Revised Travel Ban Takes Effect Tonight

This evening, the new version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban will go partially into effect. On Monday, the Supreme Court said “okay” to parts of the revised travel ban, but will hear the case in the fall. SCOTUS aims to probe how much control a president can actually have over border and immigration issues.

The court said this implementation of the ban would not affect those who can prove a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Last night, the State Department issued guidelines for how to decide such cases. It says that individuals such as step-siblings, half-siblings, parents, in-laws, and sons- and daughters-in-law are considered close family. However, grandparents, nieces, nephews, or brothers- and sisters-in-law are not.

Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen are the countries that will be affected. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU immigrants’ rights project, said the ruling worries him, as it could create arbitrary definitions of what close family relations are.

Under revised #TravelBan taking effect tonight at 8p ET “close family” excludes grandparents, aunts & uncles, & fiancées, among others pic.twitter.com/TQY3pVFcdd

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 29, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Right now, it truly does feel like there are a lot of crazy lawsuits out there. Krispy Kreme was just sued over allegedly-fake berry flavored donuts. Starbucks has been sued  multiple times for not filling drinks enough. Sofia Vergara is currently being sued by her own frozen embryos. There’s a lot of lawsuits. And if you ask anyone what event started this era of (arguably unnecessary) litigiousness in the United States, most would point to the famous “McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit.” But do you actually know the truth behind that lawsuit? TruTV’s “Adam Ruins Everything” took on the topic recently, with an eye-opening segment:

Adam Conover, the host of the comedy/myth debunking show, points out that the 1993 lawsuit was actually pretty legitimate. The 79-year-old woman who spilled the McDonald’s coffee on herself was severely burned and ultimately disabled. The coffee was served at 180 degrees, much hotter than it needed to be. And she didn’t even want to sue McDonald’s, but needed money to pay for her medical bills.

So why do we all remember the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit as such a ridiculous part of legal history? According to Conover, that rumor came from corporations who didn’t want to be sued, in a disinformation campaign to discourage “silly” lawsuits.

And it’s important to note that McDonald’s is still facing allegations that its coffee is way too hot. Earlier this year, two plaintiffs sued the fast food company after they spilled coffee hot enough to cause 2nd-degree burns. Starbucks has also been party to similar suits. While it’s less work for chains to brew coffee super hot to ensure it lasts longer and less people complain that it’s cold, it can be dangerous. And as for the woman who sued McDonald’s originally, as Conover pointed out, she should really be viewed as a hero.

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 Do You Know the Truth About the McDonald’s Coffee 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.

President Obama signed a bill this week that closes a nearly 85-year-old trade loophole allowing the import of slave-produced goods into the United States. The new regulations, which will affect a long list of goods known to be created by child or forced labor, will go into effect in about two weeks.

The loophole allowing goods made by child or forced labor into the United States is found in the Tariff Act of 1930. While these types of goods are traditionally prohibited under U.S. law, there’s an exception in the tariff–“consumptive demand.” Essentially what that means is that if it’s impossible to supply the domestic demand without importing products made via child or forced labor, those products are allowed to be imported.

The list of products that these new regulations will affect most heavily are cotton, sugarcane, tobacco, coffee, cattle, and fish. The Department of Labor’s list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor also includes things like gold, diamonds, electronics, and pornography–depending of course on the producing country.

There’s been a particular focus on the use of forced labor in the Thai fishing industry, after a number of exposes written over the last year have exposed the use of trafficked Rohingya migrants as slave workers on Thai fishing boats. According to the Guardian:

Hundreds of people are thought to have been traded as slaves to support Thailand’s $7.3bn seafood industry. Costco and CP Foods are facing a lawsuit, filed in California, to prevent the sale of Thai prawns/shrimp tainted by slavery. In January, European Union investigators visited Thailand to see whether it had made enough progress on the issue of slavery to avoid an EU-wide ban on seafood imports from the country.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) proposed the amendment that closed the loophole, and now his office is asking the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency to begin enforcing the new roles as soon as they go into effect in 15 days. Brown stated:

It’s embarrassing that for 85 years, the United States let products made with forced labor into this country, and closing this loophole gives the U.S. an important tool to fight global slavery.

Brown is right–while this may mean less choices for consumers in the U.S., it will be a comfort to know that we no longer lend such support to forced labor.

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 President Obama Bans Import of Slave-Produced Goods appeared first on Law Street.

Almost everyone recognizes the familiar mug of Grumpy Cat, a.k.a. Tardar Sauce. But what you might not know is that her likeness is actually owned by a company, Grumpy Cat Ltd., a multi-millionaire dollar merchandising brand. Now, Grumpy Cat Ltd. is suing a coffee company, Grenade Beverages, over copyright claims.

The lawsuit was filed in a federal court, the Central District of California. According to its lawsuit, Grumpy Cat Ltd. gave Grenade Beverages permission to use Grumpy Cat’s likeness and photo for a particular beverage: the “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino.” However, Grumpy Cat Ltd. is claiming that Grenade overstepped that agreement, and used Grumpy Cat’s likeness for other products, including ground coffee beans, despite the fact that Grumpy Cat Ltd. specifically told it not to.

The complaint filed by Grumpy Cat Ltd. goes into Grumpy Cat’s meteoric rise to success in a way that is truly entertaining to discover in legal papers. The complaint states:

After a picture of Grumpy Cat was posted to the internet in 2012, her name and likeness spread like wildfire across the globe garnering worldwide media attention. GrumpyCat has since appeared in numerous major television shows (including Today, Good Morning America, American Idol, and The Bachelorette,) has been featured on the front page of major periodicals such as The Wall Street Journal and New York Magazine, starred in advertisements for Cheerios and McDonalds, starred in her own Lifetime Television Christmas movie, “authored” three (3) books that debuted on the New York Times bestsellers list, and even has her own animatronic waxwork at MadameTussauds in San Francisco.

The lawsuit also accuses Grenade Beverages of something called cybersquatting. According to International Business Times that means “running a website domain that takes advantage of a trademark belonging to someone else. Grenade Beverages’ website is grumpycat.com. Grumpy Cat Ltd.’s website is grumpycats.com.”

Grenade Beverages’ partner Paul Sanford told Eater that “there isn’t a single factual allegation contained in the entire complaint, not one.” It will be interesting to see how this case fares in court, but it seems like Grumpy Cat’s company is in it to win it–the complaint even began: the “Defendants’ despicable misconduct here has actually given Grumpy Cat and her owners something to be grumpy about.”

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 A Strange Tail: Grumpy Cat Sues Coffee Maker for Copyright Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of the week from these lawyers and law students. No summer vacation for you!

Macho Lawyering

My take on #macho #lawyering — dismissing vicarious #trauma ignores fundamental #ableism & #sexism in the #workplace http://t.co/xQGrr2CZQZ

— Jennifer Polish (@JenniferPolish) June 4, 2015

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

First of all let me just say this up front: I’m sorry. I’m sorry that it’s finals seasons. It’s tortuous and stressful and you probably can’t keep your eyes open or your brain at a normal speed. Wish I could help ya, but really all I can say is that the end is near and you totally earned a five-minute break to flip through this slideshow of people who are suffering too. Check out the best legal tweets of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=29751 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s finally Friday and I know you need a break. Don’t pretend you don’t. There’s no shame in it. This was a LONG week. Know who it was ever longer for? Law students and lawyers, you poor dears. So go get your sixth cup of coffee, put on your serious space-creating face, and check out the best legal tweets of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=28817 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

If there are two things common to basically every law student ever, it’s this:

1. You’re exhausted in every possible way imaginable and subsisting on caffeine; and,

2. There’s no point in even thinking about the 30 years it’s going to take you to pay off your student debt.

Lucky for (a handful of) you, Starbucks announced its new “Starbucks for Life” campaign.

Courtesy of Giphy

What is this amazing, sent-from-the-heavens development you ask? Well, we’re not exactly sure — they’re being fairly tight-lipped about it. But what we do know is that later this winter the coffee mega-chain is launching a campaign in which 100 lucky people will win a free food item or drink everyday for 30 years. Which, conveniently, is exactly the same as your loan period so you can be wide awake for every day of it.

Maybe this was a little gem that Oprah thought up while she and CEO Howard Schultz thought up while brainstorming Oprah Chai — YOU GET 30 YEARS OF STARBUCKS! AND YOU GET 30 YEARS OF STARBUCKS! EVERYBODY GETS 30 YEARS OF STARBUCKS!

Courtesy of Giphy.

(It’s a tough call in this moment whether I’d rather have 30 years of free coffee or an Oprah-gifted car…the coffee sounds amazing right now.) However it developed, I can’t wait to compete. Or, OK, probably by “compete” I mean use my Starbucks app a bunch of times and spend a ton of money hoping to increase my chances of winning. Is that how it works? We’ll see.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Starbucks for Life Campaign: You’re Welcome Law Students appeared first on Law Street.