The German American Law Journal Blog mentions (in German) a recent U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit case between Dr. Leo Kirch and Liberty Media in which the translation of the German man as the English you was queried.
The subject of the litigation was the role of an interview, held in German and translated into and published in English, in undermining public confidence in KirchGroup.
bq. [GALJ] Kern der Berufungsentscheidung ist die strittige Übersetzung des im Englischen unbekannten deutschen Wortes man, das Breuer gegenüber dem Journalisten benutzte, aaO 30. Die Nuancen der Sprache spielen eine so bedeutende Rolle, dass ein deutsches Gericht eher zu seiner Würdigung berufen sein könnte, deutet das Berufungsgericht an.
bq. [Case report] The parties dispute the proper translation of Breuer’s words. In his brief, Kirch asserts that Breuer’s “use of the term ‘you’ [in the phrase “all that you can hear and read about”] rather than ‘I’ is somewhat dissembling in being more general than just Breuer.” Kirch Br. at 32. The defendants respond by pointing out that the German pronoun “man” is a third person impersonal pronoun more analogous to “anyone” than to “you.” Deutsch Bank Br. at 22-24. According to the Deutsche Bank defendants, this makes even clearer the fact that Breuer was basing his comments on public knowledge. Without more than we have, though, it is hard for us to make a sound judgment as to which is the proper nuance of the German phrase.
Here’s the relevant interview (MM bold):
bq. Q. It is more a question of whether someone will help him to carry on.
A. I believe this is relatively questionable. All that you can hear and read about this is that the financial sector is not willing to provide further
debt or equity under current conditions. Hence, only third parties could be interested in a - as you phrased it - support action.
Q. Thank you very much, Rolf Breuer.
I haven’t read this in full or investigated it further, and I can’t even say how important it was in the case. At first glance, it looks like a reasonable translation, but it is an interesting example of the potential legal implications of translating such a word.