Can anyone help me find the issues with this prompt?

In the 1970's and 80's, the Toro company (which produces lawn mowers and related products) took a "traditional" approach to product liability claims and lawsuits: it defended itself, litigated claims, and spent time and money managing lawyers and litigation. More recently, however, Toro developed a different process for resolving such disputes. The first stage of the process went like this: As quickly as possible, following a complaint, Toro dispatched product specialists (non-lawyers and engineers) to conduct on-site investigations of the offending equipment; interview the injured person and witnesses; document the facts of the accident; and really listen to the claimants as dissatisfied customers-not opponents. Then, they honestly evaluated the cases and offered claimants whatever resolution they deemed fair (which, in the majority of situations, was $0). 67% of the complaints were settled or disposed of at this point in the process. Those that were not resolved in the first stage were referred to the second, during which Toro hired a third party neutral to assist the parties in coming to a voluntary and mutually agreeable resolution; this approach resolved over 95% of the remaining claims. The cases that did not resolve during the first two stages went to traditional litigation. The results of Toro's program, during its first fourteen years, were impressive. By substituting their alternative dispute resolution program for traditional litigation, Toro reduced their per claim costs by 77%; their average payout by 53%, and the life span of their average claim by 59%. Critics of Toro's program cite the power imbalance between Toro and its customers, and doubt the sincerity of the company's stated intentions. Supporters, however, note the many benefits of crafting a less litigious way to resolve disputes, and some have even enacted similar in-house dispute resolution programs