In a sad way I suppose it suggests a business opportunity to robo-file small claims actions on your behalf.
BTW, I don't think this is a good example of replacing regulation with private litigation, I expect it will be an example of behavioral change in the presence of more literal examples of the risks. As lots of people point out in this thread, clearly a large number of people were thinking "store" not "random guy who might come up with the goods" when they backed a project, having a few of these get a lot of press might have a chilling effect on backers.
I wasn't trying to suggest that Kickstarter should be regulated because of situations like this, but pointing out that grellas's analysis of why nobody would bring suits in this case applies with equal force to most situations where large numbers of people have their rights infringed in ways that are not patently easy to prove.
In theory, a class action suit would resolve whether the failure to deliver was just over ambition, etc, or due to some malfeasance, but for the reasons grellas outlined, such a suit is unlikely to be filed or carried through to a conclusion. In effect, the deck is systematically stacked in favor of the potential wrongdoer. He wins not only if he really did nothing wrong, but even if he did something wrong but it is non trivial to prove that he did something wrong.
BTW, I don't think this is a good example of replacing regulation with private litigation, I expect it will be an example of behavioral change in the presence of more literal examples of the risks. As lots of people point out in this thread, clearly a large number of people were thinking "store" not "random guy who might come up with the goods" when they backed a project, having a few of these get a lot of press might have a chilling effect on backers.