After triggering toy store hysteria in aisles across America, Hatchimals, sadly, aren’t living up to their self-hatching hype. Parents who bought 2016’s hottest holiday toy have filed a class action lawsuit against Canadian toy company Spin Master, claiming millions of families were duped by the manufacturer’s “bait-and-switch marketing scheme.”

Jodie Hejduk filed the lawsuit after she purchased a Hatchimal for $50 as a birthday gift for her daughter. The California mom says that says she followed the toy’s instructions provided in the box, but it refused to hatch.The toy remains unhatched in its egg.

Hailed 2016’s Tickle Me Elmo, Hatchimals start off as football-sized plastic eggs. After some lengthy rubbing, shaking, and tilting, the eggs hatch to reveal chubby bird-like robots. As the Verge so eloquently puts it, the creatures “combine the eerie artificial behavior of a Furby with the biological horror of birth.”

The lawsuit expressed the buyers’ disappointment with the toy, that it doesn’t “live up to its name,” stating: “when we purchase an iPhone, we expect it to make a phone call. When we purchase a yo-yo, we expect it to come back up.”

“Unfortunately, this Christmas season, millions of children and families across the globe were sourly disappointed with coal in their stockings, in the form of a bait-and-switch marketing scheme perpetrated by Spin Master.”

After receiving complaints that its products weren’t hatching, Spin Master posted a statement to its Facebook page on Dec. 25, 2016 that said “We are sorry to hear that some of you are having challenges with your Hatchimals.”

Following the New Year, Spin Master addressed concerns again in another statement that pops up when you go to Hatchimals.com that reads:

We have had more than a million successful hatches since we first launched Hatchimals on October 7th and we are still hard at work making sure that everyone has a magical hatching experience. We are 100% committed to bringing the magic of Hatchimals to all of our consumers.

The company advises anyone having issues to call its Customer Care phone lines. It has not specified if replacements or refunds are being offered.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel offered a clever solution for the problem, rebranding the toys “Disapointimals” in a segment for his late-night talk show.

The class action lawsuit is requesting a recall of the toys and “compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the Court and/or jury.”

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 Parents Filed Class Action Lawsuit After Their Hatchimals Didn’t Hatch appeared first on Law Street.

Three Chipotle customers in Los Angeles got more than they were hoping for when trying out the chain’s new Chorizo Burrito–well, more calories that is.

In a class action lawsuit filed last week, the diners allege that they were “lulled into a false belief” that Chipotle’s new burrito is much healthier than it really is, due to misleading nutritional information.

The burrito, which comes filled with grilled chicken, pork sausage, white rice, black beans, fresh tomato salsa, and a sprinkle of cheese, is seemingly billed on the overhead menu as having 300 calories.

@ChipotleTweets if a tortilla from chipotle has 300 calories by itself, how does a chorizo filled burrito also have only 300 calories??? pic.twitter.com/inepf71HKC

— Spencer Blank (@SB22_) November 9, 2016

One plaintiff claims that after ordering the Chorizo Burrito he “felt excessively full and realized that the burrito couldn’t have been just 300 calories,” according to the complaint.

The online nutrition calculator on Chipotle’s website estimates that, when added up, the burrito’s calorie count is more than triple that much, totaling over 1,000 calories.

Chipotle clarified on Twitter that the “300 calories” on the menu is for the chorizo alone, and apologized for the confusion. However, the plaintiffs claim the poor signage is part of a pattern in which the chain presents misleading nutritional information.

@LidiyaKravchuk I’m sorry for the confusion, but we’ll make things more clear next time. The 300 calories is for the chorizo. -Gabe

— Chipotle (@ChipotleTweets) November 8, 2016

A Chipotle spokesman refused to comment on the pending legal matter, but added, “a lawsuit is nothing more than allegations and is proof of nothing.” Still, this is yet another embarrassing blow to the Tex-Mex chain that’s still struggling to recover after E. coli, salmonella, and norovirus outbreaks caused both its sales and stock price to plummet.

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 Duped by ‘300-Calorie’ Burrito, Chipotle Customers File Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Another month, another potential class action lawsuit against Starbucks. In March, the coffee company faced a lawsuit alleging that it was shorting customers by under-filling latte cups. This month, a Chicago resident has filed a suit accusing the company of doing the same–but this time, it’s the iced beverages that are brought into question.

The class action lawsuit, filed by Stacey Pincus, claims that the company provides “significantly less product than advertised” for its iced drinks, and blames it on the company’s “standard practices” for making iced drinks. While the drink amounts are advertised to be  8 oz., 12 oz., 16 oz. for tall, grande, and venti drinks respectively, purchasers of iced beverages definitely aren’t getting that amount of liquid.

The lawsuit lays out the process by which the drinks are made, and explains that the company uses “pre-measured plastic scoopers” and black fill lines on the cups to standardize the drink-to-ice ratio in the cup. So the next time your grande iced coffee seems to be more “ice” and less “coffee,” it might actually not be the barista who is at fault.

Similar to the latte lawsuit, this one also alleges that the underfilling of cups is a deliberate move by the company to “make more money or higher profits.” If this lawsuit is approved as a class-action, anyone who purchased an iced beverage from the company in the last decade could be included.

While this may sound like one giant “First-World Problem,” the lawsuit also makes note of the fact that iced beverages cost more than their hot counterparts. Not only are you getting less of your beverage when ordering an iced version, you’re putting up more for it. While it remains to be seen whether this complaint actually carries any legal clout, it seems to put up a more convincing argument than the latte lawsuit, which claimed that the hot beverages were being deliberately undefiled.

The company’s response? They’re not having it. A spokeswoman for the company responded by saying, “Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any ‘iced’ beverage. If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it.” Or in other words, this:

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Deja Vu: Starbucks Faces (Another) Lawsuit For Underfilling Drinks appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever felt shorted by your barista during your morning Starbucks run?  You’re not alone: the company is facing a class-action lawsuit filed in the state of California last Wednesday for allegedly not providing latte drinkers with the promised amounts of beverage.

While the Tall, Grande and Venti cup sizes are meant to be 12, 16, and 20 ounces respectively, the lawsuit alleges that the cups are “approximately 25 percent underfilled.” The two plaintiffs, Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles, appear to have done their research, as the lawsuit alleges that they “purchased and measured Starbucks Lattes at different stores, in different states, in different sizes, and in different flavors.” Alas, apparently none of them lived up to the amounts stated on the menu.

While to some, this may sound like a petty issue to sue over, the plaintiffs claim that their grievances go deeper than just being shorted a few ounces of sweet, caffeinated goodness, but may actually be a conspiracy by the company: “…by underfilling its lattes, thereby shortchanging its customers, Starbucks has saved countless millions of dollars in the cost of goods sold and was unjustly enriched by taking payment for more product than it delivers.” 

If you’re an avid Starbucks latte drinker, you may also seek to benefit if the Plaintiffs can successfully bring a case against the company According to Top Class Actions, if approved as a class action lawsuit, “…it will be open to all U.S. Class Members who purchased a Starbucks Latte” (apologies to all the Frappucino fans out there, you’re out of luck this time).

Starbucks, on its part, does not seem worried. The company issued a statement to Seattle P-I last Friday stating the following:

We are aware of the plaintiffs’ claims, which we fully believe to be without merit. We are proud to serve our customers high-quality, handcrafted and customized beverages. Hand-prepared beverages increase the likelihood of variations, as disclosed in the nutritional section of our website. Customers often prescribe for us how they want their beverage prepared (e.g. with room, extra foam), therefore beverage volumes are largely collaborative. If a customer is unhappy with their beverage preparation then we are happy to remake it to their satisfaction.

Whether or not the company will face legal consequences remains to be seen, but the question remains: is this just a frivolous lawsuit, or a campaign against corporate greed? Your call.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Angry Latte Drinkers Sue Starbucks for Underfilling Cups appeared first on Law Street.

A judge just ruled that a lawsuit brought against the Buffalo Bills by their cheerleaders–the Buffalo Jills–is allowed to move forward. The cheerleaders are suing the NFL team for better wages and work conditions. While five former cheerleaders brought the suit, the judge’s ruling means that “all Buffalo Bills cheerleaders and ambassadors since April 2008” can join. While this lawsuit is in process, the Buffalo Jills have actually been on hiatus, and haven’t appeared at any games over the last year. But the Buffalo Jills aren’t the first cheerleaders to bring a suit against the team they cheer for–in fact they’re just one more in a growing trend.

The Buffalo Jills each made $1,800 per season, despite the fact that the team takes in a total of $256 million each year. The women claim that their compensation is well below minimum wage. They also claim that they had to attend some events for which they were not paid. The team treated them as independent contractors as opposed to employees, which is how it was able to get away with such low compensation.

Another point of contention in the lawsuit was that the women were held to an incredibly strict, and seemingly inappropriate, guidebook. The book included requirements for things like personal hygiene; for example, it told the women to change their tampons “at least every four hours.” It also instructed them what kind of soap to use, stating: “Intimate areas: Never use a deodorant or chemically enhanced product. Simple nondeodorant soap will help maintain the right PH balance.” My personal favorite is the eating recommendations, which instruct: “Do not overeat bread in a formal setting.”

At the same time that this lawsuit is being allowed to move forward, New York is considering a bill called the “Cheerleaders’ Fair Pay Act.” It would extend all the “rights, benefits and protections” to the cheerleaders that the rest of the team’s employees have.

The Buffalo Jills aren’t the first group of cheerleaders to get into this kind of showdown with the team they cheer for. Other teams that have been sued by their cheerleaders include the New York Jets, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and the Oakland Raiders.

The lawsuit won’t be decided for a while, but allowing the plaintiffs to move forward together in a class-action capacity is a big step.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Rules that Buffalo Jills Lawsuit Can Move Forward appeared first on Law Street.

Bad news for cheap wine lovers and broke 20-somethings everywhere–many beloved budget wine brands just got slammed with a class-action lawsuit filed yesterday in California. Allegations are being made that some of those wines include unsafe levels of arsenic.

The brands named in the lawsuit include Franzia, Menage a Trois, Sutter Home, Wine Cube, Charles Shaw, Glen Ellen, Cupcake, Beringer, and Vendage. These are all pretty popular brands–Franzia actually call itself “the world’s most popular wine,” and consistently has extremely high sales.

The arsenic contamination was found by a company called BeverageGrades, founded by Kevin Hicks, who previously worked in the wine distribution business. The Denver-based company started running tests on different brands of wine to see what sorts of ingredients are found in the most popular ones. The lab looked at 1,300 different kinds of wine and terrifyingly, approximately one quarter of them tested for a high level of arsenic.

Hicks did say that there were some odd trends in the wines that tested positive, however. The cheaper the wine, the more arsenic Hicks’ lab detected. Also, the problem appeared to be with white wines from the aforementioned brands, but not necessarily from the red.

Hicks filed the class-action lawsuit after he claims that he tried to bring the issue to the attention of the wine producers, and they ignored him. The lawsuit alleges that the companies misrepresented themselves to customers.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does allow some arsenic in water, as small amounts aren’t necessarily harmful. Some of the wines though had up to 500 percent of what the EPA allows in drinking water. However, the wine producers argue that using water as a comparison doesn’t make much sense. After all, we drink a lot more water than we do wine, so overall arsenic intake from wine won’t be as high. While our federal government doesn’t regulate how much arsenic can be in wine, Canada’s does. The arsenic levels found in the American wines would have passed under the Canadian standard, even though it’s above the EPA standards for water. That doesn’t necessarily mean that those levels of arsenic are acceptable. Allan Smith, associate director of the Arsenic Health Effects research program at U.C. Berkeley, told CBS that arsenic, even in very small amounts, is very dangerous.

Whether or not this lawsuit will actually go anywhere remains to be seen as it was just filed this week. There are certainly some questions about the validity of Hicks’ claims as well, as when CBS News tried to check his results, they didn’t yield nearly as much arsenic as he claimed.

The companies will presumably be arguing against the allegations. Some of the companies involved in the suit, including Trader Joes, have already said that they are in compliance with all existing regulations.

It’s no surprise that cheap wine isn’t the best thing out there for you, but the fact that it has quite that much arsenic is somewhat surprising. If anything, maybe this lawsuit will push the U.S. government toward more regulation of the wine industry.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuit Claims That Your Favorite Wine Contains Arsenic appeared first on Law Street.

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits?

One of the pending legal struggles against Uber involves its habit of sending incessant text messages to users. Uber has been named in a class action suit filed in U.S. District Court based in San Francisco. The suit argues that Uber has been abusing text-messaging marketing and bombarding people’s phones with unwanted messages. This is illegal ever since a change in FCC polices that interprets a law differently, namely that it:

Restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment to include text messages sent to a mobile phone, unless the consumer previously gave consent to receive the message or the message is sent for emergency purposes. The ban applies even if consumers have not placed their mobile phone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call list.

Uber isn’t the only company to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit–CVS, Jiffy Lube, Steve Madden, and Burger King have also been sued for doing the same or a similar thing. This class action lawsuit is asking for over $5 million in total for the text messages, although a judge will have to rule on whether or not to allow the legal proceedings to move forward as a class-action lawsuit.

That’s not the only time that Uber may see the inside of a courtroom this year. There’s currently an ongoing lawsuit about the tipping procedures used by the company. The lawsuit claims that Uber advertises that 20 percent of its fees go to tips for the drivers, but that it’s actually misleading its customers and keeping a substantial amount. This case, which also has the potential to become a class action suit, was originally filed by Caren Ehret of Illinois. She claims that because Uber’s policies are misleading, she, and other customers, ending up overpaying. This case has been stretching on for a while, as there has been some back and forth over whether or not the plaintiff can have access to certain of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s emails. It was just ruled that the plaintiff will be able to see those messages, and the case is continuing to move forward.

A third recent lawsuit against Uber involves the company’s “safe ride” fee that’s charged to its UberX customers. UberX is a ride sourced through Uber that uses the driver’s own car. This lawsuit argues that UberX is misleading its customers about what the “safe ride” fee does. According to Uber’s website, the safe ride fee is used to ensure that the drivers are up to industry standards, that they have the proper training, and that they pass background checks; however, this lawsuit, filed by one California and one Michigan resident, says that Uber’s safety features actually fall below industry standards.

These aren’t the only lawsuits with which Uber will have to contend in the coming months and years, and it’s not just in the courtroom that the company will see trouble. It’s also seen PR backlashes from controversies ranging from charging surge prices during the Sydney hostage crisis in late 2014, to sexual assault allegations in Chicago and New Delhi.

To be honest, I probably won’t stop using Uber, and I have a feeling most of my peers won’t either. It’s cheaper than cabs, and incredibly convenient. It’s a company that truly does have the ability to revolutionize transportation. But in order to get to that point, the truly revolutionary point I mean, it’s going to have to be careful. There are a lot of bumps in the road ahead for Uber–if it can weather them, it’ll be in good shape.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever run afoul of a bank and its ability to collect its money, you know it can get downright nasty. One of the biggest banks in the country, Bank of America, is no exception. But it’s finally paying the price for its interactions with customers. In one recent suit, Bank of America was ordered to pay up a little over a million dollars to one couple for the way they were treated.

That’s the story of Nelson and Joyce Coniglio, from Tampa, Florida. They fell a little behind on the money they owed to Bank of America for mortgage payments. After that, they received more than 700 calls in four years. They said that at some points, they had up to five calls each day. The calls were definitely beyond the pale; the complaint specifically described the calls as “patterns of outrageous, abusive and harassing conduct.” They also received letters that weren’t just threatening and demanding, but also apparently included incorrect information.

The Coniglios didn’t take this sitting down. They got in touch with lawyers to help them get the calls to stop. Their lawyers sent the bank cease and desist letters in an attempt to stop the collections calls, but they continued. The fact that Bank of America didn’t stop after those letters were sent, in addition to the extent to which the letters seemed to be harassment, led to the big payday for the Coniglios. The judge awarded them $1,500 per call, totaling a payout of $1,051,000.

Bank of America sent out the following statement:

Bank of America has helped 2 million homeowners avoid foreclosure. Our calls to the Coniglios were not to collect a debt, but rather to help them avoid foreclosure after they fell behind on their mortgage payments in 2009. Because our calls were not answered and our efforts to help the Coniglios avoid foreclosure were urgent, these calls continued. We are committed to help homeowners in need of assistance avoid foreclosure.

While a million bucks doesn’t seem like that much to a company the size of Bank of America, it’s more the precedent that counts. This isn’t the first time that Bank of America has gotten in trouble for its robo-calls, and it’s probably not going to be the last. In 2013, the bank had to pay $32 million in a class-action lawsuit to 7.7 million customers who claimed that they received harassing robo-calls.

There are plenty of complaints that Bank of America has incessantly called various customers. One elderly couple in California said that they believe they received over 2,000 calls from Bank of America. Another customer in Arkansas said that she got somewhere around 350 calls.

Bank of America deserves to receive punishment, as small of a slap of a wrist as $1 million is, for its actions. It’s one thing to go after the money that the bank is owed, but its another to harass customers incessantly.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Couple Receives $1 Million From Bank of America For Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Steve Jobs will be testifying in a class-action trial in which it is being alleged that Apple broke anti-trust laws.

Now, Steve Jobs is, of course, dead. But before he died, he recorded a deposition and now that deposition will be played during the trial. In addition to the deposition, emails that he sent during that time period will also be used.

The suit essentially says that during part of the early iPod era–2006 to 2009–Apple only allowed music downloaded from iTunes to play on the devices. The reverse was also true–if you downloaded music from iTunes, which was admittedly one of the easiest platforms at the time, you couldn’t get it to play on another kind of device. By not allowing music downloaded from competing companies, Apple essentially broke anti-trust practices. That’s obviously no longer the case–Apple changed its products to allow music from other platforms in 2009. Now, it’s pretty easy to get content from other music retailers onto iPods, iPhones, iPads, or any other Apple devices, but “the plaintiffs argue that it inflated the prices of millions of iPods sold between 2006 and 2009 to the tune of $350 million.”

Jobs’ “testimony” seems like it could be pretty damning for Apple. For example, an email released a few years back includes a statement from Jobs as follows:

We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod. Is this going to be an issue?

In addition, the plaintiff’s attorneys claim that their most salient proof comes from the reaction that Jobs had to a rival company, RealNetworks, releasing software called “Harmony.” Harmony would have allowed songs purchased from Real to be played on Apple devices. Apple responded by quickly releasing updates that rendered Harmony incompatible. Bonnie Sweeney, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that there is evidence that Jobs was furious at Harmony’s release, and his testimony will show that.

Jobs isn’t the only familiar face from Apple who will be testifying at this trial. Marketing Chief Phil Schiller and the exec who runs Apple’s software sales, Eddy Cue, will also be there.

The fact that Jobs’ testimony is being incorporated a few years after his death says a lot more about our court system than the case itself. The case was first filed in 2005, and there’s been basically a decade of legal back-and-forth over the issue. Now, almost 10 years later, it’s hard to even remember the days when you could only use iTunes if you had an iPod. In addition, the money that’s up for grabs–the suit is for $350 million–really isn’t that much to a company like Apple. After all, Apple makes about $180 billion in a single year. But it’s gotten pretty used to defending itself in court, and this is just further example of that attitude.

What’s really making the news here isn’t the class-action lawsuit–which to be honest is pretty run of the mill and boring. It’s the fact that Jobs, who has an almost cult-like following, is going to be sort of the “star witness” from the grave. It’s not something that our legal system really imagined, but it could very well help prosecutors prove their case against Apple.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Steve Jobs to Testify Despite Being Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Federal Judge Denise Cote approved a class action settlement agreement in which Apple may begin paying $400 million dollars to as many as 23 million consumers. The suit regarded antitrust law violations that it committed when it conspired to raise e-book prices with book publishers.

According to Publishers Weekly, the settlement terms are as follows:

Apple will pay $400 million to consumers only if the liability finding survives the appeal process; it will pay $50 million if the liability question is vacated or remanded for further proceedings. If the liability finding is reversed on appeal, Apple will pay nothing.

The actions that precipitated the lawsuit started a few years ago. Before 2010, the big-6 publishers (now the big-5 publishers since the Penguin-Random House merger) used the wholesale model to sell e-books. Under the wholesale model, publishers recommended a retail price to a wholesaler and sold the book to the wholesaler for a certain percentage off the publisher’s recommended retail price. The wholesaler then sold the book to the retailer, who set its own e-book prices. For example, a publisher could set a recommended retail price for a book of $15.99, sell the book to the wholesaler for a fifty percent discount of $7.99, and the retailer could then sell the book at $10.99.

Amazon then began selling e-books at $9.99, and publishers initially had trouble competing. In 2010, Apple convinced the big-6 publishers to change business models, and the publishers entered into the agency model. Under the agency model, publishers set the retail price  of an e-book and use retailers as agents to sell the e-book. The retailer then receives thirty percent of the sales price of the e-book, and the publisher receives the remaining seventy percent. For example, a publisher can set a retail e-book price at $15.99, and the retailer must sell the e-book at $15.99; however, the retailer receives thirty percent of the sales price, and the publisher receives the remaining seventy percent.

The Department of Justice soon accused five of the big-6 publishers and Apple of fixing e-book prices to thwart Amazon’s $9.99 e-book price, and the publishers and Apple were later found guilty of violating the Sherman Act. Penguin, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, HarperCollins, and Simon and Schuster paid $75 million, $31 million, $25 million, $19 million, and $17 million in damages respectively to e-book consumers, for a grand total of roughly $167 million in damages.

The potential $400 million class action settlement with Apple is in addition to the $167 million paid in damages by the publishers, so all eyes in the publishing industry will be focused on the Second Circuit on when it hears Apple’s appeal on December 15..

This class action settlement comes at an interesting time in the book publishing industry.  As part of the original DOJ antitrust settlement, Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon Schuster ended their contracts with e-book retailers like Amazon and allowed retailers to renegotiate the contracts. Moreover, the settlement allowed retailers to return to the wholesale model, and the three publishers also agreed to not interfere with price discounts for two years. Now, Hachette and Simon and Schuster have entered into separate agreements with Amazon concerning e-book prices.

Apple and the publishers are undoubtedly hoping for a reversal, but I don’t think that is likely.  We will just have to see what happens.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Approves Apple E-Book Settlement appeared first on Law Street.

Federal Drug Enforcement Agents (DEA) made unannounced visits on Sunday to multiple National Football League teams as part of a continuing investigation. Agents investigated the San Francisco 49ers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Seattle Seahawks. This investigation was fueled by  a class action lawsuit brought against the NFL last summer.

In May 2014, the NFL painkiller lawsuit was brought by approximately 1,300 former players claiming in essence that the team doctors “intentionally, recklessly and negligently created and maintained a culture of drug misuse, substituting players’ health for profit.” Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that since 1969, team doctors have been supplying medications in ways that constituted a dangerous misuse, and that the doctors fraudulently concealed the dangers and side effects from players in order to keep them on the field. They believe that the NFL placed priority of profit before the health of the players. Plaintiffs claim that they have sustained severe injuries from this medical misfeasance, including but not limited to heart attacks, kidney failures, and addiction. The NFL has requested that the federal judge dismiss the suit.

Among other defenses, the NFL is likely to assert that the plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations, which is a legal device to ensure that claims are brought in an efficient matter. Specifically, these statutes set the maximum period in which a plaintiff can wait before filing a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is not brought within the time frame then the right to make a claim on that matter is lost. In some instances, however, a statute of limitations can be extended, or tolled, based on a delay in discovery of the injury. This would enable the plaintiff to have an extended period beyond the statute of limitations to bring such action upon the defendants once injury is discovered, and to prevent unjust enrichment.

In California, the statute of limitations for a personal injury suit is two years. In other words, from the time the cause of action occurred–in this case the date of injury–the plaintiffs’ have two years to bring forth a lawsuit. The NFL will likely argue that the statute of limitations has expired, and bar Plaintiffs from bringing the lawsuit. Specifically, it would argue that some of the specific actions brought within the complaint date back to 1969, which far exceeds the statute of limitations.

Under the delayed discovery rule, the statute of limitations deadline is tolled and time does not start to run until the Plaintiffs’ discover, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injuries or harm and that it was caused by the wrongdoing of the defendants. The plaintiffs’ have argued just that. In their amended complaint, they claim that the statute of limitations should be tolled, on grounds that they had not discovered, and had no good reason to know of their injuries until recently. Specifically, they argue that league doctors did not reveal the names of medications, and there were poor records regarding dispensing medication. Thus, such acts constituted concealment, which ultimately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

The NFL is clearly under a lot of heat at the moment. It still has the NFL Concussion Litigation going on, and the DEA’s visits last Sunday only added fuel to the fire with the current lawsuit. This case is still being heard in the northern district of California on the ruling of NFL’s motion to dismiss, but my gut tells me that there will be no dismissal. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how the statute of limitations arguments play out, and more importantly, what actions are implemented within the NFL.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Painkiller Class Action Lawsuit is a Toss Up Between League and Players appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, October 23, 2014, NBCUniversal agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle claims that it violated labor laws over its unpaid internship program.  NBCUniversal’s decision to settle is pivotal because it marks a huge step toward eliminating unpaid internship programs completely.

The lawsuit against NBCUniversal began when Monet Eliastam, the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, interned at Saturday Night Live for 25 hours per week or more and did not receive compensation. She and other unpaid interns filed a class-action lawsuit and sued NBCUniversal. Elisastam claimed, according to the Hollywood Reporter, that NBCUniversal “misclassified its workers as unpaid interns and thus denied them benefits like a minimum wage salary, overtime pay, social security contributions, and unemployment insurance.”

The Hollywood Reporter further reports that a United States District Court will have to approve the settlement, but if it stands, $1.18 million of the total $6.4 million will go to plaintiffs’ attorneys, Elliastam will receive a $10,000 service payment, and five other plaintiffs will receive service payments of $5,000 and $2,000 rewards. The rest will go to NBCUniversal interns, and the average settlement payment to interns will be $505 for those who interned in New York since July 3, 2007, in California since February 4, 2010, and in other states since February 4, 2011.

Unpaid interns have filed cases against Fox, Sony, Warner Brothers, and Viacom, and companies like Conde Nast have also settled unpaid internship cases. Unpaid internship cases are thus becoming the norm, which it should be.

As a law student, I have had my fair share of unpaid internships. One summer, I worked 35-40 hours per week at an entertainment company and did not receive a dime. Instead, I received credit and had to take an externship class. On the surface, that may not seem terrible because I got to apply three more credits to my total needed to graduate. However, I had to pay a few thousand dollars to take the externship class because the minimum amount of credits that my loan would pay for was six, and my externship class was only three.

It doesn’t take much to realize how unfair that is. Not only did I give the company free labor, but I was out a few thousand dollars in order to get that free labor. Where is the logic in that? There is none.  The unpaid internship system is designed to take total advantage of students just so the student can put that company’s name on his or her resume. The school makes money, and the company gets free labor.

Even for students who take internships or externships during the school year and do not have the student loans issue that I did, no one wants to take a class in addition to interning.  Especially in law school, students are so busy that externship classes take a back seat to a student’s more substantive school work, internships, law journals, and/or moot court.

Moreover, the entertainment companies exist in, not surprisingly, the most expensive cities in the country. Students can’t live on unpaid internships — not when your average lunch in New York City, for example, is around $10 or more. It’s simply not feasible. Yes, you can argue that students can live on student loans, but that misses the point.  Students want to be compensated for their work and be valued as integral employees. It’s as simple as that.

Fortunately, companies are starting to pay interns because companies do not want to be victims, which has been echoed to me in several legal internship interviews.

Hopefully interns will finally begin to get paid for their work across the board, and students will not have to experience what I and millions of other students have.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured image courtesy of [Knot via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBCUniversal Settles With Unpaid Interns for $6.4 Million appeared first on Law Street.

Roger Goodell’s job may be harder than it looks. The ongoing debate over the Redskins name-change seems to have reached its apex under Goodell, and the commissioner’s decision to police illegal hits by increasing fines and penalties has left him with few fans among active players. Still, Goodell’s largest challenge may be satisfying the former players.

Last May several ex-NFL players filed suit in federal court claiming the NFL recklessly and illegally fed players painkillers as a means to keep them on the job. Several players, including ex-Bills star Marcellus Wiley have argued that the amount of painkillers consumed during his playing days left him with partial renal failure in his kidneys. Other players argue that the culture of painkiller dependence turned them into drug addicts upon leaving the league. Former lineman Ross Tucker has defended the NFL, arguing that the plaintiffs are deflecting personal responsibility and just looking for handouts from the League’s deep pockets. But most ex-players don’t feel that way, and that’s a growing problem for Roger Goodell.

While America remains fixated on the record-setting deals for young NFL stars, its often forgotten that many of its old stars are struggling, both physically and financially. The painkillers suit comes on the heels of the League’s concussion suit, another multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by former players. Retired NFL players also recently met with Congressional members to discuss the difficulties they and their caregivers have faced in retirement. Many of their issues stem from the fact that NFL contracts generally remain non-guaranteed, and players’ health benefits expire five years after defection from the League. These issues, combined with the grim reality of the neurodegenerative disease now plaguing many ex-players, have forced retirees to take their former employer to court.

Can Goodell win this game? Experts say that the suit faces numerous hurdles, like obtaining class certification and proving causation. But even if this latest suit is dismissed,  NFL retirees are not likely to go away without a fight.  The National Football League is the world’s top-grossing sports league, (which also happens to be insulated from paying income tax), and Goodell himself was paid more than $44 million as recently as 2012. At some point the NFL is going to have to share a larger part of that pie with its former players by rebooting their pensions. If not, Goodell and his League’s public image may go down faster than a Cadillac off Alligator Alley.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Tom Woodward via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Old People Continue to Harsh NFL’s Mellow appeared first on Law Street.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Low-wage workers are pissed that their multimillion dollar employer pays them next to nothing while spending exorbitantly elsewhere and mooching from the same taxpayers they’re screwing. No I’m not talking about the cashiers at McDonald’s or Wal-Mart or the millions of other employees working at or below minimum wage, I’m talking about the cheering squad for the Cincinnati Bengals. Cheerleaders?! Getting paid?! I know, I know. Next thing you know, gays will want to marry and immigrant soldiers will request a path to citizenship. But these ladies actually seem to have a fair gripe, and their story may be instructive on which direction low-wage American workers are headed.

On February 11, 2014, Cincinnati Ben-Gal cheerleader Alexa Brenneman filed a class-action suit against the Bengals organization on behalf of her cheering squad, alleging that her employer violated federal and state wage laws by paying them less than the minimum wage. In her complaint (which can be read here), Ms. Brenneman argues that she made roughly $855 (or $2.85 an hour) for her work as a Ben-Gal cheerleader in 2013. That work included activities such as required practice, charity appearances, makeup clinics, and photo shoots. Ms. Brenneman also claims Ben-Gal cheerleaders received nothing for the time they spent modeling for and promoting the cheerleader calendar, and they were routinely condescended by Bengals management. The statement below, seemingly authored by Big Brother, is from the organization’s Ben-Gal Rules:

Insubordination: Webster defines this word as “not submitting to authority; disobedient.” Syn. Rebellious, mutinous, defiant. Insubordination to even the slightest degree IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED!!! You will be benched or dismissed!!!

Authority: ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUING OR QUESTIONING THE PERSON IN AUTHORITY!!!

Ms. Brenneman’s argument isn’t one of a kind. Less than a month earlier, a Raiderettes cheerleader sued the Oakland Raiders for similar wage violations. On a more temporary basis, unpaid interns and volunteers have begun organizing their class-action wage suits against movie studios, publishing moguls, and Major League Baseball.  So why all the hostility?

Beyond the inability to make ends meet, the unpaid and low paid could be upset with the massive pay inequality occurring throughout the country. Labor is becoming cheaper and more dispensable, yet ceo pay is continuing to grow, and is often due to the good fortune and political maneuvering that is not available to the average American.

The Cincinnati Bengals may exemplify this point. The Bengals are owned by Mike Brown, the prodigal son of Bengals founder and NFL mogul, Paul Brown. Mike Brown has owned the team since 1991 when he inherited responsibility upon his father’s passing. Since then, he has widely been criticized, often for poor hiring decisions and for refusing to cede management control of player personnel despite amassing one of the worst records in football during his tenure as owner.

Mike Brown is also despised for conning Hamilton County, Ohio into bankrolling a new stadium for his team. In 1995, Brown threatened to move his team to Baltimore if the county didn’t pay for a new stadium. His tactics worked. Brown, a Republican political donor, secured public financing for his new stadium, which would be paid for in part by increased sales and property taxes in Hamilton County. Paul Brown Stadium is still considered one of the costliest publicly financed stadiums in the country, while Mike Brown and his team continue to make millions.

Although the outrage among low-level Bengals workers may be palpable, things are unlikely to become more fair. Instead of increasing wages, employers often double down on the theory that interns and low-wage workers are expendable by eliminating their position entirely. Condé Nast has ended their internship program after they were sued for wage violations last June. In the world of cheerleading, six NFL teams have nixed their squads, and you can bet this number is likely to grow. Just as employers seek to avoid health care expenses, they seek to avoid costly litigation. So although the Ben-Gals squad may be victorious in their class-action lawsuits, professional cheerleaders as a whole may be the latest group of workers left with nothing to cheer about.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Breeze via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post NFL Cheerleaders Are Latest Americans Fed Up With Low Wages appeared first on Law Street.

Online dating becomes more popular with each passing year. In 2013, 38 percent of singles reported having used an online dating site or some sort of mobile app. But in order to secure a successful online date, it takes time and effort to weed out all of the duds–after all, approximately 1 in 10 online dating profiles is faked.

Now, when I say faked, I’m not saying that people are lying about their looks, or amount of children, or whether they’re actually ready to settle down with the right girl. To be honest, if we included those kinds of relatively harmless fibs, I’m sure the number would go way over 1 in 10. I’m talking about faked profiles purely for the purpose of Internet fraud.

Internet fraud is not new. I know that I’ve received those horrifying emails from friends and family claiming someone has been kidnapped or robbed while in an exotic location, and they need me to wire $15,000 to a random location at least half a dozen times. And don’t even get me started on those spam emails where someone introduces themselves as a member of royalty, informs me they are getting their inheritance in a few weeks and will pay me some exorbitant fee, but just need some money to tide them over. The propositions are ridiculous, annoying, and unbelievable, yet thousands of people fall for them annually. In 2011, The Internet Crime Complaint Center reported 315,000 fraud claims, but there were probably many more that did not get reported.

One of the newest waves of such Internet schemes has been taking place on dating websites. And at least one scam on the popular dating site Match.com has ended in abject tragedy. In 2010, a 70-year-old Yonkers man named Al Circelli was contacted by a profile pretending to be a beautiful young woman in Ghana named Aisha. “Aisha” corresponded with the man for over a year, built up a rapport with him, and then informed him that she was in financial struggle. The profile scammed $50,000 out of Circelli until he went broke and actually had to borrow money from his son in an attempt to help her out. When he found out that it had all been a scam, he committed suicide.

Now, Match.com is being sued by a woman named Yuliana Avalos, and other unnamed plaintiffs. “Aisha” had been using Avalos’s modeling photos during her attempt to extort money from Circelli. Avalos claims that her pictures are used constantly on the site; at this point she has discovered at least 200 fake profiles in her likeness. While Avalos has become the face of this lawsuit, the others involved in the suit also tend to be young, attractive, and relatively visible women whose public personas have been co-opted to create fraudulent profiles.

According to the plaintiffs, it would be pretty easy to prevent this fraud from happening. There is facial recognition software that could pinpoint multiple profiles using the same photographs. And there are ways to track computers’ IP addresses to see if the computer on which the profile was created actually matches the city on the profile. She claims that the site knows about these fake profiles, but doesn’t necessarily do anything to stop them because even fake profiles inflate the number of users the site is able to report. The class action lawsuit is currently $1.5 billion.

A similar suit regarding fake profiles on Match.com was dismissed a few years ago. In regards to Avalos’s lawsuit, a Match.com spokesman has already claimed that the lawsuit is baseless, stating “the real scam here is this meritless lawsuit, which is filled with outlandish conspiracy theories and clumsy fabrications in lieu of factual or legal basis. We’re confident that our legal system is as adept as we are at detecting scammers and will dismiss this case in short order.”

Match.com absolutely needs to start working harder to weed out scam profiles. People pay for their service, and they should be guaranteed that they are only interacting with real profiles. That being said, I’m not sure how effective Avalos’s lawsuit will be. According to the claim, the defendants (Match.com and its subsidiaries) were cognizant of these fake profiles and broke laws by not removing them. From reading the complaint, the plaintiffs do seem to have identified a large number of fake profiles. But the question is, was it Match.com’s job to police these profiles? If so, could it be, for example, Google’s job to prevent fake emails? Companies can only do so much. Hopefully, Avalos’s lawsuit will help define those hazy parameters.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [maya elaine via DeviantArt]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Match.com May Pay Heavy Price for Fake Profiles appeared first on Law Street.