The state of South Carolina is suing Purdue Pharma over its alleged contributions to the opioid epidemic.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson announced the lawsuit at a press conference on Tuesday. It accuses the Connecticut-based company of deceptive marketing practices and downplaying the addictive qualities of OxyContin.

In particular, the suit addresses Purdue Pharma’s failure to comply with the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. In 2007, Purdue Pharma signed an agreement with South Carolina and other states, which required the company to correct its marketing practices.

However, according to Wilson, Purdue Pharma continued to encourage doctors to prescribe OxyContin for unapproved uses. Representatives also assured doctors that the users would become only “pseudoaddicted.” Supposedly, they could reverse their symptoms by taking even more drugs.

In reality, OxyContin is a Schedule II controlled substance, which means it is highly addictive.

“Opioid addiction is a public health menace to South Carolina,” Wilson said at the press conference. “We cannot let history record that we stood by while this epidemic rages.” Recovering addicts and family members of overdose victims stood around him.

“While we vigorously deny the allegations,” a Purdue Pharma spokesperson said in a statement, “we share South Carolina officials’ concerns about the opioid crisis and we are committed to working collaboratively to find solutions.”

Over 565 South Carolinians died of opioid overdoses in 2015. Last year, the state had the ninth-highest opioid prescribing rate in the country.

Comparatively, the U.S. as a whole had over 33,000 people die from opioid use in 2015. Experts predict that number will rise.

This is not the first legal action against Purdue Pharma. In January, the city of Everett, Washington. sued the company for negligence and inaction over the city’s OxyContin crisis. Six months later, the state of Ohio sued Purdue Pharma and four other companies over their marketing of OxyContin and other drugs.

Most recently, New Hampshire filed its own lawsuit on August 1. Like South Carolina, the state accuses Purdue Pharma of overstating the benefits of opioids and recommending it for unapproved uses.

In a similar action, the Cherokee Nation sued six pharmaceutical companies in April, accusing them of unjustly profiting from over-prescription of opioids.

Last week, President Trump declared the opioid epidemic a national emergency. Since then, he has not specified any plans or resources to combat the crisis.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Carolina Sues OxyContin Maker over Opioid Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, six environmental conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency suspended portions of an Obama-era legislation intended to limit leaks of methane and other harmful toxins during oil and gas production.  

The regulations surrounding these leaks were detailed in the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) passed by the Obama Administration last June. They were meant to go into effect last weekend. The new rules would require oil and gas companies to invest in resources to regularly detect leaks in their well equipment and make repairs as needed.

The groups behind the lawsuit–which include the Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthworks–are now calling on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the EPA’s move and reverse it altogether. They claim that the 90-day stay of the rule, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, failed to give the public prior notice or the opportunity to comment on the action. This information, they say, is required by the Clean Air Act, one of the country’s first modern environmental laws.

“In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law,” said Meleah Geertsma, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump Administration does not have unlimited power to put people’s health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this.”

Scientists say methane is more dangerous than we think. The Energy Defense Fund estimates that methane is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making it more efficient at trapping heat. 

“By emitting just a little bit of methane, mankind is greatly accelerating the rate of climatic change,” said Energy Defense Fund chief scientist Steve Hamburg.

Pruitt wants to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to review these requirements, assess economic impacts, and report back to the agency, even though the original rule had already given companies a year to do so before it took effect. The EPA argues its right to issue the 90-day stay is also included in the Clean Air Act under section 307, which allows it to reconsider the law as long as “the reconsideration does not postpone the effectiveness of the rule.” But environmentalists argue any delays in implementation would indeed hinder its effectiveness. 

Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute argue that many companies are already checking their equipment for leaks, making the methane rule redundant and unnecessarily costly.

This lawsuit is now one of many actions taken against the Trump climate change policies. Environmentalists sued the administration after the controversial Keystone XL pipeline was approved in March. Just last week, a number of school, companies and states have rallied around Michael Bloomberg to uphold the Paris Agreement on climate change, defying Trump after he announced on Friday that the U.S. would pull out of the deal.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservationists Sue EPA over Delay of Obama-era Methane Rule appeared first on Law Street.

I think we all can agree that flight cancellations are the worst. But for some stranded Sprit Airlines passengers in Florida, it proved to be more than they–and the airline staff, for that matter–could handle.

Travelers began screaming at airline employees and throwing punches inside of Fort Lauderdale’s airport Monday evening after the budget airline announced the cancellation of several flights, leaving hundreds stranded.

The situation went viral after cellphone footage captured Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies struggling to break up a fight between two women near Spirit Airline’s ticket check-in counter.

Chaos at a Florida airport after @SpiritAirlines flights are canceled: https://t.co/5fkrx1xerS pic.twitter.com/7vlufN3TD6

— NBC DFW (@NBCDFW) May 9, 2017

A massive brawl broke out at a Florida airport when Spirit Airlines cancelled 81 flights in one day https://t.co/xn4oiwg0L7 pic.twitter.com/Nvog2Xyymh

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 9, 2017

In another video, police wrestled a man to the ground near the ticket counter and placed him in handcuffs.

Just witnessed police brutality at Fort Lauderdale airport @SpiritAirlines trying to get back to NYC…i’m tired its 2017 pic.twitter.com/3UHGUqCuwm

— Brionka Halbert (@brionkahalbert) May 9, 2017

Altogether, the deputies arrested three people for inciting the crowd of about 500 customers. They face charges of inciting or encouraging a riot, disorderly conduct, resisting an officer, and trespassing after receiving a warning.

According to Buzzfeed News, Spirit alleged in a lawsuit filed Monday that its pilots and their labor union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), conspired to purposefully reduce pilot availability, resulting in approximately 300 canceled flights over the past week. On Sunday alone, the airline said it was forced to cancel 81 flights–17 percent of its scheduled flights for that day–because pilots refused to work amid contentious contract negotiations.

Spirit estimates that about 20,000 customers have been affected since the cancellations began last week.

“We are disappointed that ALPA has decided to engage in this unlawful slowdown,” said Paul Berry, Spirit spokesman, in a statement. “This has led to canceled flights and prevented our customers from taking their planned travel, all for the sole purpose of influencing current labor negotiations. So we reluctantly filed this suit to protect our customers’ and our operations.”

“This is clearly unlawful activity under the Railway Labor Act, which governs labor relations in the airline industry,” Berry added. “ALPA and those individuals responsible should be held accountable.”

Spirit has been in contract negotiations with its pilots for the past two years, after they expressed dissatisfaction with current pay rates, retirement benefits, and the airline’s lack of profit-sharing.

As a result, pilots have refused to accept junior assignments or pick up “open time flying,” which has dramatically impacted Spirit’s ability to operate smoothly. The union, on the other hand, denies urging members not to accept assignments.

In June of last year, Spirit pilots went on a five-day strike that left thousands of passengers stranded. Then, in October, nearly 100 pilots picketed at the Dallas Fort Worth airport and outside Spirit’s headquarters in Miramar, Florida.

This all comes as the airline industry is under fire after a series of intense customer service scandals made headlines across the nation. With summer quickly approaching, the industry as a whole could really benefit from some good PR as travelers begin to prep for vacation travel.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spirit Flight Cancellations Lead to Passenger Brawl at Ft. Lauderdale Airport appeared first on Law Street.

For most people, headphones represent a chance for reprieve–an oasis from the belligerent noise that comes with actively listening in on and participating with the world around you. However, according to a new lawsuit, Bose has been making it so your personal sonic sanctuary can be infiltrated by marketing firms seeking to gather information on your every want, need, and personal preference. Not only is Big Brother watching, but he’s listening, too.

Actually, the issue isn’t that dire, but this new lawsuit does introduce important questions about how much freedom we’re willing to give marketing companies when it comes to infringing on personal freedom. As first reported by Fortune, the headphone company has been hit with a complaint from Bose headphone-owner Kyle Zak, who claims that the company, through the “Bose Connect” app that they encourage consumers to download, is secretly collecting data customers’ audio selections and disclosing that data to third party marketing companies without consent.

“[O]ne’s personal audio selections  – including music, radio broadcast, Podcast, and lecture choices – provide an incredible amount of insight into his or her personality, behavior, political views, and personal identity,” the complaint states. “[N]umerous scientific studies show that musical preferences reflect explicit characteristics such as age, personality, and values, and can likely even be used to identify people with autism spectrum conditions.” 

The purpose of the Bose Connect app was to allow users to control certain Bose products from their smartphones. However, Bose does not require users to download the app. The complaint singles out a data mining company named Segment.io as one of the third parties that Bose is feeding data to for targeting purposes. According to their website, Segment works with other companies such as Bonobos and Crate & Barrel.

The complaint states that Zak, on behalf of all those “similarly situated,” seeks actual and statutory damages that have come with the invasion of privacy that Bose has brought, as well as full compensation for the purchase price of Bose Wireless products. For reference, a pair of Bose QuietComfort 35 Wireless Noise Cancelling headphones will run you about $350–on top of how much you value personal freedom because of all the involuntary ceding of private information and such. 

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Are Bose Headphones Used to Spy on You? appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat’s CEO, Evan Spiegel, is at war with India. Spiegel supposedly said India was too poor for Snapchat and now #BoycottSnapchat is trending in the world’s second most populous country.

According to Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, Spiegel dismissed his idea to expand in underutilized markets.

“This app is only for rich people,” said Spiegel, according to Pompliano. “I don’t want to expand into poor countries like India and Spain.”

The accusations were found in documents from a lawsuit between Pompliano and Snap Inc., Snapchat’s parent company.

In a statement to the public, a Snap Inc. spokesperson dismissed Pompliano’s claims as the words of a “disgruntled former employee,” adding: “Obviously Snapchat is for everyone! It’s available worldwide to download for free.”

“We are grateful for our Snapchat community in India and around the world,” the statement read.

In spite of the denial, angry Snapchat users took to the internet. As news of the alleged comments spread, #BoycottSnapchat and #Uninstall_Snapchat began trending in India and around the world.

Reportedly, almost 400,000 users in India deleted the Snapchat app from their phones between Saturday and Sunday.

Twitter users also used the hashtag #1star to encourage others to damage the app’s rating and write scathing reviews on both Android and iOS–as of today, Snapchat has a one star rating on the Indian App Store.

It was even rumored that Indian hackers retaliated by leaking 1.7 million Snapchat users’ data on the “dark web,” but these reports have not been verified.

But as Indians took to their respective app marketplaces in defense of their country’s honor, some locked onto the wrong target. Snapdeal, an e-commerce platform that actually happens to be based in India, received a number of one-star ratings and many uninstalled the unrelated “snap app.”

Snapdeal’s CEO took to twitter to express his surprise:

@thetanmay Thanks bud. Ppl asking us to make a statement that @snapdeal is not @snapchat was possibly the last thing I thought I would ever need to do.

— Kunal Bahl (@1kunalbahl) April 16, 2017

Pompliano’s lawsuit accuses executives of exaggerating user data to mislead advertisers. Funnily enough, it looks as though Snapchat’s user data will suffer a painful blow regardless of whether or not Pompliano’s accusations are found to be true.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is #BoycottSnapchat Trending in India? appeared first on Law Street.

Uber recently reached a settlement with its drivers in California and Massachusetts in two lawsuits that could have derailed the company’s entire business model. While both sides gave important concessions in the settlement, Uber maintains the ability to classify its drivers as independent contractors in both states, a win that will prevent the company’s costs from skyrocketing.

If approved by a district court judge, the settlement will resolve two class action lawsuits against Uber that originated in California and Massachusetts. Drivers will remain independent contractors and Uber has agreed to pay the plaintiffs $84 million with an additional $16 million contingent upon the company going public and increasing significantly in value.

If Uber drivers were granted employee status, Uber would have been required to pay minimum wage, reimburse expenses, provide health benefits, and pay the employer portion of social security. A report from the National Employment Law Project estimates that classifying workers as contractors can save companies as much as 30 percent on payroll and related taxes and can significantly reduce the amount they are paid.

The settlement will also require Uber to change its driver deactivation policies. The issued a deactivation policy explaining what factors can lead to deactivation and will provide additional information to drivers in Massachusetts and California about their rating and how it compares to other drivers. With the settlement, Uber agreed to create and help fund a drivers association that will meet quarterly and function somewhat like a union. Drivers will also be allowed to put up signs asking riders for tips.

However, the court’s approval of the settlement is not guaranteed. In fact, a similar settlement involving the company’s competitor, Lyft, was recently rejected by a judge. That settlement was rejected because the proposed amount, $12.25 million, was based on an outdated expense reimbursement estimate. The judge argued that the settlement would need to increase significantly to meet estimates from more recent data. Underlying that case are similar questions: should drivers be considered employees and are they entitled to reimbursements?

Overall, the recent settlement appears to be a large victory for Uber. The company was valued at $62.5 billion in December, making the $100 million settlement relatively manageable in the context of the company’s size. Uber will also continue to keep its costs remarkably low as it continues to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Drivers will get some important concessions from the company and Uber is openly acknowledging that it needs to evolve in the way it manages its drivers as the company grows.

In a blog post after the settlement was reached, Uber CEO and Co-Founder Travis Kalanick wrote,

Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Kalanick also notes that the company now has over 450,000 drivers using the app each month. Given the dramatic increase in the company’s size, it is seeking to improve the way it receives and responds to feedback from drivers while clarifying its deactivation policies.

Despite the settlement, many questions remain about worker classification for so-called “gig economy” jobs. The settlement resolves a dispute between drivers in the two states, but it doesn’t answer the question altogether. Moreover, a settlement will not leave a precedent in the way a decision from a federal judge would. Regulators also retain the ability to change classification standards, which would have a dramatic impact on these businesses.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Agrees to $100 Million Settlement With Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

If you were thinking about shelling out hundreds on a new Fitbit to help jump start your New Year’s fitness resolution, you may want to think again. The popular fitness tracking company is under scrutiny after being sued in a class action lawsuit from users alleging that the heart rate monitors in the trackers are “dangerously ineffective.”

Three plaintiffs from California, Colorado, and Wisconsin are claiming that both Fitbit’s Charge HR and Surge models, which come equipped with trademarked PurePulse technology, fail to accurately record wearer’s hear rates during workouts. In some cases the plaintiffs claimed the trackers displayed their heart rates as nearly half of their actual heart rates. By reporting drastically lower heart rates, the fitness accessory could pose a potential danger to users’ health.

The plaintiffs allege that contacting Fitbit about the defect didn’t deter the company from continuing to advertise the product, writing,

This failure did not keep Fitbit from heavily promoting the heart rate monitoring feature of the PurePulse Trackers and from profiting handsomely from it. In so doing, Fitbit defrauded the public and cheated its customers, including Plaintiffs.

In many ways Fitbit’s PurePulse technology, which promises to help “make every beat count,” has acted as a major selling point for consumers on the fence about shelling out extra bucks on upgraded models.

If these plaintiffs are right about the feature being potentially defective, it could have a seriously negative impact on the brand–which couldn’t have come at a worse time since the company just unveiled its newest smart fitness watch: Fitbit Blaze. A massive selloff and 20 percent drop in stock prices have shown that investors are taking the allegations seriously.

On the other hand, the preemptive selloffs may prove to be entirely unnecessary. With only three plaintiffs leading the charge on the class action lawsuit, these false advertising and fraud allegations are hardly indicative of a large scale problem with the company’s merchandise. But who knows, this could end up being the catalyst for more people disappointed with their heart rate trackers to come out of the woodwork.

Update 1/11/16:

A Fitbit spokesperson released a statement to Fortune saying that the company does not believe the lawsuit has any merit. The full statement can be read here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fitbit Lawsuit Claims HR Monitors are “Dangerously Inaccurate” appeared first on Law Street.

For some of us, picking out our pet’s food boils down to three things: price, convenience, and whichever bag has the cutest pet on its front. But a new class-action lawsuit may have owners taking a closer look at the labels. Plaintiff Frank Lucido of Discovery Bay, California alleges that popular dry dog food Beneful produced by Nestle Purina Pet Care is actually poisoning dogs.

According to the blog Top Class Actions, Lucido began feeding Beneful dry food to his German Shepard, English Bulldog, and Labrador for the first time in late December 2014 to early January 2015. Shortly after making the switch, his German Shepard started losing large amounts of hair and giving off a strange odor, ultimately becoming violently ill. Days later, his English Bulldog was found dead in the yard, while the Labrador became ill shortly after that. The common denominator according to the pets’ vets? Internal bleeding “consistent with poisoning.” Since their diets were the only changing variable, Lucido did some research and concluded that Beneful was to blame.

Lucido’s dogs weren’t the only ones allegedly affected by the Beneful brand. According to the lawsuit, there have been over 3,000 complaints online by dog owners accusing Purina of making their dogs become ill and/or die after eating Beneful.

What kibble component could possibly be making so many dogs sick?

According to the Daily Beast, the popular human and dog food additive propylene glycol may be the culprit. The Beast goes on to say:

It’s [propylene glycol] also the same substance that caused the spiced whiskey Fireball to be recalled in Europe, which found excessive amounts of the chemical, also used in antifreeze, in the cinnamon swill last fall. The tainted liquor was from the North American batch because, in the U.S., much higher volumes of antifreeze additives are OK for human—or canine—consumption.

Another potential culprit may be mycotoxins. According to the lawsuit this toxic byproduct of mold is commonly found in all types of grains, which, according to a new study out of Pakistan, was found in half of the 237 breakfast cereal samples researchers tested.

The lawsuit is charging Nestle Purina with “breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, violating California’s consumer legal remedies act, violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violating California’s False Advertising Law.”

This isn’t the first time Purina has faced allegations of potential poisons in its products, according to a statement released from Purina. The company defends itself, saying:

We believe this lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our brand. Beneful had two previous class action suits filed in recent years with similar baseless allegations, and both were dismissed by the courts. Like other pet foods, Beneful is occasionally the subject of social media-driven misinformation. Online postings often contain false, unsupported and misleading allegations that cause undue concern and confusion for our Beneful customers. Bottom line: consumers can continue to feed Beneful with total confidence.

I don’t know how much confidence consumers will have though after being scared by words like internal bleeding, kidney failure, and seizures. Some public relations pros say any publicity is good publicity, but in this case there’s no way Purina for the time being can spin “dog-slaughter” rumors.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Purina Poisoning Pups? appeared first on Law Street.