pending appeal and could be overturned
2) the lawsuit is actually about PPE shortages, not explicitly for causing COVID, which to my understanding was the focus of this market (otherwise, the scope expands dramatically)
3) I don't think that a single judge's ruling counts as either of these two. A judge is not a formal representative of the US federal government. Moreover, this is a judge of the US district court for the eastern district of missouri. I think a ruling by the supreme court would be more likely to be qualified as such:
- A formal request for compensation related to COVID-19 costs is made by the US federal government to China, OR
-The US Congress passes legislation demanding payment from China for COVID-19 related costs that is signed into law by the President
@bens basically, I think this wouldn't even meet the bar of "MISSOURI asks China to pay for COVID" since it's essentially about China hoarding PPE, not causing COVID (and really only used China's "cover-up" of COVID as peripheral evidence). Moreover, the lawsuit is likely going to be appealed. The NYTimes article's headline is misleading and doesn't match the text
@bens thanks 🙏 for your thoughtful argument. I've been considering them carefully, as I wasn't taking this development very seriously until news of this judgement broke. Response below, reworded for readability but please let me know if I missed anything. TLDR this still seems to me to meet the resolution criteria as I set them out when I created the market.
1) It's pending appeal and it could be overturned. By whom and to whom? Initially the judge who ruled on this moved to dismiss it, the appeals court sent it back and said he must rule on it. The other party in the case, China, has stated they do not recognize the lawsuit, will not respond and have chosen not to defend themselves in US courts, so where and how would they appeal?
2) The lawsuit is about PPE shortages, not explicitly for causing COVID. Rereading the market description, resolves yes if "A formal request for compensation related to COVID-19 costs is made by the US federal government to China," (italics added). I can't see grounds for the interpretation that the market is explicitly focused on the cause of COVID. Also the lawsuit was more broadly alleging that China is responsible for COVID, the rest was dismissed on procedural grounds, specifically because of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Thus the lawsuit was not about PPE, the ruling was about PPE, and the ruling does explicitly relate to the costs of COVID-19.
3) A single judge is not a representative of the federal government, only a ruling from the Supreme Court should count. A US District Court judge is absolutely a part of the federal judiciary, and therefore part of the US Federal government, as is the US District Appeals Court, which remanded the PPE question to the court for a ruling. I can see no basis to support your argument that it could only be considered a formal request by the US government if it comes from the Supreme Court, as District Court rulings are typically final. It is only in rare cases where they are appealed AND heard by the Supreme Court AND overturned--and as stated in 1) I can't see a mechanism for any of that to happen.
"Missouri Sues China: What We Know
Missouri's lawsuit against China for "unleashing COVID-19 on the world" is nearing its conclusion, with the state threatening to seize $25 billion in assets if Beijing refuses to pay damages."
https://www.newsweek.com/missouri-state-sues-china-covid-19-pandemic-masks-2023291