American Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah has filed a defamation lawsuit against a white supremacist website, the Daily Stormer, after it published an article accusing him of being the mastermind behind the terror attack in Manchester.

The Daily Stormer was recently kicked off of its domain on GoDaddy and was denied service by Google and a Chinese webhost. After the controversial website published a hateful, demeaning article about Heather Heyer, who was killed in Charlottesville last weekend, the website has been even more ostracized than before.

But on Wednesday, the site was live again for a few hours through a Russian domain. In a new article, the writers praised President Trump and claimed his relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for the website’s new domain. But Roskomnadzor, Russia’s watchdog monitoring hateful content on the internet, requested the Russia Network Information Center to take it down, which it did.

Obeidallah filed his suit around the same time, alleging that the Daily Stormer caused him to receive death threats and suffer from emotional distress. The publication first started targeting him after he wrote a piece for the Daily Beast in 2015, in which he urged the Republican Party to speak out against the white nationalists who supported Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Today I filed a lawsuit against The Daily Stormer and Andrew Anglin for defamation – there are not two sides to white supremacy. pic.twitter.com/AZxysvqykt

— (((DeanObeidallah))) (@Deanofcomedy) August 16, 2017

In response, the Daily Stormer wrote an article calling Obeidallah a terrorist. Then in June of this year, Obeidallah wrote another article and questioned why Trump wouldn’t use the phrase “white supremacist terrorism.” In response, the Daily Stormer published a text with the headline, “Dean Obeidallah, Mastermind Behind Manchester Bombing, Calls on Trump to Declare Whites the Real Terrorists.”

After that article, some people actually believed Obeidallah was a terrorist, and he started receiving threats. The Daily Stormer even fabricated tweets to look like Obeidallah had written them, taking responsibility for the terror attack in Manchester in May. One of them praised Allah and another said he had fled to safety in Syria.

“Defendants took numerous steps, including mixing fact with falsehood, in an effort to create confusion and convince readers that the entirety of the Article is, in fact, true,” the lawsuit says. The Daily Stormer’s publisher, Andrew Anglin, and ten other people who republished the article are listed as defendants. None of them have responded.

“Right wing publications have come after me for years for everything from my progressive views to the fact I’m Muslim–that’s par for the course. But I had never, ever seen anything like this,” Obeidallah said.

The lawsuit also states that the Daily Stormer is among the 200 most frequented websites in America, with over 3 million monthly visitors. Though it claims to publish news stories, it intentionally spread false information, the lawsuit says. But maybe this suit can help other victims of defamation. “No one deserves to be defamed and threatened online by a racist neo-Nazi mob simply for expressing your ideas and beliefs,” Obeidallah said.

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 Comedian Sues the Daily Stormer for Accusing Him of Manchester Terror Attack appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of controversial alt-right writer Milo Yiannopoulos, a decision that surprised and upset many. The organization claims that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) violated Yiannopoulos’ right to free speech by removing ads for his new book from the transit system. The ads were not removed until after people had complained about them.

Yiannopoulos, the outspoken Breitbart editor, has made controversial comments about many groups, including feminists, women, trans people, and gay people. Ironically, he’s slammed the ACLU in the past.

The ACLU routinely defends the First Amendment rights of people not sharing its political views, which lean to the left. The organization has so far tended to be critical of the Trump Administration. But it also makes a point of defending the constitutional rights of everyone, regardless of ideology. “When we give government the power to regulate speakers based on their identity or their perceived level of offense, it reduces speech for all of us,” Lee Rowland, a staff attorney at the ACLU, pointed out.

But the decision to defend Milo–a man who has said that transgender people are mentally ill and that feminism is a cancer–was too much even for some people working at the ACLU. On Wednesday, attorney Chase Strangio posted a statement criticizing the decision on Twitter.

“Milo preys on the deep-seated hatred for Black people, other people of color, trans people, immigrants, Muslim people and women that is sadly a central tenet of our social fabric and political system,” Strangio wrote. “He is vile. And I am sorry for any platform and validation that he receives.”

Here is my personal statement on today’s ACLU lawsuit defending that horrible person. I speak only for myself. pic.twitter.com/4KzsoqnmUn

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) August 9, 2017

A lot of people seemed to agree with Strangio and many longtime supporters declared that they do not see the point in working with someone who is so hateful against so many.

You have literally no reason to include him in this case except to grab headlines and milk his fans for donation dollars.

— Lulu Diavolo (@SatansJacuzzi) August 9, 2017

As a long-time ACLU supporter, I could not possibly disagree more. What a wrong-headed position. https://t.co/j96WlB8gtN

— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) August 10, 2017

But others saw the value in always standing up for First Amendment rights.

I cannot STAND this guy. But he has the right to speak, just like we all do.

— Deletrix (@DeletrixV) August 10, 2017

Arthur Spitzer, who is acting as lead counsel on the case, said that it is important to keep defending the constitutional rights of even those who are seen as the most despicable. “We always get some when we defend unpopular people. When we recently supported the Redskins’ right to keep their registered trademarks, we got similar reactions, internally and externally,” he said.

After Strangio’s statement went public, some questioned how it’s okay for him to express views that run counter to his employer’s. Spitzer said the ACLU has 1,000 employees and that it would be impossible for everyone to agree on every case they take. He said all employees and board members can always use their right to free speech to state their opinions, as long as they are clear that it’s their personal opinion and not that of the ACLU, which Strangio did.

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 ACLU Attorney Criticizes Decision to Work With Milo Yiannopoulos appeared first on Law Street.

Three victims of the CIA’s torture program have filed a lawsuit against the program’s two creators. On Monday, a Washington judge ruled that the case can go to trial.

The plaintiffs in this suit are Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania; Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya; and the estate of Gul Rhaman of Afghanistan. All three were detainees in a CIA prison in 2003. The first two are now free and living in their home countries. The third died in prison.

The defendants are James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, former U.S. military psychologists who designed the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” in November 2001. Reportedly, the government paid them between $75 and $81 million for their plans.

This is the first CIA torture lawsuit to survive past the pretrial discovery phase. Prior to this, the Bush and Obama Administrations intervened, arguing that the suits put state secrets at risk.

However, a Senate intelligence committee report published in 2014 provided many details that the administrations had tried to keep secret. It confirmed that the CIA tortured 39 people, including the plaintiffs, at a secret prison codenamed “Cobalt.”

According to the report, Salim and Ben Soud’s torture included beatings, sleep deprivation, shackling in stress positions, and waterboarding. In addition, Rhaman died of hypothermia after his interrogators doused him with water and left him in a freezing room overnight.

In a pretrial hearing on July 28, the defense attorneys argued that providing a memo to the CIA does not count as aiding and abetting torture. It was the U.S. government, not Mitchell and Jessen, who conducted the program.

At one point, the defense team compared their clients to the manufacturers who developed the gas used in Nazi execution chambers. The British military tribunal, the lawyers pointed out, did not try those manufacturers for what the Nazis did.

Judge Justin Quackenbush rejected those arguments, ruling that the evidence indicated that Mitchell and Jessen themselves supported using torture on the CIA prisoners. Not only that, he found it “undisputed” that the psychologists used the techniques themselves on the CIA’s first detainee, Abu Zubaydah. Jessen was “physically involved” in Rhaman’s torture as well.

“Defendants have not established they merely acted at the direction of the government, within the scope of their authority, and that such authority was legally and validly conferred,” he decided.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) first filed the suit on behalf of the three plaintiffs in 2015.

“The court’s ruling means that for the first time, individuals responsible for the brutal and unlawful CIA torture program will face meaningful legal accountability for what they did,” ACLU attorney Dror Ladin told the Guardian. “Our clients have waited a long time for justice.”

The trial will begin on September 5.

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 CIA Torture Victims Sue Program Designers appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of 12-year-old Mallory Grossman are suing her school district in the wake of her suicide in June. They believe that the school was negligent when it ignored allegations that Mallory’s classmates were cyberbullying her.

According to the suit, Mallory’s classmates at Copeland Middle School had been bullying her since October of last year. She told her parents right away. After that, Seth and Dianne Grossman approached administrators of the Rockaway Township School District on a monthly basis, trying to speak to someone about their daughter’s ordeal.

However, although the administrators told them that the school was investigating the matter, they ultimately dismissed the parents’ concerns.

“I‘m going to make the assumption that the school did something, but I’m also going to make the assumption, based on where we are today, that they didn’t do enough,” Mrs. Grossman told NBC News.

According to Bruce Nagel, the family’s attorney, the classmates’ cruel messages were the cause of Mallory’s death. “There were texts, there was Snapchat, there was Instagram, for months she was told she’s a loser, she had no friends and finally she was even told, ‘Why don’t you kill yourself?’,” he said in a statement.

Photos accompanying at least two of the malicious Instagram posts were taken on school grounds. Nagel’s office has not yet released or independently verified the texts.

Mallory’s classmates also allegedly bullied her in person, giving her “dirty looks” and excluding her from their lunch table.

In response to the torment, Mallory’s grades dropped from As and Bs to Cs and Ds. She complained of headaches and stomachaches to get out of going to school.

At one point, the school met with the parents to discuss Mallory’s failing grades. However, Mrs. Grossman claims that “they were not at that time concerned with her emotional well being.”

Hours before Mallory took her own life on June 14, Mrs. Grossman appealed directly to the mother of one of the bullies. “I can tell you that the mother dismissed it, said it was just a big joke and that I really shouldn’t worry about it,” she said. “Even after I asked her daughter to please stop texting Mallory, three minutes later a text message — a series of text messages — came through from that child.”

Nagel claims that he has identified “three or four” of Mallory’s bullies. He also said that the Grossmans are considering bringing legal action against the bullies’ families.

On Wednesday, Rockaway Township Superintendent Greg McGann released a statement on the school district’s website.

Because the case is still under investigation by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, and also the subject of a tort claim, under the advice of legal counsel, The Rockaway Township School District cannot discuss this case in public or with media. The teachers, staff and administrators within the Rockaway Township School District are, as they have always been, and will continue to be, committed to protecting the rights and safety for all our students.

Last year, the district released a self-assessment report on how it dealt with bullies. Copeland Middle School received a 74 out of 78.

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 N.J. Parents Sue School District After Daughter’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning government watchdog group, announced that as a result of its recent lawsuit, the government will have to turn over logs and records of individuals who visited Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s Florida residence.

CREW filed the lawsuit alongside the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act. The group has been working to reveal visitor logs for the White House, Mar-a-Lago, and Trump Tower in New York City.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security says it has no records of people visiting Trump Tower. The lawsuit regarding the White House records is ongoing.

“The public deserves to know who is coming to meet with the president and his staff,” CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “We are glad as a result of this case, this information will become public for meetings at his personal residences–but it needs to be public for meetings at the White House as well.”

District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla wrote in her ruling: “The Secret Service will complete its search for and processing of responsive ‘records of presidential visitors at Mar-a-Lago,’ and produce any non-exempt responsive records, by September 8, 2017.” CREW says it plans to share the information publicly once it’s released.

Amidst promises to “drain the swamp” and allegations of collusion with foreign officials, Trump’s poorly-disclosed private dealings have been at the heart of public debate in recent months.

The public has essentially been prevented from knowing which lobbyists, political donors, and others the president is meeting with behind closed doors, making it difficult to fully comprehend Trump’s allegiances and stances on issues.

The Mar-a-Lago visitor logs may prove to be revelatory because of the unique role the estate has played since Trump took office. In a sense, Mar-a-Lago, which the president affectionately refers to as the “Southern White House,” best represents Trump: a mix of his gold-plated private life, his business ties, and now, his executive power.

The venue has controversially served as the backdrop for high-profile diplomatic visits with foreign leaders as well as numerous costly golf weekends for the president.

This lawsuit is not CREW’s first attempt to compel transparency from the White House. The group also sued the Obama Administration, which agreed to release White House visitor logs as part of a settlement. That effort began during the Bush Administration before it was settled with President Obama. Since 2009, about 6 million visitor records were made public.

In April, the Trump Administration announced it would end this practice, citing “grave national security risks.” Currently, the website where the logs were previously published is blank and reads: “Thank you for your interest in this subject. Stay tuned as we continue to update whitehouse.gov.”

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 Judge Orders Trump to Release Mar-a-Lago Visitor Logs appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, the European Union Court of Human Rights upheld Belgium’s 2011 ban on wearing the full-face veil, also known as the niqab, in public places.

This decision comes after two Muslim women mounted a legal challenge to the ban, claiming that it violated their civil rights. Belgian national Samia Belcacemi and Moroccan national Yamina Oussar both say they voluntarily choose to wear the niqab and that in not being able to, their right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Oussar reportedly told the court that she decided to stay home after the ban was introduced in fear of legal repercussions. Belcacemi continued to wear the veil for a period, but stopped because of societal pressure and fear that she would be heavily fined.

Under the law, individuals who fail to comply with the law regarding full-face coverings face penalties ranging from a hefty fine to imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The European Court of Human Rights upholds a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public pic.twitter.com/S1unR1Y4Dq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) July 11, 2017

Siding with Belgium’s legislature in a unanimous vote, the seven-person panel said a statement that the ban is “necessary in a democratic society” and that the Belgian law is meant to ensure “public safety, equality between men and women and a certain concept of living together in a society.”

A hot-button issue in Europe

The topic of people’s freedom of religious expression in the public sphere has been at the forefront of European politics for several years now.

Belgium is not the first country to take a stance against the niqab or burqa. France banned full-face veils in 2010, and since then, at least 10 other European countries have placed limitations on Islamic dress. Just last month, Norwegian legislators proposed a ban on full-face veils in public schools and universities. The bans are largely seen as a response to the influx of refugees in the region. In Belgium, the 2016 terror attacks have also intensified the debate.

Federal Pensions Minister Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of Belgium’s Reformist Movement party, said on Twitter he was delighted at the court’s announcement, which he believes will strengthen Belgians’ ability to live together.

“To forbid the veil as a covering is to give them more freedom,” Baquelaine said back in 2010 before the law passed. “If we want to live together in a free society, we need to recognize each other.”

Since the E.U. court’s decision, human rights groups have expressed their discontent with the ruling.

“Fostering human relations is a laudable goal,” wrote Hillary Margolis, the Women’s Division Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But forcing women to choose between wearing what they want and being able to appear in public isn’t the way to do it.”

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 EU Human Rights Court Upholds Belgian Ban on Full-Face Veil appeared first on Law Street.

The main organizer of Fyre Festival has been arrested and charged with wire fraud, according to court documents that were unsealed Friday.

Billy McFarland, 25, is accused of defrauding investors in his company, Fyre Media, and Fyre Festival. The now-infamous music festival was promoted on social media by models and celebrities, who touted it as a luxurious paradise in the Bahamas for those who could afford the $1,500 (minimum) ticket price. But when Fyre Festival attendees arrived on the island, they described it as a “post-apocalyptic nightmare.”

McFarland could face up to 20 years in prison if found guilty, according to a release from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. McFarland was released on $300,000 bail Saturday, after a hearing that focused largely on McFarland’s wealth and lavish lifestyle.

According to the criminal complaint, McFarland, as founder and CEO of Fyre Media and its subsidiary, Fyre Festival, misrepresented his company’s earnings and his personal wealth, and “perpetrated a scheme to defraud individuals by inducing at least two investors to invest approximately $1.2 million.”

“McFarland promoted the Fyre Festival in part by claiming that it would bring a global audience together to share a life changing experience,” the complaint reads. “Ultimately, the Fyre Festival was widely deemed to have been a failure.”

The complaint was sworn to by Brandon Racz, a special agent with the F.B.I. who is assigned to the White Collar Fraud squad in the agency’s New York Division. At least two individuals were identified in the complaint as having invested $1.2 million in Fyre Media and Fyre Festival. However, investigators believe there could be more than 80 investors involved, according to the New York Times.

Fyre Media began as an website through which users could book artists and celebrities for events. McFarland allegedly distributed documents to potential investors, claiming that the company had pulled in millions of dollars in revenue from these bookings. However, the company had really earned less than $60,000.

McFarland also misrepresented his personal wealth, according to the complaint. In one example, McFarland provided at least one investor with documents that purported to show that he owned more than $2.5 million in stock in a particular company. In reality, he only owned less than  $1,500, and had altered a Scottrade account statement to make it appear that he owned more.

In the press release, Joon Kim, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, called Fyre Festival a “disaster.”

“As alleged, William McFarland promised a ‘life changing’ music festival but in actuality delivered a disaster,” Kim said. “McFarland allegedly presented fake documents to induce investors to put over a million dollars into his company and the fiasco called the Fyre Festival. Thanks to the investigative efforts of the FBI, McFarland will now have to answer for his crimes.”

McFarland’s co-organizer, rapper Ja Rule, has not been arrested. The pair face more than a dozen lawsuits related to Fyre Festival, including one seeking $100 million in damages for disappointed Fyre-goers.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fyre Festival Organizer Arrested, Charged With Wire Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

It has been nearly 10 years since then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin could not name a single newspaper that she read to stay informed in an interview with Katie Couric. But it appears that she has learned to occasionally peruse national publications since then, as the former Alaska governor filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Times in response to an editorial that linked her to the 2011 shooting of Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords.

Palin’s lawyers claim that the connection was published “knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm.” They also added that by keeping the editorial up, the Times “violated the law and its own policies.”

The editorial in question–titled “America’s Lethal Politics”–drew a parallel between the June 14 shooting that injured Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) and several others at a baseball field in Alexandria, and the 2011 shooting in Arizona. The piece said that both attacks were incited by political rhetoric which has become a “sickeningly familiar pattern.”

“Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs,” it read at one point. It also went on to draw connections between that advertisement and the shooter’s motivation to attack Giffords, despite a Times article from earlier this year that rejected that notion. The Times’ opinion section corrected these concerns the next day and later tweeted out an apology.

The $75,000 defamation suit claims the newspaper’s correction and subsequent apology were “devoid of any reference to Mrs. Palin” and were “woefully insufficient.”

Essentially Palin is arguing that the editorial published by the Times was libelous. Because the defamation in question was published as a written work, the suit would have to follow the legal standards of a libel case. Palin is a “public figure”–specifically an “all-purpose public figure”–meaning she is someone whose fame or position regularly puts them in the public eye. The courts decided in the 70s–ironically through a case that also involved the Times–that public figures have to prove “actual malice”–meaning the statements about the person were published with reckless disregard for whether they were false or true. In other words, Palin’s lawyers need to show that the alleged false statements in the editorial were published intentionally, or with total disregard for the truth.

If it seems like this is a high standard that is tough to prove, it’s because it is. Especially given this situation. Most statements made in editorials are defended as opinion. Even if the court does not consider the statements to be opinions, it might be even more difficult to prove her reputation was damaged. When Sarah Palin’s contract with Fox News ended in 2015, FiveThirtyEight found that her favorability rating was at an all time low, even among Republicans. It is difficult to defame the character of someone who is already not viewed too highly, especially when the average Times reader is left-leaning. Some might even argue that this situation has made Palin more sympathetic. While it was expected that conservatives would cheer the lawsuit, even the Washington Post was quick to call out the Times for its mistake.

There is a chance, as there always is, that she could win this case. Palin’s legal team includes one of the lawyers from the famous case in which Hulk Hogan sued Gawker into oblivion for publishing his sex tape. The Columbia Journalism Review referenced this case–among others–as “evidence that the growing unpopularity of media may translate into less-sympathetic jury pools.”

Regardless of how this case turns out, the Times publishing a debunked talking point is far from a good look for the publication. At best, the editorial board lazily tried to remind readers that Sarah Palin did put out an ad with crosshairs of a gun sight over districts with Democrats that voted for the Affordable Care Act with the phrase “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”, and the next day vandals happened to smash in her office’s windows. At worst, the board committed libel against a woman who promoted birtherism and claimed that former president Barack Obama spent $2 million to hide his real birth certificate.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Sarah Palin’s Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Succeed? appeared first on Law Street.

A man in California thought he was burying his son. Frank J. Kerrigan spent $20,000 on the funeral ceremony and accepted that his son, Frank M. Kerrigan, was gone. But 11 days after the funeral he found out the person in the casket was someone else. Understandably, he was shocked when a friend called and put his son on the line

The Orange County coroner misidentified Kerrigan’s son, who is 57 and has a mental illness and is living on the streets. Police said he was identified through fingerprints, and so identification by family members was unnecessary. But the Kerrigan family’s attorney said the fingerprint identification failed, so officials instead used an old driver’s license photo.

“When somebody tells me my son is dead, when they have fingerprints, I believe them,” Kerrigan said.

Apparently the men must have looked very much alike, as the family did not realize the mistake despite having an open casket at the funeral. Now family members are planning to sue the coroner’s office, saying that authorities didn’t care much about making a positive identification of Kerrigan because he is homeless.

Father buries his son in $20k funeral – then told days later that the coroner made a mistake and his son is ALIVE! https://t.co/Qr0cpWM5La pic.twitter.com/Qzv8hNR2BI

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) June 24, 2017

Frank’s sister Carole Meikle visited the scene where she believed her brother had died. “It was a very difficult situation for me to stand at a pretty disturbing scene. There was blood and dirty blankets,” she said.

It is unclear how the man passed away, but the bloody scene did not match what officials had told the family–that Frank passed away “peacefully.” The dead man’s identity is unknown.

Frank chose to go back to the streets. But because of the authorities’ mistake, federal agencies also think Frank is dead and have stopped providing his disability payments. The family is currently working on straightening the situation out.

The Kerrigans informed the authorities of the mix-up, and the Sheriff’s Department extended regrets for “any emotional stress caused as a result of this unfortunate incident. As part of the internal investigation, this incident and all identification policies and procedures will be reviewed to ensure no further misidentifications occur.”

A lot of people came from as far as Las Vegas and Washington to attend the funeral, and the dead man was buried close to Frank’s mother’s grave, in a spot reserved for family members. “We thought we were burying our brother,” said Meikle. “Someone else had a beautiful send-off. It’s horrific.”

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 Family Buries Wrong Person After Coroner Mix-Up appeared first on Law Street.

A man who was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance last year, but somehow managed to jump out of it, is now suing New York City, the Fire Department, and the four medical workers in the vehicle. He claims it’s their fault that he injured himself in the fall, as they failed to stop him from jumping out of the ambulance.

This seems like a lawsuit that the plaintiff–Yaugeni Kralkin from Staten Island–could not possibly win. But the snag is that he was very drunk–by the time a second ambulance picked up the then-unconscious man and took him to the hospital, his blood-alcohol level was .34. So it was likely higher when he was in the first ambulance.

For the record, you are not allowed to drive in New York when your blood alcohol concentration is .08 or above. A level of .16 can cause severe impairment to speech, judgment, and memory and cause unconsciousness. A blood alcohol level between .31 and .45 is life threatening.

So considering the amount of alcohol Kralkin, who is 56, had in his blood, it is safe to believe he didn’t make very thought-out decisions that night. Kralkin said he had just returned from a long-haul drive to California–he drives a truck–and was looking forward to seeing his wife and son. But he got into a fight with the son, and hit the bottle.

“Your honor, had the city not supplied the ambulance, I could not have jumped out of it.” https://t.co/9N3JdZoKsQ

— Andrew Harris (@amharris26) June 20, 2017

He said he bought a bottle of cognac and ended up outside a house in the neighborhood, but he doesn’t remember what happened after the ambulance showed up. He did however suffer bruises and cuts after tumbling out of the ambulance. His lawyer Borislav Chernyy said:

He certainly did get himself out of the ambulance, but our position is that he was so grossly unsober, he had so much alcohol in his system, that the condition he was in rendered him the equivalent of helpless, absolutely helpless to make informed decisions about his own safety.

The lawsuit states that the four medical workers “permitted” Kralkin to jump out of the moving emergency vehicle, and that after he jumped, they “failed to properly diagnose, treat, care and transport Plaintiff.” It allegedly took another 12 minutes before he was transported to the hospital, this time without exiting his vehicle, as he lost consciousness in the fall.

Kralkin’s lawyer argues that the medical workers were at fault for not stopping Kralkin. He is seeking damages as well as compensation for his medical bills. But the spokesperson for the medical worker’s union, the Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics and Fire Inspectors F.D.N.Y. Local 2507, says there is no way they could be held accountable.

“What is this E.M.T. supposed to do to stop somebody who loses control of themselves and does something crazy like that?” Robert Ungar, the union spokesman, said. He added that EMT workers don’t have the legal authority to hold someone against their will, and they are not armed. A stretcher in an ambulance is not that hard to break out of, and if someone tries to do something out of the ordinary, the EMTs are under no obligation to get into an altercation. We’ll have to see if Kralkin’s lawsuit ends up being successful.

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 Man Who Drunkenly Jumped Out of Ambulance Sues New York City appeared first on Law Street.

JPMorgan Chase, one of the largest banks in the world, has been accused of discriminating against fathers when it comes to parental leave. The ACLU has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a worker named Derek Rotondo. Rotondo claims that the bank discriminates on the basis of sex when it comes to paid parental leave, by guaranteeing women 16 weeks, but men only two.

Rotondo, a father of two, has worked for JPMorgan Chase for seven years. The current parental leave policy at the financial institution guarantees 16 weeks for the “primary” caregiver and two weeks for the “secondary” caregiver. When Rotondo’s youngest child was born, he decided to apply for parental leave granted to a “primary” caregiver, because he intended on playing that role with his son. But because he is the child’s father and not a mother, he was told that the company makes the presumption that the “primary” caretake is the mother, and he has to prove that he will be acting as a primary caretaker.

Because his wife, who is a teacher, would also be home, he didn’t meet the definition and wasn’t given the 16 weeks of leave. Rontondo claims that it was only men who would be forced to prove that they’re the primary caretaker, and in doing so, the bank is violating federal civil rights law. Essentially, he claims that if the roles were reversed, he would have received the leave, no questions asked. As Rontondo wrote in a piece posted on the ACLU website:

J.P. Morgan’s parental leave policy is outdated and discriminates against fathers who want a meaningful amount of time off to be at home with their kids–just like mothers who work for the company. The policy also discriminates against both moms and dads by enforcing two related stereotypes: that raising children is women’s work and that only men should return to work immediately after their children are born. This doesn’t even begin to address how same-sex and adoptive parents fit into the equation. What would a two-dad family do under J.P. Morgan’s policy, for example?

If the EEOC finds that there’s merit to Rontondo’s complaint, it could open the door for a federal lawsuit filed against the banking giant. In a nation that seriously lags behind when it comes to parental leave as a whole, this could be a good thing.

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 JPMorgan Chase Accused of Discriminating Against Dads appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Maryland and D.C. Sue the President

The Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia have said they will file a lawsuit against President Donald Trump today, citing violations of the Constitution. They will focus on Trump’s continued involvement with his family business. The plaintiffs are also asking for those tax returns he never released. The lawsuit calls the alleged constitutional violations “unprecedented.”

AG Karl A. Racine of D.C. and AG Brian E. Frosh of Maryland said that they felt obligated to sue, as the Republican-led Congress doesn’t seem to take Trump’s conflicts of interest seriously. “We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

Maryland and DC’s attorneys general just sued Trumphttps://t.co/qcuXoVLGiI pic.twitter.com/fid3cnxz40

— jordan (@JordanUhl) June 12, 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 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A Milo Yiannopoulos supporter filed a lawsuit on Monday against regents of the University of California, Berkeley for $23 million. Kiara Robles, the plaintiff, says the school infringed on her First Amendment rights when a protest erupted on campus last February.

The protest, which drew over 1,500 students, was a response to the controversial invitation the Berkeley College Republicans student group sent to Yiannopoulos, asking him to speak at the campus. Yiannopoulos, a long-standing fan of President Donald Trump and a self-described cultural libertarian, is a former senior editor of alt-right media source Breitbart.

He gained prominence because of his highly controversial comments on women, Islam, homosexuality, and religion. He once said “gay rights have made us dumber” and called transgender people mentally ill.

Robles was pepper-sprayed during the Berkeley protest and says she and her friends were targeted during the clash because they hold and express conservative views. She was planning on attending Yiannopoulos’ talk before the Berkeley police department canceled the event citing security concerns.

More peaceful protests mad at capitalism. #miloatcal pic.twitter.com/1qrdJ5zeJ8

— Kiara Robles ಠ_ಠ (@kiarafrobles) February 2, 2017

https://twitter.com/kiarafrobles/status/827418775230099456

The lawsuit states that the defendants, which includes local law enforcement, billionaire George Soros, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for allegedly institutionalizing Robles’ concerns, have subjected “students and invitees who do not subscribe to the radical, left wing philosophies … to severe violence and bodily harm for merely expressing a differing viewpoint.”

“She was assaulted,” Robles’ lawyer told The San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday. “The California university system, and in part, Berkeley, is out of control, and they’re facilitating, if not inciting, violence, and the campus police sit around twiddling their thumbs.”

The university said in a statement that it will mount a strong defense “contesting this collection of false claims.”

This lawsuit comes at a time when freedom of speech debates are increasingly common on college campuses and the media. Liberal students’ requests for “safe spaces” and outright bans on perceived hate speech have raised questions regarding whether or not other students’ freedom of expression rights are being curtailed.

Hitting at the heart of the debate and opposing Robles, Jonathan Gow, a UC Berkeley sophomore, said “when it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down,” about the Yiannopoulos protests at Berkeley.

Last Friday, late-night talk show host Bill Maher, who said he would soon invite Yiannopoulos back on his show, was caught up in a similar controversy when he said the N-word on live television. Many outraged viewers called for his show to be canceled or for him to step down, while others said self-censorship of this word placed a limitation on individual freedom of speech.

Yiannopoulos has often found himself at the center of these debates, on and off campuses. Recently, he announced he would resort to self-publishing his new book “Dangerous” after the provocateur lost his controversial Simon and Schuster book deal when videos surfaced of him seemingly defending pedophilia. On Tuesday, the book was at the top of Amazon’s best-seller list in the humor category.

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 Milo Yiannopoulos Fan Sues UC Berkeley Over Violent February Protests 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.

On today’s list of super strange legal battles, a California woman named Jessica Gomez has filed a class action lawsuit against popular jelly bean manufacturer Jelly Belly. She purchased one of their products, Jelly Belly’s Sport Beans, which the company advertises as an “exercise supplement.” The company marketed the beans as containing “carbohydrates, electrolytes, and vitamins.” One of the listed ingredients was “evaporated cane juice,” which is just another term for sugar. But Gomez claims that the fact that the beans contain sugar was not made clear, and has filed a class action suit alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and product liability.

I have a lot of questions. Why would anyone want to eat jelly beans as an exercise supplement? Why would Jelly Belly try to break into the supplement market, of all things? How did Gomez not assume that there was sugar in a product that displayed its sugar content on the nutrition label? Did these weird jelly beans even taste good?

TIL Jelly Belly makes jelly beans… for sports. pic.twitter.com/FJgjiB6jrt

— danielle kefford (@quephird) September 10, 2016

Gomez claimed that by listing the sugar as “evaporated cane juice” instead of sugar, as well as the other advertising that went into marketing the beans, Jelly Belly misled consumers into thinking they were healthy. To be fair to Gomez, the FDA actually recommends that companies not list evaporated cane juice on ingredients lists for this exact reason, something that her lawyers are likely to cite if this case moves forward.

In a motion to dismiss the case, Jelly Belly argued that Gomez couldn’t have thought the beans were sugar-free because the amount of sugar per serving was clearly stated on the product’s nutrition label. The company called the lawsuit “nonsense.” The lawyers representing Jelly Belly also pointed out that the “Plaintiff also does not explain why an athlete–or anyone–would be surprised to find sugar in a product described as ‘Jelly Beans.'”

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 Woman Sues Jelly Belly After Finding Out Jelly Beans Contain Sugar appeared first on Law Street.

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

According to the lawsuit, evidence of the unfair treatment of African-American students in the state can be seen in the ratings that the schools receive. The SPLC points out that of the state’s 19 worst-performing school districts, thirteen have more than 95 percent black students. The other six have somewhere between 81-91 percent black students. In contrast, the state’s top five highest-performing school districts mostly have white students.

The plaintiffs’ children go to two schools that are among the worst in the state–Webster Elementary and Raines Elementary. The plaintiffs described horrible conditions at those schools, including a lack of basic necessities like toilet paper. Raines Elementary serves lunches with spoiled fruit and rotten milk.

To understand what’s going in Mississippi, a little history is necessary. In order to be brought back into the United States following the Civil War, terms were set by Congress that included that the state ratify a constitution that provided equal education to its citizens. Specifically it required the “uniform system of free public schools” regardless of pupils’ races. But in the years that followed and the onset of the Jim Crow era, those requirements were watered down. At one point, Mississippi fought against the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

And the state’s education woes don’t stop with this recent lawsuit–another lawsuit is currently underway, brought by two state legislators. It claims that the governor should not be able to make mid-year budget cuts, because it infringes on the legislative branch’s power. Some of the cuts that are being contested include serious blows to education funding in the state. And currently, Mississippi’s schools are struggling as a whole–the state ranks 50th in national rankings of the 50 states and Washington D.C.

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 Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students appeared first on Law Street.

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Pandora revamped its app logo back in October 2016, changing the front and opting for a more minimalistic blue and white design. At the time, Wired magazine couldn’t help but notice that Pandora’s blue capital “P” looked eerily familiar to another app–PayPal.

At first glance, the new app icon looks understated, its form and color reminiscent of the PayPal logo; the updated Pandora ‘P’ has no counter (the open space between the stem and the bowl of the ‘P’), and sports a subtle blue gradient.

Many app users have noted the similarities between the apps on Twitter as well:

that moment when u click on PayPal cuz u thought it was pandora smh @pandoramusic pic.twitter.com/5I9tz3ACD3

— julianjaden (@julianjaden) October 27, 2016

Look how similar the #pandora and #paypal logo are when next to each other…. #graphicdesign pic.twitter.com/dhWqmRQXq7

— Kylie Murphy (@Ky_Murphy) October 19, 2016

Pandora wants to be young and hip again. That’s why they… copied PayPal’s logo? pic.twitter.com/MSGUuV0FqC

— Romain Dillet (@romaindillet) October 12, 2016

According to the New York Post, PayPal says this confusion diverted traffic away from its app, and in effect caused it to lose customers.

“One critically important function of the PayPal logo is to stand out on the crowded screens of customers’ smartphones and tablets,” the suit states. The company says it “has invested heavily in the PayPal Logo since its introduction,” and that Pandora’s logo “not only resembles, but openly mimics the PayPal logo.”

PayPal reportedly sent numerous letters to Pandora hoping to solve the problem, but they went unanswered. Now the company is asking the court to force Pandora to stop using the logo and pay unspecified damages for trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

The threat of a possible settlement isn’t good news for Pandora, which lost about $250 million last year. The internet radio company was late to join the premium subscription bandwagon, and has since struggled to keep up with the growth of Spotify and Apple Music. Earlier this month the company received a $150 million investment from KKR & Co., the private-equity firm, in order to keep it afloat as it attempts to court a buyer to rescue it from its financial woes.

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 PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

A federal lawsuit has been filed against Baylor University, accusing football players at the school of engaging in gang rape as a rite of passage, and the school of doing nothing to prevent it.

The alleged rapes happened when Art Briles was head coach of the team and Kenneth Starr was president of the university. Briles was suspended a year ago, and Starr lost his position as president but remained a law professor at the school until last August, when he resigned.

Jane Doe, the anonymous woman who filed the lawsuit, claims that she was drugged and gang raped by four to eight Baylor football players in February of 2012. She alleges that the players then burglarized her apartment and harassed her through text messages until she left school the next year.

Jane Doe confirmed that at least one, 21-second videotape of two female Baylor students being gang raped by several Baylor football players was circulated amongst football players. The suit also alleges that Baylor football parties often involved dogfighting–at least once, a dog was so severely injured it almost died.

The lawsuit contends that Briles was fully aware of the alleged gang rape, and includes text messages between him and an assistant coach, in which Briles calls the woman a “fool” for reporting the burglaries to the police.

Baylor athletes gang-raped women as a ‘bonding’ experience: lawsuit. They allegedly called it ‘playtime.’ https://t.co/qXnSpRkxWl pic.twitter.com/ICcJ0c8gFU

— Kate Briquelet (@kbriquelet) May 18, 2017

Allegations of sexual assault at the Christian university began to surface in 2012. Baylor student Jasmine Hernandez accused football player Tevin Elliott of raping her twice at a party. He was convicted in 2014 of two counts of sexual assault and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

In 2013, a female soccer player reported that she was sexually assaulted by football player Sam Ukwuachu. He was convicted in 2015,  and sentenced to six months in jail and 10 years probation.

Hernandez, who publicly disclosed her name, sued the school last year for failing to investigate her claims–Briles and Starr were fired not long after.

Another woman, who was identified under the pseudonym Elizabeth Doe, also filed a lawsuit against Baylor earlier this year, alleging that football players had gang-raped her in 2013. She stated in the lawsuit that 31 players had committed at least 52 rapes, including gang-rapes, between 2011-2014.

Elizabeth Doe’s lawsuit accused the school of using sex as a way to sell the football program to prospective students. It described how Kendal Briles, a former assistant football coach and son of former head coach Art Briles, asked a recruit, “Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor and they love football players.”

Also in @Baylor lawsuit: Woman got school counseling. Says unnamed counselor talked stats of women who don’t report rape to dissuade her

— Jim Vertuno (@JimVertuno) May 17, 2017

Jane Doe’s lawsuit described many of the same elements–likening rape culture at the school to a hazing ritual. She alleges that organized gang rapes were considered to be a “bonding” experience for the players. Her suit also alleges that the older players brought underage recruits to strip clubs. They also had a “hostess program” that allegedly made sure women had sex with the recruits during their visits to campus.

After the allegations against Baylor became known, the school’s board said it was “horrified” and “outraged” to learn what was happening on campus.

Briles filed a lawsuit himself in December, accusing the school of libel. But he quickly dropped the suit after the university released text messages between the assistant coach, the athletic director, and him, that showed how they all did their best to avoid contact with law enforcement and encouraged victims to not press charges.

Jane Doe’s suit claims that school officials encouraged the plaintiff and her family not to report the assault to law enforcement. But the school says it will do all it can to ensure that things are made right.

“The University’s response in no way changes Baylor’s position that any assault involving members of our campus community is reprehensible and inexcusable,” the school said in a statement.

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 Lawsuit Accuses Baylor Football Players of Gang Raping Women as Bonding Ritual appeared first on Law Street.

A man from Texas was not happy with how his first date was going, and sued the woman he went out with–all because she was texting at the movies. Brandon Vezmar, 37, met his date online and invited her to go see the 3D version of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” in Austin. But she apparently wasn’t as excited as he was to see the new blockbuster.

In the lawsuit, Vezmar says that the woman “activated her phone at least 10-20 times in 15 minutes to read and send text messages.” He is now trying to get the money for the movie ticket back, $17.31. He also said it is a matter of principle.

“It was kind of a first date from hell,” he said. “This is like one of my biggest pet peeves.” According to Vezmar, he asked his date to stop texting, but she didn’t comply. He then asked her to do it outside, after which she allegedly left and never came back. That left Vezmar with no ride home, as they drove there in the woman’s car.

Obviously the internet had a lot of feelings about the unusual lawsuit and many people called Vezmar petty.

The fees he’s paying to bring this suit (filing + service: $121) are 7x what he’s asking for ($17.31).

Ridiculous.https://t.co/6CY7LPMiyT

— Brian Powell (@briandpowell) May 16, 2017

Vezmar said he texted the woman a couple of days later asking for the ticket money back. He didn’t think he got the full experience of the movie because he was distracted by her texting. In his lawsuit he cited the movie theater’s policy of no texting, saying that the woman affected everyone’s experience.

That’s going to put a huge damper on the second date. https://t.co/MDKxR3Dipp

— MagnoliaPeach (@magnoliapeach) May 16, 2017

“While damages sought are modest, the principle is important as defendant’s behavior is a threat to civilized society,” the petition said. But the woman said she didn’t text more than two or three times, and only did it because her best friend had a fight with her boyfriend and was upset.

@NewsForrest Who takes a girl 2 a movie 4 a 1st date?! Umm ya can’t talk! Serves him right, she should counter sue him 4 being a self-centered douche!

— Asia McClain Chapman (@AsiaRChapman) May 17, 2017

The woman said she filed a protection order against Vezmar after he contacted her younger sister to get the $17 back. “I’m not a bad woman,” she said. “I just went out on a date.” It seems like Vezmar doesn’t mind the attention, as he started a Twitter account on Tuesday evening and started pushing out tweets about his case.

2/2 What contact after movie looked like: 1 text, 1 call, ignored > Text two days later getting serious > Lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/q4EOId868O

— Brandon Vezmar (@BrandonVezmar) May 17, 2017

Even the director of the movie weighed in. But he was probably the only one who took Vezmar’s side.

Why stop at suing? She deserves jail time! https://t.co/c41MWGz74M

— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) May 16, 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 Texas Man Sues His Date for $17 After She Texted During a Movie appeared first on Law Street.

Could a glitch in T-Mobile service be responsible for the death of an infant? A new lawsuit places blame on the mobile company after a babysitter was unable to reach 911 due to a glitch in T-Mobile technology in Dallas.

The lawsuit, obtained by CNN, alleges that Brandon Alex, a 6-month-old infant, passed away in March after he rolled off the bed. It also claims that his babysitter, Michelle Cohen, was placed on hold multiple times after calling 911. The location of the apartment also allegedly did not appear in Dallas’ 911 call center, leaving Cohen without EMT support and no ability to transport the child to a hospital.

The glitch that caused the call center to be unreachable related to an ongoing problem with “ghost calls“: illegitimate calls that can clog up 911 call centers and force actual callers to remain on hold. In Dallas, this occurred when T-Mobile users placed a 911 call and their phone sent multiple calls to the center, clogging the line while they were unable to reach an operator.

The issue, which is still somewhat of a mystery to officials, has also been blamed for another death in the Dallas area. “Ghost calls” are not a problem unique to Dallas or to T-Mobile, but the company has been under FCC investigation in the past for 911 service outages that plagued its customers. In that case, the company reached a $17.5 million settlement provided that it worked to “strengthen its 911 service procedures” and ensure that it was complying with federal regulations.

After the death of Alex, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings demanded that action be taken by the cell phone company to ensure that the problem was fixed in a swift manner. The company immediately sent executives and engineers to the city to begin investigating the issue.

Public safety of our citizens is my most important priority. I will not be satisfied until this T-Mobile 911 challenge is completely fixed. pic.twitter.com/7LDKYdmRQ1

— Mayor Mike Rawlings (@Mike_Rawlings) March 15, 2017

The lawsuit alleges gross negligence on the part of T-Mobile for ignoring warnings and continuing to use technology apparently incompatible with Dallas’ 911 system.

While the source of the problem continues to remain a mystery, the company has reportedly taken a number of actions to resolve the issue since the March incident.

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 T-Mobile is Facing a Lawsuit for the Death of a Child appeared first on Law Street.

Chinese-American Physics professor Xi Xiaoxing has filed a lawsuit, claiming that the FBI agents who accused him of espionage in 2015 knew that the evidence against him was false. The suit is claiming malicious prosecution, due process violations, and unlawful searches and seizures. The FBI alleged that Xi, a professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, was sending advanced technology to China. Xi claims that in reality, he was transmitting a technical invention he had made himself, and sent it to China as part of regular academic collaboration.

“They are paid with taxpayer money to catch spies. And they catch people like me, who have done nothing wrong,” Xi said to the New York Times. His lawyers say that the FBI was ordered to investigate Xi as a potential spy. Agents then stormed into his house and arrested him in May of 2015.

But there was allegedly no evidence of espionage. Instead, the agency charged him with handing over confidential blueprints for a piece of laboratory equipment called a “pocket heater” to Chinese researchers. But during the trial, several months after Xi was arrested and handcuffed in front of his family, leading scientists testified in court that it wasn’t even a pocket heater.

He was wrongly charged with spying for China. Now this professor is accusing the FBI of falsifying evidence https://t.co/YZohzli0et

— Karin Fischer (@karinfischer) May 10, 2017

In fact, it was a device that Xi had designed. The mistake was embarrassing for U.S. law enforcement and raised confusion about why Xi was targeted–including potential racial profiling. According to Xi’s lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, it seemed like the FBI also never consulted any experts or scientists to see what the device really was.

“If he was Canadian-American or French-American, or he was from the U.K., would this have ever even got on the government’s radar? I don’t think so,” Zeidenberg said at the time. Xi’s lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday, alleges that the FBI agent who arrested him, Andrew Haugen, knew the evidence was not what it was made out to be.

Prosecutors have never explained the 2015 decision to drop the case, and Xi never received an apology. And unfortunately he is not alone. There have been many cases in recent years of high-profile Americans with Chinese ancestry wrongly accused of espionage. But this is believed to be the first lawsuit by a Chinese-American scientist against the federal government since 2006.

Xi said he would also like an apology. After the arrest, he was suspended from work and lost the chance to become his department’s interim chairman. He could no longer enter campus or talk to students. He said that he and his family live in fear of surveillance and being targeted again. Agents storming his house with guns and handcuffing him in front of his children was also a traumatizing experience. But, he said, “They will probably never apologize.”

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 Professor Accused of Being a Chinese Spy Sues FBI Agents appeared first on Law Street.

Albany Unified School District in California was just hit with a lawsuit over its officials’ choice to suspend students who interacted with racist images on social media. More than a dozen students at Albany High School, near San Francisco, allegedly liked and posted racist images on Instagram. In response, some were suspended. Now, four of the students have filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming that their suspensions are a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The images in question included photoshopped pictures of some of the black female students at the school, posted on Instagram. The photos were photoshopped to include nooses and other racist symbols. At least a dozen students liked or commented positively on the posts. The four students who are suing fell into that category–the kid who originally created the posts is not party to the lawsuit.

The lawyers of the four students who filed the federal lawsuit claim that in addition to violating the students’ freedom of speech, what the students did outside of school was none of the school’s business. The lawsuit reads:

This action arises out of a private online discussion between friends that the Albany School system has pried into without authority. All conduct at issue in this matter occurred off school property, were conducted off school hours, and were otherwise completely unrelated to school activity.

The plaintiffs also claim that the school officials made a spectacle out of them by bringing them through the hallways and allowing them to be berated by other students.

The parents of the students who were the victims of the photoshopping disagree with the First Amendment claims, pointing out that the images constitute hate crimes. One of the fathers of the girls told a local outlet: “This is a hate crime. You don’t have a First Amendment right to promote a hate crime against a group of people based on their skin color.”

The students are suing for damages, but they haven’t specified how much they’re asking for. They’re also asking to have the incident removed from their records. The school has said that it will be reviewing the lawsuit, but it’s unclear what move it will make from here.

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 California School Sued for Suspensions of Students who “Liked” Racist Images appeared first on Law Street.

Fyre Festival has officially been dubbed the new “Hunger Games” or “Lord of the Flies” by the media and may go down in history as one of the worst music festivals ever. Now, it’s being slammed with a $100 million lawsuit. Fyre Festival, organized by artist Ja Rule and entrepreneur Billy McFarland, promised white beaches, Victoria’s Secret models, and top notch live music. Instead, visitors were met by nonexistent infrastructure, sparse food, and some rickety tents.

On Sunday, attendee Daniel Jung filed a lawsuit against the organizers through the law firm Geragos & Geragos. It seeks to be a class action lawsuit, as the festival chaos affected more than 1,000 people. Jung paid $2,000 for his ticket and airfare. But his attorney Ben Meiselas tweeted that just refunding the ticket price would not be enough. The suit seeks more than $100 million in damages for Jung and the other guests.

Fyre Festival organizers Ja Rule and Billy McFarland are being sued for $100 million in a class action lawsuit: https://t.co/0taHRmeAnh pic.twitter.com/mJNIjGx3oh

— E! News (@enews) May 1, 2017

The lawsuit describes in detail just how bad it was on the island for the guests, and it does really sound like something out of a movie.

Attendees’ efforts to escape the unfolding disaster were hamstrung by their reliance upon Defendants for transportation, as well as by the fact that Defendants promoted the festival as a ‘cashless’ event — Defendants instructed attendees to upload funds to a wristband for use at the festival rather than bringing any cash. As such, Attendees were unable to purchase basic transportation on local taxis or busses, which accept only cash. As a result of Defendants’ roadblocks to escape, at least one attendee suffered a medical emergency and lost consciousness after being locked inside a nearby building with other concert-goers waiting to be airlifted from the island.

The suit also described the event as a “post-apocalyptic nightmare” and said that people had to survive on bread and slices of cheese. The tents were exposed on a sand bar, rain soaked, and wind battered.

The “gourmet cuisine” this weekend was included in the ticket cost. We are being fed salads and ham and cheese sandwiches out of this tent pic.twitter.com/MRv7U0RiyM

— dylan (@DylanACOP) April 28, 2017

But the worst part is that organizers, according to the lawsuit, knew all about the state of the festival area beforehand but didn’t warn attendees. They had allegedly been aware for months that the area was not ready for a festival and that it could be dangerous. There was no infrastructure for food or accommodations and contractors left the site, as they hadn’t been paid.

Defendants were knowingly lying about the festival’s accommodations and safety, and continued to promote the event and sell ticket packages. The festival was even promoted as being on a ‘private island’ once owned by drug kingpin Pablo Escobar–the island isn’t private, as there is a ‘Sandals’ resort down the road, and Pablo Escobar never owned the island.

To make matters worse, Ja Rule and McFarland started reaching out to artists and celebrities personally to warn them not to come. But they still didn’t let attendees know until the morning of the first day of the festival. By then, many guests were already on the island, without sufficient food or water or any way to get back. The lawsuit goes so far as to call the situation “tantamount to false imprisonment.”

However, many people online were amused by the fact that only rich people could afford to attend. Tickets started at $1,500 and went up to $250,000 for a special VIP package. Also, the Wall Street Journal warned a month ago that it didn’t seem like everything was alright, as the organizers still hadn’t paid performers or confirmed booked flights.

Ja Rule took to Twitter to “apologize” after all the outrage on social media last week, although he claimed it wasn’t his fault.

pic.twitter.com/KuJYxfsQJ4

— Ja Rule (@Ruleyork) April 28, 2017

McFarland said in a Rolling Stone interview that their vision of the festival “took on a life of its own” and that they “were a little naïve in thinking for the first time we could do this ourselves. Next year, we will definitely start earlier.”

And yes, there will actually be a “next year.” As if this year’s total fiasco wasn’t enough, the duo said they will have a festival on an American beach next year. On the online form where attendees could sign up to receive a refund for their tickets, there was the option to receive VIP passes for the next festival in 2018 instead of a cash refund. It’s unknown how many people jumped at that offer.

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 The Fyre Festival Fiasco: Ja Rule Hit With $100 Million Lawsuit 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.

Subway is suing Canadian news network CBC over a TV segment in which the show “Marketplace” claims that Subway’s chicken only contains 50 percent chicken. According to the report, which was broadcast in February, many of the Subway restaurants in southern Ontario use meat that is actually half soy protein. Subway issued a statement calling the report “false and misleading,” and said that its food is 100 percent what it claims to be.

Our chicken is made with 100% chicken + spices and marinade. The findings as reported on the show are wildly inaccurate.

— SUBWAY® Canada (@SUBWAYCanada) March 1, 2017

The restaurant chain let two independent labs in the U.S. and in Canada test its chicken products and posted the results on the company’s website. According to those tests, there is a small amount of soy in the seasoning to maintain moisture and texture, but that is far from the 50 percent CBC claimed.

CBC had researcher Matt Harnden at Trent University’s Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory test five chicken sandwiches from different fast food restaurants, and reached the conclusion that the one from Subway had only 53.6 percent chicken, and chicken strips from Subway only contained 42.8 percent of the white meat. Sandwiches tested from the other restaurants all clocked in at about 85-89 percent chicken.

But all of the sandwiches tested contained an average of 16 ingredients in their chicken. CBC’s test showed that the fast food chicken contained about a fourth less protein than a home-cooked bird would.

CBC will defend against Subway lawsuit after ‘Marketplace’ said chicken at many Ontario outlets was roughly half soy https://t.co/9yGIzf2LkN pic.twitter.com/MMRYpkFNGS

— Yahoo Canada Finance (@YahooFinanceCA) April 18, 2017

Subway initially asked CBC to retract its information, but the broadcaster didn’t respond. “We have issued a Notice of Action in Canada against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that asks for $210 million in damages over allegations made by its program, ‘Marketplace,’ that are defamatory and absolutely false,” Subway said.

So it’s word against word, and lab against lab, in the chicken feud. CBC has said it has no comment, except that it will defend itself.

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 Subway Sues Canadian Network Over Claims that its Chicken isn’t All Chicken appeared first on Law Street.

Princeton University–the prestigious Ivy League institution whose famous alumni include Woodrow Wilson, Michelle Obama, and Queen of Genovia Amelia Mignonette Thermopolis Renaldi–is suing the Department of Education in an attempt to block the release of its admissions data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to Buzzfeed News.

The lawsuit is an attempt to hinder the anti-affirmative action organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit whose mission is to remove race-based college admissions standards and is accusing Princeton of practicing anti-Asian bias in its admissions. The organization seeks to use a FOIA request to prove its accusations by releasing documents that Princeton gave to the DOE during a long investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights into anti-Asian discrimination that concluded in 2015. The investigation determined that this bias did not exist.

According to Buzzfeed, Princeton claims that it turned those admissions documents over to the department under the condition that sensitive data would be kept private, and that if the data were to be released, the department would be in violation of the Trades Secrets Act. SFFA perceives Princeton’s lawsuit as an inherent admission of guilt; however, the logic of that perception does not totally check out, for Princeton could not want to release the documents because it would reveal practices that are just bad PR, such as admission preferences for children of alumni or for celebrities.

Speaking to USA Today, Daniel Day, a spokesman for Princeton, said that the university filed the lawsuit “to honor the promise of confidentiality we make to all applicants and their families . . . [and] so future applicants will be willing to provide materials to [the university] knowing the confidentiality of their materials will be respected.”

This is not SFFA’s first attempt to reveal information about the admissions practices of Ivy League institutions, having also filed similar lawsuits against Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill. SFFA filed a lawsuit in 2014 against Harvard, alleging that the university employed discriminatory practices in its undergraduate admissions process.

While progress has been slow–mainly due to the case being put on hold in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin–some action has been taken. In September, a district court judge ordered Harvard to release six years worth of “comprehensive data” on its undergraduate admissions process. This order came shortly after Harvard attempted to get the suit dismissed.

In December, two Asian American high school seniors and Harvard applicants, working in conjunction with Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, petitioned a federal judge to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court). This  would allow them to file amicus briefs, participate in oral arguments, and submit evidence, according to a report from NBC News.

“We refuse to be used as a wedge by outside players stoking the insecurities of newer Asian immigrants, provoking them to lash out at the very programs that have helped communities of color gain access to higher education,” Nicole Ochi, supervising attorney for Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, said in a statement reported by NBC News.

The Harvard Crimson reported that 22.2 percent of those admitted into Harvard’s class of 2021 are Asian American students. While much has been said about Asians who oppose affirmative action–particularly in the Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin ruling–polls show that a majority of the Asian American community still support the practice.

Last year, the Asian American Voter Survey found that, among respondents, 64 percent said that they favor affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities gain better access to higher education. A mere 25 percent of respondents disagreed with the practice.

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 Princeton Sues the Federal Government to Protect Admissions Data appeared first on Law Street.

We have all been subjected to the cruel injustice of opening up a new bag of chips only to find that it’s not even half-empty (or full, I guess). On Monday night, as Reuters first reported, two consumers of Wise potato chips said enough is enough, and filed a class action lawsuit in a Manhattan federal court seeking damages for consumers in New York and Washington DC who are being misled by Wise Foods and its bags of air, which contain some potato chips.

Sameline Alce and Desiré Nugent, who are from New York City and DC, respectively, cite in their complaint that Wise Foods leaves its bags 58 percent to 75 percent empty, which is far from the 30 percent that would justify the price consumers pay for the bag.

The 30 percent benchmark that the plaintiffs are referring to comes from the food industry standard known as functional slack-fill. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines nonfunctional slack-fill as the empty space in a package that is filled to less than its capacity for reasons besides things like protection from damages during shipping and handling, or the need for the package to perform a specific function. Certain states like California have certain protections for consumers regarding slack-fill, according to The National Law Review.

Over the years, there has been a growing trend of nonfunctional slack-fill cases. In 2015, according to The National Law Review, a class action lawsuit was filed against GNC Holdings Inc. by two consumers who claimed that GNC’s whey protein products were under-filled. In 2016, Herr Foods had a class action lawsuit filed against it for under-filling its potato chips bags.

And if you don’t believe that these slack-fill lawsuits are truly a growing trend, just go on truthinadvertising.org–the website for a non-profit that works to protect consumers from deceptive marketing–search “slack-fill,” and look at how many class action lawsuits have been filed citing this claim against food companies like Mars, Inc. and Kellogg.

So good on Alce and Nugent for fighting the good fight against big food companies constantly deceiving us. It’s only a matter of time before a lawsuit is filed to fight back against other food company outrages like how grape-flavored candies never actually taste like grapes and white chocolate isn’t actually chocolate.

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 Wise Foods Sued for Its Empty Potato Chip Bags appeared first on Law Street.

Jan Polanik ordered bagels with butter at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Massachusetts and couldn’t believe it wasn’t actually butter. So in 2013, he sued two Dunkin’ franchise groups, which run more than 20 restaurants in Eastern and Central Massachusetts, claiming to represent all customers who “ordered a baked product, such as a bagel, with butter, but instead received margarine or butter substitute between June 24, 2012, and June 24, 2016.”

Amazingly he won–according to an attorney for one of the two franchise groups, Michael Marino, a settlement has now been reached. Marino didn’t reveal whether the company had paid up, but he did say that the 17 restaurants that he represents have made changes to how they manage the butter. Spokespeople for the other franchise group have not commented.

According to Dunkin’ Donuts, butter can’t be stored at room temperature for food safety reasons. It needs to be pretty soft to be spread smoothly onto the bagels, so the employees usually use margarine or some other butter substitute. But if the customer asks for it on the side, real butter comes in a package.

Dunkin’ Donuts #Settles Lawsuit for Putting Fake Butter on Bagels https://t.co/1Xpe5BQr6V by @FortuneMagazine pic.twitter.com/wkgaiUbWyt

— Thornton Law Firm (@ThorntonFirm) April 3, 2017

However, the employees normally don’t inform customers that they are receiving butter substitutes, which is what sparked a lawsuit from one particularly upset guest. Barbara Anthony, who leads the state Division of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, said in 2013, “This is an unfair practice and a misrepresentation–the consumer is in the dark.”

Polanik’s attorney Thomas Shapiro admitted that this is not a very pressing issue and that he thought it through a few times before deciding that bringing a lawsuit would actually make sense. “A lot of people prefer butter,” he explained. He added that the bigger picture is that companies shouldn’t promote that they’re selling one thing and then give the customer something else. “If somebody goes in and makes a point to order butter for the bagel… they don’t want margarine or some other kind of chemical substitute,” he said.

Butter lovers will now be able to get real butter on their Dunkin’ bagels, although details around the settlement or how the butter will be distributed have not yet been made public.

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 Good News for Bagel Lovers: Dunkin’ Donuts Settles Fake Butter Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

“The Watcher” is back. The mysterious stalker who sent letters to a New Jersey couple a few years ago, claiming to be watching them, has sent a fourth letter after a new tenant moved into the house in February. The stalker was apparently not happy about this and seems to think that the house rightfully belongs to him.

Apparently the new letter was even creepier than the previous ones. “This letter contained specific threats and was more derogatory and sinister than any of the previous letters,” the family’s attorney Lee Levitt wrote in a brief filed earlier in March. Police are currently investigating the threats, but that’s pretty hard to do, as no one knows who the stalker is–or where he is.

In 2014, Derek and Maria Broaddus bought the six-bedroom house for $1.3 million. But then they started receiving letters. One of them said that the stalker’s family had been watching the house for generations: “My grandfather watched the house in the 1920s and my father watched in the 1960s. It is now my time… I have be (sic) put in charge of watching and waiting for its second coming.”

“The Watcher” stalker sends fourth, “more sinister” letter to New Jersey home https://t.co/IUlZIzm4HF pic.twitter.com/4I42S8yDYk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 30, 2017

The stalker soon got the nickname “The Watcher.” Another letter described how the windows and doors of the house allowed him to track the family members as they moved through their house. But one of the creepiest lines must be: “Have they found what is in the walls yet? In time they will. I am pleased to know your names and the names now of the young blood you have brought to me.” As if this wasn’t horrifying enough, he followed up with: “Who has the rooms facing the street? I’ll know as soon as you move in. It will help me to know who is in which bedroom then I can plan better.”

NJ Family Getting Creepy Anonymous Letters From Mystery Stalker ‘The Watcher’ https://t.co/YajhdOiNhA

— Xoobug Feed (@xoobugFeed) March 30, 2017

The Broaddus family didn’t feel like sticking around to find out. They also have three young children, which probably made the part about the young blood especially disturbing. So instead they tried to sell the house, but obviously no one felt like moving into a home that comes with a deranged stalker. So the Broaddus couple sued the people who sold them the house, John and Andrea Woods, for not telling them about “the Watcher.’ The Woods had admitted to having received at least one letter themselves, but they still countersued the Broaddus family for defamation.

After that, Derek and Maria Broaddus tried to get a permit from the township to tear the house down and build two smaller houses on the property. But the request was denied, since two smaller houses wouldn’t fit the street’s image, according to residents and township officials, who were determined to protect the “beautiful street.” But the family filed another lawsuit in the beginning of the month, aiming to overturn that decision.

For now, the Broaddus couple is stuck with renting out their house while living somewhere else. It’s uncertain if we’ll ever find out who the actual stalker is. And now most of us want to know–what exactly did that latest letter say?

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 “The Watcher” is Still Out There, Sending Creepy Letters to New Jersey Families appeared first on Law Street.

You might have thought that Bill O’Reilly’s exchange with Maxine Waters was the most racist thing to come out of Fox News yesterday. But, details from a new lawsuit filed by two of the network’s black female employees may have overshadowed O’Reilly’s horrific moment.

According to a report from the New York Times, the two employees–Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright, both of whom worked at the network’s payroll department–filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court, citing that they were subjected to “top-down racial harassment,” from Judith Slater, the Fox comptroller who had worked for the network for almost two decades. Slater was fired after an internal investigation, according to a story first reported by The Wrap. The timeline of Slater’s firing is unclear, but a statement from the network obtained by the Times claims that Slater was fired at the end of February.

Brown and Wright’s lawsuit targets Slater, Fox News, and 21st Century Fox, which owns Fox News. The lawsuit claims that Slater repeatedly made racist and disparaging comments about black people that played into egregious stereotypes, and that the network did not do much to address Slater’s behavior, which made for a hostile work environment. Here are some of the lawsuit’s details as reported by the New York Times:

The women . . .  accused Ms. Slater of making numerous racially charged comments, including suggestions that black men were “women beaters” and that black people wanted to physically harm white people.

They also said that Ms. Slater claimed that black employees mispronounced words, such as ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘month’ and ‘ask,’ and that she urged Ms. Brown to say those words aloud in a meeting. Ms. Wright said Ms. Slater once asked if her three children were all ‘fathered by the same man.’

[…]

The suit also includes allegations that Ms. Slater made disparaging comments about Ms. Wright’s hair and credit score. She and Ms. Brown said Ms. Slater had mocked the Black Lives Matter movement and referred to their majority-black department as the ‘urban’ or ‘Southern’ payroll department.

According to the New York Daily News, the suit also alleges further details of Slater’s racist behavior, including, but not limited to responding to Brown’s goodbyes at the end of the day by raising her hands up in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” movement, referring to her commuter train to New Jersey as the “Bombay Express, expressing her belief that Chinese men have small penises, and asking Brown and Wright to teach her how to beat box.

In a statement reported by the Times, the company said that “there is no place of inappropriate verbal remarks like this at Fox News,” but were disappointed that Wright and Brown filed the lawsuit because the company believes it already took swift and appropriate action to remedy the situation.

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 Fox News Hit With a New Lawsuit Alleging Racial Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Hundreds of families of 9/11 victims are suing the government of Saudi Arabia for its alleged involvement in the terror attacks that claimed thousands of lives. The lawsuit, filed in New York City last Friday, claims that leading officials in the Saudi government provided terrorists with material support and resources to enable the attacks. Saudi Arabia has never admitted its involvement, but 15 of the 19 plane hijackers that crashed the airplanes into World Trade Center were identified as Saudi Arabian.

The lawsuit, which is 194 pages long, was made possible after Congress passed a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act last September. President Obama vetoed the bill only days before, as he feared it could backfire and allow other countries to file lawsuits against the U.S. for alleged support of terrorists in other countries. But, his veto was overridden, allowing the bill to become law.

Sept. 11 families sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 attacks https://t.co/RaPc9RjUYY pic.twitter.com/MQzQmu1vOy

— Bloomberg (@business) March 21, 2017

The personal injury and wrongful death suit states that Saudi Arabian officials funded al-Qaeda through governmental nonprofits that posed as charities. But instead of going to a charitable cause, money was sent through complicated webs of middlemen to the terror organization to fund attacks on the U.S. The lawsuit claims that the government even ordered Saudi Arabian officials and diplomats to assist the hijackers after they arrived in the U.S., by giving them fake travel documents, weapons, cash, and other equipment.

The families of the victims say this lawsuit is long overdue. “We’re going to find out what actually happened on 9/11,” said retired FDNY fire chief James Riches, one of the plaintiffs, to Newsday. “If [Saudi Arabia] helped the terrorists commit terrorist acts on American soil, they’ll be held accountable. If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.”

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Michael Barasch, said that it’s obvious the terrorists couldn’t have carried out such a complicated attack by themselves and he wants to find out who helped them. “If it was Saudi Arabia they need to pay. They need to pay dearly and think twice the next time some Saudi Arabian prince or government wants to do such a heinous and cowardly act,” he said.

But the Saudi government is not happy, and the energy minister, Khalid al-Falih, warned vaguely that there could be “consequences.” He also said that the Saudi government is hoping that the Trump Administration will overturn the new law that makes lawsuits like this possible. He said that he hopes that after “due consideration by the new Congress and the new administration, that corrective measures will be taken.”

Trump wins Saudi praise for a historical “turning point” after meeting Prince Salman https://t.co/T0yylnBved pic.twitter.com/PcEqVaJqHp

— Bloomberg (@business) March 15, 2017

But, Saudi Arabia does have quite a few other reasons to like President Donald Trump. He has been tough on Iran, one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest opponents, and some believe he is less likely to criticize the country’s record on human rights than the Obama Administration was. One week ago, Trump met with Mohammed bin Salman, the Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense, at the White House. Both sides said it was a historical shift and very good meeting. But it remains to be seen if this lawsuit will affect that relationship.

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 Families of 9/11 Victims Sue Saudi Arabia Over Alleged Support of al-Qaeda appeared first on Law Street.

If someone offered you “drinkable sunscreen,” would you try it? Unless you’re Charlie from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” I really hope you said no…and apparently so does the state of Iowa.

Iowa’s Attorney General has filed a consumer fraud lawsuit against the makers of two brands of drinkable sunscreen for using “seriously flawed testing” to trick consumers into buying “ordinary water at premium prices.”

Two brands of “drinkable sunscreen” have been accused of fraud by the Iowa Attorney Generalhttps://t.co/JDYsiWS5zs

— mat honan (@mat) March 15, 2017

AG Tom Miller named Osmosis, LLC; Harmonized Water, LCC; and their joint owner Benjamin Taylor Johnson in the lawsuit. Both companies have advertised their enhanced water as the “world’s first drinkable sunscreen.” The UV neutralizer is said to contain a form of radio frequencies called scalar waves that when ingested “vibrate above the skin to neutralize UVA and UVB, creating protection comparable to an SPF 30.”

via GIPHY

But Miller isn’t convinced, calling Johnson’s claims “almost certainly pure bunk” and “pseudoscience at its worst.”

“It’s flat-out dangerous to consumers to make them think without any proof that this water protects them from what we know is proven–potentially cancer-causing exposure to the sun,” reiterated Miller in a statement on Tuesday.

Each bottle of the “harmonized water” retails somewhere between $30-$40, and the company claims it has only sold 35 bottles of the UV neutralizer in Iowa in the five years it has been for sale.

Miller also called “BS” on Johnson’s so-called mosquito repellant, Harmonized H2O Mosquito, and its anti-bug “vibrating shield”–admittedly, like his other products, its only listed ingredient is “frequency-enhanced” water.

And then there’s Johnson’s past run ins with the law. Even though he frequently references his medical degree in promotional advertisements, Johnson lost his license to practice medicine in Colorado in 2001 after two patients complained to the Colorado Medical Board about his laser hair removal services, according to the lawsuit.

He was previously reprimanded by the board in 1999 for selling Viagra online without providing any sort of physical exam, according to medical board documents reviewed by BuzzFeed News. He does, however, still hold a medical license in California.

Johnson defended his products in a statement to Buzzfeed, writing:

I think it is important to note that we have been selling this remarkable product for about 5 years. We have had thousands of re-orders. Surely people understand that as a successful skincare company it would make no sense that we would sell people a fake sun protection water….and if we did, how long does one think those sales would last?

Even so, the attorney general’s office says the seller failed to provide a reasonable basis for the benefits touted by the products, a requirement under Iowa law.

“It’s bad enough when a consumer wastes money on a product that doesn’t work,” Miller said. “But it’s much worse when someone relies on a product to prevent serious harm, and it just doesn’t deliver.”

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 Drinkable Sunscreen Maker Accused of Consumer Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

Coachella and Urban Outfitters are locked in the ultimate hipster battle over trademark infringement. On Tuesday, Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and its promoter Goldenvoice filed a lawsuit against the clothing retailer. The suit claims that Urban Outfitters has been selling clothes using the festival’s name and trademark design through its line Free People.

According to the lawsuit, at least four products have been marketed using the “Coachella Marks,” which amounts to unfair competition since they are “directly competitive with those offered by Coachella.” The suit described Urban Outfitters’ style philosophy as “bohemian, hipster, ironically humorous, kitschy, retro and vintage.” Many would say that this style is exactly how they think a music festival goer would dress. But that doesn’t mean Urban Outfitters is free to use a specific festival’s name for marketing purposes.

One example the lawsuit mentions is the so-called “Coachella Valley Tunic” which was described on Free People’s website as “the quintessential summer musical festival piece to throw on and go with.” That specific page has since been taken down. Urban Outfitters also allegedly had a whole line called Coachella Bella that was sold by several major retailers such as Macy’s and Amazon.

billboard: #Coachella festival sues Urban Outfitters for trademark infringement https://t.co/cpY6oyXlwi pic.twitter.com/RZ2H5LiQsB

— LiveShed (@LiveShedInc) March 17, 2017

And it doesn’t even end there–according to the suit, Urban has bought some keyword ads from Google, which means that if someone googles the word Coachella, products from Urban could pop up. Coachella has apparently made several demands, including a cease-and-desist letter, that Urban stop using its name, to no effect. The festival said it’s very selective with its licensing agreements and that it already has one with clothing giant H&M.

Coachella came under fire recently when it was revealed that owner Phil Anschutz has given a lot of money to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, compulsory unionism in workplaces, and global warming science. He has also sued the IRS several times to get out of having to pay taxes.

But Urban is not that innocent either. The company has been sued for using other names as well as designs without permission before. In 2012, it was sued for branding products “Navajo” without having anything to do with the actual Navajo Nation. That case wasn’t settled until November 2016.

Neither Coachella nor Urban Outfitters have offered any public comments about the lawsuit at this time.

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 Coachella Sues Urban Outfitters For Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

A Washington D.C. wine bar filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump on Wednesday night, claiming that his continued involvement with the nearby Trump International Hotel creates unfair competition for other businesses. Trump has resigned from the Trump Organization and handed it over to his two sons, but he still holds a financial interest.

The bar claims it has seen a significant decrease in income since the inauguration, and says that now that Trump is president, many officials and lobbyists choose his hotel rather than other local businesses in order to gain political influence. As Trump often drops in on the weekends, there’s also the chance to get some personal time with the president. “It seems to us to be a clear situation in which he’s using his office of the president to get a financial gain at the expense of local businesses,” said the bar’s attorney, Scott Rome.

But Trump’s team called the lawsuit “a wild publicity stunt completely lacking in legal merit.” However, the lawsuit quotes Sean Spicer’s praise of the hotel at a press conference in January as well as an anonymous lobbyist saying that government officials notice who spends money in the hotel bar.

Asked about new Trump hotel lawsuit and claims that Trump hotel is hurting small biz, Sean Spicer says Trump is a supporter of small biz

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) March 9, 2017

The owners of Cork Wine Bar, Khalid Pitts and Diane Gross, are politically active and often host political fundraisers. Gross used to be a civil rights attorney and counsel to former Senator Barbara Mikulski. Pitts was once the campaign director of the Service Employees International Union, a political director for the Sierra Club, and ran for DC Council three years ago. They say that they appreciate healthy competition between businesses, but that now it feels like every place except for Trump’s hotel is a second choice for anyone wanting to do business with the government.

Have to brag about lawsuit just filed by my amazing dad — still making trouble for people in power, at age 78!

https://t.co/jwt08epKnK

— Nina Morrison (@Nina_R_Morr) March 9, 2017

The bar owners have legal help from pro bono attorneys and they are not seeking any money–they just want to end the unfair competition. It is also not filed as a constitutional challenge regarding the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits a president from accepting benefits from foreign states. The suit addresses Trump as a private businessman, but it still suggests that he could get rid of the problem by resigning.

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 Washington D.C. Wine Bar Sues Trump For Unfair Competition appeared first on Law Street.

Japan has come up with something that tourists love and Nintendo hates: real life Mario Kart on the streets of Tokyo. This may sound too good to be true, but the company MariCar really organizes tours on custom made go karts, complete with character costumes for rent and even an optional mustache. You can dress up as Toad, Peach, Mario or the other characters from Mushroom Kingdom, and there are also super hero and Disney character costumes.

You also have the option to play the music from the game through Bluetooth speakers in the car, for an additional fee. However, the website warns customers that they are not allowed to actually throw banana peels or red shells at each other or on the street–although it’s unclear where they would even find any red turtle shells. But now the video game giant Nintendo, that created Mario, has thrown a triple banana peel at MariCar by suing the company.

Nintendo is suing Tokyo’s real-life Mario Kart cosplayers for IP infringement ️https://t.co/y3OnWtecCG pic.twitter.com/LxBOQprJ5T

— AllGamesDelta (@AllGamesDelta) February 24, 2017

Nintendo filed the lawsuit last Friday, which stated that MariCar is promoting the Mario Kart-themed tours without permission, despite a previous warning from Nintendo. Apparently MariCar didn’t give Nintendo “a good-faith answer,” so it decided to sue. MariCar, on the other hand, said that it had asked advice from lawyers beforehand, who gave the green light to go ahead with the business model since it doesn’t constitute a trademark violation. MariCar has said it would like to work with Nintendo on the business, but it seems like Nintendo isn’t that interested.

EXOトラック
待ってたらまさかの
マリカー( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ❤️ゎら pic.twitter.com/S9UJacVzAx

— ExO❤︎miku (@EXO218899) December 7, 2016

According to Tripadvisor, customers have rated MariCar almost exclusively as “excellent.” But MariCar representatives are concerned. “We cannot even imagine how much it would cost in a court dispute against the world-famous company. We are afraid that our business will be hugely influenced,” they said in a statement.

Nintendo is doing pretty well after it launched the new Pokémon Go game last summer, which made its stock price double. At the end of last year, Nintendo said it is planning to open several theme parks in Universal Studios in Japan, Orlando, and Hollywood. Super Mario fans definitely have something to look forward to: “Gigantic Piranha Plants spring to life. Question blocks, power-ups and more surround you,” a press release said. “Guests will feel as if they are playing inside their favorite games–this time in real life.”

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 Nintendo Throws a Banana Peel at the Real Life Mario Kart in Tokyo appeared first on Law Street.

The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) has filed a motion against the DEA, challenging the agency’s handling of hemp foods as Schedule I drugs.

On February 6, the HIA filed a motion to find the DEA in contempt of court for failing to comply with a 13-year-old court injunction, prohibiting the agency from regulating hemp food products as Schedule I controlled substances. A 2004 ruling, made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, determined that the DEA had violated the Controlled Substances Act by designating hemp stalk, fiber, sterilized seed, and oil as “marijuana.”

Hemp contains trace amounts of naturally occurring THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The versatile crop be used in a variety of ways, from making rope and fabrics, to food and fuel. In December 2016, the DEA and North Dakota Department of Agriculture halted the export of Healthy Oilseeds’ hemp products grown under the state’s hemp pilot program and Congress’ Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill), claiming it was prohibited “because industrial hemp is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act.”

“We will not stand idly by while the DEA flouts the will of Congress, violates the Ninth Circuit order, and harasses honest hemp producers trying to make a living with this in-demand crop,” said Colleen Keahey, Executive Director of the HIA, in a press release.

The motion comes nearly two months after the DEA added a new code to its Federal Register that reclassifies CBD oil and other marijuana extracts, like hemp oil, as Schedule 1 drugs. DEA officials argued that the code would allow the agency to track quantities of CBD and other marijuana extracts imported and exported to and from the U.S. separately from quantities of marijuana, but marijuana advocates have labeled the move as federal overreach.

Classifying marijuana–and its derivatives, such as hemp–in the same category as “hard drugs” like heroin and bath salts continues to baffle weed advocates; the drug is praised for its medicinal properties, and no deaths from a marijuana overdose have ever been recorded.

“Hemp is a healthy superfood with vital nutrients such as Omegas 3 and 6, protein, fiber and all 10 essential amino acids that are ideal for today’s family,” said Keahey. “The DEA must stop treating hemp, hempseed and hempseed oil, which is a nutritious ingredient, as something illicit.”

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 Hemp Industries Association Sues DEA for Regulating Hemp as a Schedule I Drug appeared first on Law Street.

Technology is not glitch-proof, as a businessman from Côte d’Azur in southern France learned last week. The man is suing San Francisco-based Uber for a whopping $48 million after the app let his wife know of his whereabouts, which allegedly caused his divorce.

The man says he used his wife’s iPhone to order a ride through Uber then signed out of the app. But what he didn’t know was that the app apparently kept sending notifications to the phone much later, even when he was logged out. Those notifications let his wife know when he was traveling and when he arrived at a destination.

It’s unclear whether or not she could also see his actual destination, but if he had told her that he was, say, working late or visiting his parents, she probably got suspicious if the app kept telling her he was riding in an Uber. According to French newspaper Le Figaro, it is also not known whether he actually did cheat, but he said that the notifications certainly led his wife to believe so. The couple is now divorced.

@Independent Well, he should have known better

— WeCanGetYouAnything (@WeCanGetYou) February 9, 2017

While it may be common sense to not use your partner’s phone if you’re up to no good, the man and his lawyer still blame Uber for everything. “My client was the victim of a bug in an application […] and the bug has caused him problems in his private life,” said his lawyer David-André Darmon. Uber declined to comment, as the company doesn’t comment on individual cases.

Le Figaro tested recreating the glitch, and confirmed that the app would keep sending notifications to a phone, even if the user had logged out. But it only worked with versions of the app that were older than the December 15 update and only on iPhones.

This is not the first time that Uber has been involved in a privacy issue. For example, at the end of last year, a court filing by the company’s former forensic investigator, Samuel “Ward” Spangenberg, revealed that the company’s lack of cyber security allowed employees to keep tabs on famous politicians, celebrities, and even exes.

Uber insisted that Spangenberg had old information and that the company’s strict policies prohibited employees from seeing such data. But then five former security professionals spoke up and largely confirmed Spangenberg’s account. Both cases raise concerns about Uber’s handle on its users’ private information.

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 French Man Sues Uber For $48 Million, Claims the App Caused His Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

Frank Ocean’s estranged father is suing him…again. According to a TMZ report, Ocean’s father, Calvin Cooksey, is filing a defamation lawsuit against his son. The $14.5 million lawsuit is a response to a Tumblr post that Ocean wrote after the Orlando nightclub shooting that had the “Blonde” singer, who infamously took to Tumblr to discuss his sexuality in 2012, recounting the time his dad used a homophobic slur. In the post that led to the defamation lawsuit, Ocean wrote:

I was six years old when I heard my dad call our transgender waitress a f****t as he dragged me out a neighborhood diner saying we wouldn’t be served because she was dirty. That was the last afternoon I saw my father and the first time I heard that word, I think, although it wouldn’t shock me if it wasn’t.

Cooksey, who considers himself to be somewhat of a multihyphenate, claims that the story never happened, and that it has caused damages to his aspiring career in film and music. This isn’t the first time Cooksey has filed a lawsuit–in fact, it’s not even the first time he’s filed a lawsuit against his son.

In 2012, Ocean took to his since-deleted Twitter account to reveal that his father was suing him for $1 million. “Father wanna sue me for a million. Like I owe him back child support. Weak individual bought me a swiss knife at 6yrs old then dipped on me,” Ocean tweeted.

In 2014, TMZ reported that Cooksey hit rap mogul Russell Simmons with a $142 million lawsuit, claiming that Simmons’ hip-hop culture website GlobalGrind unfairly painted him as horrible father. Like his current lawsuit, Cooksey sued Simmons for damages to his future income. In the lawsuit, according to TMZ, Cooksey claimed that Ocean’s “Money Grubbing mother” hid his own son from him and didn’t give Cooksey the chance to be a father. Ocean, who is notoriously private, maintains a close relationship with his mom. In October, Ocean brought her as his date to the final Obama White House state dinner.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity has been sued by their own father. Just last year, actor Christian Slater was involved in a $20 million lawsuit that his father, who is also an actor, filed against him for defamation of character. In the suit, as Entertainment Tonight reported, Slater’s father claimed that comments his son made in an interview claiming that he suffered from mental health issues “ruined his career in the stage, motion picture, and television industry.” The lawsuit was tossed out in July.

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 Frank Ocean’s Father Sues Him for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

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.

A California woman is suing the popular fast-casual burrito chain Chipotle, alleging that the company used a photo of her in its advertisements, but that she never gave it permission to do so. Leah Caldwell, the plaintiff, is asking for over $2 billion, specifically $2,237,633,000, arguing that the company has made that much money off of the use of her photo that was taken in 2006.

Caldwell claims that she was sitting down to eat at one of the chain’s stores in Colorado, when a photographer snapped her photo without asking permission first. While he then asked her to sign a release to use the photo,  Caldwell claims that she left the store without signing it, thereby preventing Chipotle from using the photo. That photographer, Steve Adams, is also listed as a defendant, along with the food chain.

Caldwell says that she then saw the photo of her in multiple promotional materials in Florida and California in 2014 and 2015, and that alcohol had been photoshopped onto the table in front of her. While the photo was taken in 2006, she didn’t see the picture being used in any promotional materials until 2014, so she didn’t sue before then. She has filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Colorado.

Some of the news outlets who picked up the story pointed out–perhaps rightly so–that Caldwell’s estimate for how much she is “owed” for the picture is a bit high. Caldwell got the $2 billion-plus number by adding up the total of all of Chipotle’s profits from 2006-2015, and believes that Chipotle’s 2016 profits, when they are calculated, should be added to her paycheck as well. But that would mean that all the profits the company made in that eight year period were attributable to her photo. As Lee Morris pf FStoppers–a site dedicated to providing news for photographers–pointed out:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Caldwell should be compensated for this error, but $2.2 billion may be a bit high. Ten thousand dollars and a year’s supply of burritos would be more than enough to compensate for the error, don’t you think?

Chipotle has not made a statement about the lawsuit yet, except to say that it does not comment on pending cases.

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 California Woman Files $2 Billion Lawsuit Against Chipotle After Company Uses her Photo appeared first on Law Street.

At a pool party in 2015, white police officer David Eric Casebolt slammed black teenager Dajerria Becton to the ground and pinned her down with his knee. Now she has sued him, as well as the city and police department, for the psychological damage the incident caused her, citing excessive force and seeking $5 million in damages. Becton was only 15 at the time and was an invited guest to the party, which took place in a predominantly white neighborhood in McKinney, Texas. Another black teenager, Tatiana Rhodes, and her mother were organizing a cookout at a community pool as an end of the school year get-together for classmates. They live in the area.

A cellphone video that went viral shows Becton starting to walk away from the situation after police officers show up, but Casebolt runs over to her and pins her to the ground with a knee in her back. He also pulls her hair and shoves her face down in the ground while she pleads to see her mother. When some boys come up and tell the officer to let her go, he draws his gun at the unarmed teenagers. Many who saw the video thought it was clear that Casebolt overreacted, and he resigned from his position within a few days.

Rhodes, the girl who organized the party, said that it all started when a couple of white women at the pool started aiming racial slurs at the teenagers, calling them names, and saying that they should go back to their Section 8 homes. One woman even reportedly slapped Rhodes in the face. In a Youtube video interview with Rhodes, her mother criticized the grown women for harassing children rather than talking to the parents. At some point during the party, someone called the police and claimed that a group of teenagers from out of town had showed up and started a fight. But the Rhodes family said that only classmates who were invited attended the party.

Becton’s lawyer Kim T. Cole said Thursday that the incident affected Becton psychologically and that she is struggling in school. She said, “I would hope that at a certain point she gets some counseling and kind of regains her life and confidence. Emotionally, she is a wreck.” Cole said that the physical injuries–abrasions, head and neck injuries—have healed, but that the emotional scars will remain. Becton has since received repeated threats, been the victim of cyberbullying, and become a target at her school. Cole also said that Becton is afraid to call the police if anything happens to her, as she doesn’t trust law enforcement officers now.

#Texan teenager unlawfully tackled by #police, sues the city for $5 million: https://t.co/QmlzwopSUB pic.twitter.com/7DrY2wI5cB

— The Voice Newspaper (@TheVoiceNews) January 5, 2017

The lawsuit cites excessive force, assault, and unlawful detention. But a spokeswoman from the city of McKinney denied all the allegations and wrote in a statement that the McKinney Police Department will defend itself vigorously. Casebolt’s lawyer, Jane Bishkin, said that he “let his emotions get the best of him.” He was allegedly stressed after responding to two suicide calls right before arriving at the pool party, one where a man had shot himself in front of his family and one where Casebolt managed to talk a teenage girl out of jumping from a roof. After resigning, he and his family received death threats and had to move to an undisclosed location.

Casebolt was also sued back in 2008 for allegedly abusing a black driver, Albert Earl Brown Jr., who claimed that the officer had yanked his pants down to his ankles during a roadside search. Brown said he was being racially profiled, and that Casebolt told a white woman who was in his car that she had made a mistake by hanging out with him. The case was dismissed as Brown had marijuana in his car and was jailed. But the fact that Casebolt has been at the center of two separate racial incidents has many believing this runs more deeply than misunderstandings or stress.

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 Teenage Girl Sues Police Officer Who Pushed Her Down at Pool Party appeared first on Law Street.

It may sound like a spy movie, but several consumer groups are claiming that some dolls from Genesis Toys are secretly listening in on your kids. Specifically, it is the “My Friend Cayla” dolls and the “i-Que” robots that are equipped with recording technology.

The toys record what children say to them and upload the sound files to Nuance Communications, a voice tech company often employed by the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) together with three consumer groups claim that Genesis unfairly collects and uses audio files of children without getting parental consent.

“Cayla can understand and respond to you in real-time about almost anything… She is not just a doll… she’s a real friend!” Genesis Toys says in its marketing material. But the dolls may be a little more real than most parents are comfortable with. These intelligent toys are connected to the internet via an app and Bluetooth technology. When children ask them a question, their speech is recorded, converted to text, uploaded online, and can be searched on Google or Wikipedia. At the same time, the audio is uploaded to Nuance.

Now, the question is, why would playing children be interesting for an agency employed by the military and similar agencies? Well, the consumer groups believe that the recordings are used to improve products that Nuance sells. One of their services is called Nuance Identifier, which can recognize criminals by their voices, among millions of recordings.

Great Today Show piece on why Internet connected dolls aren’t safe for children featuring @EPICprivacy #ToyFail https://t.co/6ZbLu8H4Vc

— CCFC (@commercialfree) December 9, 2016

The lawsuit also brings what the groups allege is hidden product placement embedded in the toys. The Cayla doll allegedly says a lot of phrases connected to Disney–that her favorite movie is “The Little Mermaid” and her favorite song is “Let it Go” from “Frozen.” For children, it’s not clear that this embedded information is advertising. The Cayla doll also has a function that asks for the kids’ personal information, like their name, their parents’ names, where they live, and where they go to school–information that a lot of parents would not want in the wrong hands.

But a representative from Nuance said that the company does not sell or use the data it collects for marketing or advertising. In a statement, Richard Mack wrote:

Upon learning of the consumer advocacy groups’ concerns through media, we validated that we have adhered to our policy with respect to the voice data collected through the toys referred to in the complaint; and Nuance does not share voice data collected from or on behalf of any of our customers with any of our other customers.

The toymaker Genesis has not responded to request for comment from several media organizations. Even if the company doesn’t mean any harm to children, parents have a right to worry in a technological age when all digital information is at risk for computer hackers. Just be mindful of what you say in front of any dolls.

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 Consumer Group Says Talking Dolls are Spying on Your Kids appeared first on Law Street.

When actress Sofia Vergara and businessman Nick Loeb were engaged, they created and froze embryos, planning to use a surrogate to have a child. But they split up in 2014, and since then, a legal battle has ensued over the frozen embryos. Loeb wants to use one of those embryos to have a baby despite Vergara’s opposition. And allegedly the reason why they split up was because he wanted kids and she didn’t. A legal contract they signed when they were still together made it clear that the embryos could only be used if both parties consented. But it didn’t specify what would happen if they split up, which is why in May of 2015 Loeb sued Vergara for the right to have his own baby.

Now, Loeb is using a different tactic. He filed a lawsuit on “behalf” of the frozen embryos, which are named Emma and Isabella (yes, they already have names). Loeb wants full custody and the chance to implant them in a surrogate. He contends that they have the right to live and to benefit from a trust fund that Loeb set up for them to fund their future education and health care costs. This sounds like a very bizarre case, and like Vergara says, it’s not ideal to bring their mutual embryos to life considering the couple is separated and she is now married to actor Joe Manganiello. But considering the suit was filed in Louisiana, a very pro-life state, it’s not unfathomable that Loeb gets his way.

STRONG CONTENDER FOR THE STRANGEST HEADLINE YOU’LL SEE TODAY: “Sofía Vergara sued by her own embryos” https://t.co/M83TIVe4gj

— Jon Manuel (@JonManuel) December 7, 2016

If that happens, he would get full custody and Vergara would have no parental rights. Loeb has also previously argued that it’s unfair that women can bring children into the world even if the man objects. “Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects?” he wrote in an op-ed in 2015. Quoting religious beliefs about the sanctity of life, he claimed that the embryos should be seen as lives rather than property. He wrote that he has dreamt of being a parent his whole life, but that during their relationship it became apparent that it was not a priority for Vergara, who already has a 22-year-old son from an earlier relationship.

According to her lawyer, Vergara wants the embryos to stay frozen, as she is Catholic and could not let them be destroyed. She claims that Loeb just wants to take advantage of her celebrity status to promote himself. Loeb’s claims that he truly wants children and that he believes that keeping their embryos “frozen forever is tantamount to killing them.” No matter who is right, the case is unusual, and it could be precedent-setting.

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 Sofia Vergara Sued by Her Own Frozen Embryos appeared first on Law Street.

Walmart has agreed to pay $7.5 million in order to settle a lawsuit that claims the company discriminated against thousands of gay employees.

The lawsuit alleged that Walmart denied spousal health insurance benefits to same-sex employees between 2011 and 2013. The company said the settlement will benefit “no more than a few thousand current and former Walmart associates.”

Jacqueline A. Cote, who has worked for the retail giant since 1999 in Maine and Massachusetts, filed the lawsuit last year after she was repeatedly denied coverage for her  ailing wife. In 2012, Cote’s wife, Diana Smithson, was diagnosed with cancer. Since Walmart denied her health insurance benefits, the couple racked up more than $150,000 in debt. Smithson passed away in March.

The lawsuit alleged that Walmart violated the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law.

As per the settlement, Walmart denies all allegations brought forth in the lawsuit, but chose to settle, “in the interest of resolving this dispute between the parties without the significant expense, delay and inconvenience of further litigation.”

Cote, who was pleased by the lawsuit’s outcome, said in a statement, “It’s a relief to bring this chapter of my life to a close.”

Walmart began offering health benefits for same-sex couples in 2014 after the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act; prior to that Walmart only offered benefits to employees’ domestic partners in states where it was required to do so by law.

In an effort to increase inclusion, the company recently announced that it will be extending its health insurance to cover transgender employees this year. On Monday, the company received a perfect 100 score from Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, the group’s annual ranking of companies’ workplace protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees.

According to Reuters, Sally Welborn, a senior vice president at the Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, said in a statement that diversity and inclusion were among the company’s core values.

“We will continue to not distinguish between same and opposite sex spouses when it comes to the benefits we offer under our health insurance plan,” she said.

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 Walmart Agrees to Pay $7.5 Million Settlement in Same-Sex Benefits Case appeared first on Law Street.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop the recount of election ballots that Green Party leader Jill Stein has initiated. His argument is that it is expensive and could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. The recount in Michigan has not started yet, and Schuette asked the Michigan Board of Canvassers to reject Stein’s request, claiming that she doesn’t have any evidence of fraud or errors. Since it is pretty urgent, he also filed an emergency motion with the Michigan Supreme Court to look at the issue immediately. “We have asked the court to end the recount which Stein is pursuing in violation of Michigan laws that protect the integrity of our elections,” he said.

It is inexcusable for Stein to put MI votes at risk of paying millions and potentially losing their voice in the Elec College.

— A.G. Bill Schuette (@SchuetteOnDuty) December 2, 2016

The lawsuit says that Stein received only about 50,000 votes of the 4.7 million votes cast in Michigan, and yet she wants a recount to make sure that was the right result. It claims that it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and criticizes the fact that she waited until three weeks after the election and then requested a recount by hand, which will take a very long time.

But Stein’s campaign paid the fee for filing the request in full, almost $1 million, and has also raised more than $6 million in just a few days to cover the recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Her argument for doing so has nothing to do with believing she could win the election; rather it is about transparency and fairness. She wrote in an op-ed in USA Today on Thursday:

In the age of computerized voting machines and unprecedented corporate influence in our elections, our electoral system is under increasing threat. How can every citizen’s voice be heard if we do not know if every citizen’s vote is counted correctly?

Also on Friday, the Board of State Canvassers in Michigan failed to reach an agreement on another objection to the recount effort, this time by Trump’s lawyers. Since the vote was 2-2, the requested recount could theoretically start as early as the beginning of next week. But it all depends on what happens with Schuette’s lawsuit.

The recounts Americans are calling for will help restore trust in our democracy. They’ll also point us to reforms that safeguard that trust.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) December 2, 2016

Stein bashed the lawsuit, calling it a politically motivated attempt to side with Trump, and said: “Our democracy allows for recounts to ensure the accuracy and security of elections, and today’s move by the Attorney General is yet another frivolous attempt to obstruct this legal process.”

She pointed out that a miscount doesn’t need to have been made on purpose, but as with anything that has to do with machines, glitches do happen. In 2004, 90,000 votes remained uncounted because of calibration problems with the machines in a county in Ohio. Who knows if anything else could be wrong?

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 Michigan Attorney General Files Lawsuit to Stop Election Recount appeared first on Law Street.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but makeup artist Vlada Haggerty doesn’t seem to think so. After allegedly stomaching months of idea theft, Haggerty says she’s ready to sue Kylie Jenner, claiming the “Keeping Up With The Kardashians” reality star copied her artwork to promote her holiday makeup line.

On November 19, the Kylie Cosmetics Twitter page posted an image of a woman with red ombre lips concealing her eyes with gold covered hands. The promo pic was meant to show off some of Jenner’s newest creme shadow and lip kit shades.

Yellow Gold CRÈME shadow on hands available in the holiday collection. Left to right: MARY JO, MERRY, VIXEN ombré on the lips @MarceloCantu pic.twitter.com/05jO4qEFIH

— KYLIE COSMETICS (@kyliecosmetics) November 19, 2016

However, the image drew a striking resemblance to one that Haggerty posted on September 24 captioned “See No Evil.” Haggerty, who goes by the username Vladmua on Instagram, called out Jenner and her company a week ago by posting a side-by-side of the two pics and captioning it:

Really @kyliecosmetics? Haven’t you gotten enough ‘inspiration’ from me already? Left is a the work @juliakuzmenko, @brittrafuson and I shot a few months ago and right is @kyliecosmetics new campaign.

Really @kyliecosmetics? Haven’t you gotten enough ‘inspiration’ from me already? Left is a the work @juliakuzmenko, @brittrafuson and I shot a few months ago and right is @kyliecosmetics new campaign.

A photo posted by Vlada Haggerty (@vladamua) on Nov 19, 2016 at 8:18pm PST

This is all part of a long controversy between the two that dates back to a year ago. Haggerty claims that not only has Kylie attempted to pass off her artwork as her own in the past, but the teenage entrepreneur also modeled her brand’s lip logo off  Haggerty’s signature melting lips.

Aside from the copycat claims, Jenner also faced backlash over defective lip gloss wands and overpricing, and was even accused of rebranding ColourPop’s matte liquid lipsticks formula as her own.

Photographer Julia Kuzmenko McKim, who captured Haggerty’s “See No Evil” image explained the concept of the photoshoot in a lengthy blog post. McKim wrote, “It breaks my heart to see how large brands take independent, unprotected artists’ work and use them to multiply their wealth. In an ideal world, big brands would easily prevent such backlashes by hiring the artists who have already created something that they would love for their own campaign.”

Kylie Cosmetics has not yet commented on the threat of legal action, but some experts say the lawsuit will likely be a dud. Since ideas aren’t legally protected, Jenner would need to have used the exact same image as Haggerty for there to be a real case.

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 Kylie Jenner Threatened with Lawsuit Over Holiday Promo Pics appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Amber Heard was barely out of the headlines after a divorce and abuse allegations against Johnny Depp before she ended up back in the spotlight this week. Now, the producers of the film “London Fields” are suing her for conspiring to undermine the movie and breaching her obligations.

The movie was scheduled to premiere at the Toronto Film Festival last year but got stuck in a legal dispute between the producers and the director. And now, more than a year later, Amber Heard is next in line to go to court. The ongoing drama could have been part of the movie itself. In the film, Heard plays a clairvoyant femme fatale who has seen her own murder but doesn’t know who will kill her. Billy Bob Thornton, Jim Sturgess, and Amber’s then-husband Johnny Depp also have parts in the movie.

The real life drama started when the director and the actors spoke out against  the film’s final edit, which according to them was far from the director’s original vision. Director Matthew Cullen was so upset that he sued producer Chris Hanley, who apparently saw the movie going in a different direction. And for some reason, both versions were prepared independently, as the actors were asked to read lines for two different variations. After the original lawsuit, the film’s premiere at the Toronto Festival was canceled. Then the production company sued back, saying that Cullen and the main actors were trying to sabotage and undermine the film.

London Fields producers suing Amber Heard for $10million.. #amberheard #londonfields https://t.co/XomvRWlQkS

— Flickreel (@Flickreel) November 21, 2016

The complaint against Heard, filed on Monday, says that she refused to shoot certain scenes though they were in the script, refused to show up at the film festival, and conspired with Cullen, the director. Hanley is seeking $10 million in compensatory damages. The scenes mentioned in the complaint involve nudity, which according to the production company, Heard had agreed to beforehand. The complaint reads:

While the inherent tension between actors and directors (on the one hand) and producers (on the other) is nothing new in Hollywood, the unauthorized and unlawful acts of Heard, Cullen, and others–most notably, their campaign to damage Plaintiff, the Picture, and the Picture’s investors–are perhaps unprecedented. Indeed, as a result of their misconduct, which continues to this day, the very promising Picture remains in limbo, hijacked and placed under a cloud by Heard, Cullen, and others.

On the other hand, the director has said that the producers hijacked the movie, adding “incendiary imagery evoking 9/11 jumpers edited against pornography” to the final edit.

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 Amber Heard Sued for $10 Million for Undermining ‘London Fields’ 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.

President-elect Donald Trump has reached a multimillion dollar settlement in the fraud cases against his now-defunct for profit Trump University. Trump will pay a reported $25 million settle the case, and will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws.

There were three lawsuits pending against Trump University; two class action suits in California and one case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. According to Reuters, all of the cases would be covered in the settlement.

Schneiderman has said that more than 5,000 students were defrauded out of $40 million after paying up to $35,000 to learn all of Trump’s real estate investing “secrets” from his “hand-picked” instructors.

Trump’s settlement comes across a bit ironic; Trump has said many times that he doesn’t settle cases. In fact, at the Republican presidential debate in Detroit, Trump said:

I don’t settle cases. I don’t do it because that’s why I don’t get sued very often, because I don’t settle, unlike a lot of other people.

However, he seems to have reconsidered his staunch stance.

So the orange sleazeball is going to avoid trial on the Trump U case! Settlement with no admission of guilt. What a load of crap!

— philip harris (@pharris830) November 18, 2016

U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel urged both parties to settle. He is the same judge that Trump claimed couldn’t be impartial in the case because he was “of Mexican heritage.”

Trump has categorically denied any wrongdoing in the case, and even claimed that 98% of the people who signed up for the courses expressed satisfaction with them.

A spokesperson for Schneiderman said he “has always been open to a settlement that fairly compensates the many victims of Trump University who have been waiting years for a resolution.”

Interviewer: so it says here you went to TU? What school is that?

Trump University

Interviewer: pic.twitter.com/J9WJCu5pXK

— Kevin Flood (@FLOOKLYN) November 18, 2016

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 Donald “I Never Settle” Trump Reaches Settlement in University Fraud Case appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever thought to yourself: “wow, I need to up my fruit intake. I should go get a Krispy Kreme donut”?

No?

Well, that’s probably for the best. It turns out that many of Krispy Kreme’s donuts don’t actually contain real fruit. 

via GIPHY

If you’re shocked, you’re not alone. A California man named Jason Saidian filed a $5 million class action lawsuit against Krispy Kreme, accusing the food chain of false advertising and fraud for misrepresenting some of its donut flavors. The pastries that he specifically has an issue with are the Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled, Glazed Raspberry Filled, and Glazed Blueberry Cake donuts, as well as the Glazed Blueberry Cake donut holes because they don’t contain any real raspberries or blueberries. He’s also upset with the Maple Iced Glazed donuts, because they don’t contain real maple syrup. Instead, the donut fillings are made with artificial flavorings and food coloring.

Saidian’s lawsuit contrasts those imposter pastries with Krispy Kreme products that actually are made with fruit, like some of its strawberry, apple, and lemon-themed offerings. That’s fair, and the lawsuit also rightly points out that Krispy Kreme isn’t great about explaining what ingredients are in its donuts, stating:

The donuts sold in-store by [Krispy Kreme] are displayed in a tray behind a glass counter, along with a small placard in front of each tray that provides the name of the donut variety. No ingredients list is provided or available to customers in-store.

But, the lawsuit doesn’t stop there. Instead, it laments the health concerns that could arise from eating fake-fruit donuts, for example blueberries “have the potential to limit the development and severity of certain cancers and vascular diseases…and neurodegenerative diseases of aging.” That seems a bit far-fetched–the little good that could be done by eating blueberries seem like it would be negated by eating a Krispy Kreme donut in the first place. Saidan’s lawyers told Buzzfeed that’s not the point though:

This lawsuit, on behalf of consumers, concerns Krispy Kreme misleading consumers that its products contain premium ingredients such as blueberry, raspberry and maple syrup. This lawsuit is not about whether the [donuts] are healthy or not.

But honestly, I’m more surprised that some of the donuts actually have any fruit components in them in the first place. It’s clearly time for more donuts.

via GIPHY

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 Fruitless Suit?: Krispy Kreme Sued Over Fake Berry-Flavored Donuts appeared first on Law Street.

Hulk Hogan will be receiving at least $31 million to settle his privacy case against Gawker, after the media company published his sex tape, according to court documents.

This feud between Gawker, its founder, Nick Denton, and Terry Bollea–Hogan’s real name–has been going on since the $100 million defamation case was filed in 2012.

The privacy in question pertained to a sex tape of Hogan and Heather Cole, who was the wife of Hogan’s best friend Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem at the time, that Gawker featured on its website. While it did not play the entire video, it played over a minute and a half chunk of it, while other news sites only showed stills and discussed the video.

Gawker named the story, in its usual gossipy way, “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed is Not Safe For Work but Watch it Anyway.” The story not only included part of the video, but offered a graphic play-by-play of the sex tape for those who didn’t want to watch. Hogan claimed that he was secretly filmed.

The subsequent case forced Gawker to file for bankruptcy after a jury awarded Hogan $140 million in March. Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley billionaire, was secretly funding Hogan’s case against Gawker.

Thiel explained in a New York Times article in August why he funded Hogan’s case:

In 2007, I was outed by the online gossip blog Gawker. It wasn’t so many years ago, but it was a different time: Gay men had to navigate a world that wasn’t always welcoming, and often faced difficult choices about how to live safely and with dignity. In my case, Gawker decided to make those choices for me. I had begun coming out to people I knew, and I planned to continue on my own terms. Instead, Gawker violated my privacy and cashed in on it.

Denton broke the news on his blog, with a piece titled “A hard peace,” where he wrote, “After four years of litigation funded by a billionaire with a grudge going back even further, a settlement has been reached. The saga is over.”

He then goes on to discuss how “three true stories” are going to be taken down.

Denton said he was confident that the appeals would overturn the original judgement.

“I will continue to work on topic forums, still convinced that the internet can bring people together in shared understanding rather than just triggering conflict between them,” Denton wrote. “Hulk Hogan’s retirement will be comfortable.”

In August, Univision acquired Gawker Media for $135 million. While Gawker itself has since been shut down, websites like Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Deadspin, Lifehacker, and Kotaku still publish content.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gawker to Pay Hulk Hogan $31 Million in Settlement appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge has ordered the Republican National Committee to provide details on what kind of agreements it has with the Trump campaign for preventing voter fraud and maintaining “ballot security.” The RNC is bound by a decree from 1982 to not engage in voter fraud prevention activities without the consent of a federal court.

The judge also ordered the RNC to give an explanation of what Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pence were alluding to when they recently said that their campaign is collaborating “closely” with the RNC to make sure there is no voter fraud going on. The order comes after a lawsuit that the Democratic National Committee filed against the RNC last week, alleging that it is supporting the Trump campaign with ballot security measures that could be illegal.

Trump has been talking at great lengths about how widespread voter fraud is and claiming that the system is rigged. On his website he urges people who see anything “suspicious” going on at the polls to personally intervene or to sign up to become a volunteer “Trump Election Observer.” This is all to prevent Crooked Hillary from rigging the election, of course.

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

At a rally in Cleveland, Trump claimed that there are 24 million registered voters that are “invalid or significantly inaccurate” and 1.8 million people registered to vote who are actually dead. But there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in America and Factcheck.org debunked Trump’s statements.

This makes it extra ironic that it was a Trump supporter who was arrested for attempting to vote twice in Iowa last week. Terri Lynn Rote, 55, said that she hadn’t planned on voting twice, it was just a spontaneous idea. “I don’t know what came over me,” she said to the Washington Post. She also told Iowa Public Radio that the polls are rigged, and she was afraid someone would change her Trump vote into a vote for Clinton.

Des Moines woman Terri Lynn Rote arrested for voting twice #voterfraud https://t.co/snE3mz9Tn6 pic.twitter.com/uCS09WQmOp

— Jeffrey Guterman (@JeffreyGuterman) October 28, 2016

The decree that blocks the RNC from engaging in any voter fraud prevention that is not approved by federal authorities came about after the RNC used armed guards at the polls in 1981 to intimidate minority voters. It is set to expire in December of next year, but if the DNC is correct in its suspicions, it could be extended. The RNC has until Wednesday at 5 PM to respond to the judge.

But individual presidential candidates are not bound by the decree, which means the Trump campaign is free to go ahead with whatever plans it has uphold “security” at the polls. And according to Slate, Republican officials all over the country are engaging in illegal measures to prevent Democrats from casting their votes. So why are the Republicans so sure that voter fraud exists? Maybe because in some cases they are the ones behind it.

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 Judge Orders the RNC to Explain What it Means by “Ballot Security” appeared first on Law Street.

Is controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s time in office almost up? On Tuesday, news broke that the federal government will file criminal contempt-of-court charges against Arpaio for ignoring orders from a judge. Arpaio was ordered to stop his anti-immigration policies in Arizona, but didn’t comply.

Two days later, activists from a movement called Bazta Arpaio stood outside of the Phoenix sheriff’s office holding a balloon modeled to look like Arpaio in handcuffs. Their organizer Del Palacio said: “The community is excited. They know that this is the best chance we have to get him out of office. Momentum is on our side.”

Today Joe Arpaio goes to court for violating a judges order. Who the criminal now, Joe? #bAZtaArpaio #NoMoreHate @CASEActionAZ pic.twitter.com/mDpT6Tiln2

— Hugo Soto (@HugoSotoLA) October 11, 2016

The group is urging Hispanic people to vote against Arpaio, both to kick him out of office and also with the hopes that it will increase voter participation. The sheriff is seeking a seventh term, and has also been campaigning for Donald Trump, so the new criminal charges came at a pretty bad time for him.

Members of the Bazta Arpaio group said that he has abused their community for a long time and it is time to get him out of office. They will focus on door knocking and campaigning in Latino neighborhoods and will also drive around a red bus spreading their message.

Berta, an organizer w #baztaarpaio and one of Arpaio’s victims, encourages voters to kick him out of office nov. 8 pic.twitter.com/VFzKX14nxN

— Tania A. Unzueta (@_LaTania) October 13, 2016

The court process has been going on since 2008, when some civil rights groups filed a lawsuit regarding racial profiling in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. This led to findings of a pattern of racial bias and in 2013 Arpaio was told to stop his immigration-enforcement operations. These included racial profiling of Hispanic people at traffic stops, patrols in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, and detaining people solely based on their perceived immigration status.

In May of this year the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, found Arpaio was guilty of civil contempt of court for ignoring his orders. The official charges were announced on Tuesday. Arpaio has said he didn’t defy the orders on purpose. But if found guilty, the 84-year-old self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” could face six months in jail.

In his statement on the case, Arpaio blamed Obama for being corrupt and the DOJ of charging him for political reasons.

Here is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s two-part statement about the corrupt DOJ charging him for enforcing our immigration laws. It’s a MUST read. pic.twitter.com/7LhZQXectZ

— Jeremy Nolt (@RealJeremyNolt) October 11, 2016

According to experts, this is more of a symbolic move from the judge. “He’s really taking a stance that ‘Sheriff Joe’ is not above the law. That anyone can be held accountable for their behavior–even if you’re a very popular sheriff,” said criminal justice professor Cara Rabe-Hemp.

Arpaio is an outspoken Trump supporter who joined the fight to find out the “truth” about Obama’s birth certificate. He has also become known for forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outside. No matter how the election in November goes, Del Palacio and other activists have their minds set on not letting him get re-elected as sheriff. “Regardless of what happens in the trial, we’re going to remain focused to ensure that his tenure ends on November 8” he said.

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 Will Arizona Voters Come Together to Remove “America’s Toughest Sheriff”? appeared first on Law Street.

We all know airlines might put your luggage on the wrong flight, but in August, JetBlue sent a child to the wrong destination, causing huge distress for his waiting mother. Now New Yorker Maribel Martinez has filed a lawsuit against JetBlue for mixing up two kids and sending her 5-year-old son Andy to the wrong city. Andy flew by himself from the Dominican Republic and was supposed to arrive at JFK, but ended up in Boston instead. The boy the staff believed was Martinez’s son was also 215 miles away from his destination.

Martinez quoted “emotional distress, extreme fear, horror, mental shock, mental anguish and psychological trauma” as reasons for the lawsuit, and said that she thought her son had been kidnapped and that she never would see him again. It took JetBlue staff three hours to find out what happened and where Andy was, and to let him speak to his mother on the phone. In the meantime, airline staff at the Boston airport had presented Andy to a woman he had never seen before, telling him it was his mother. As icing on the cake the boys even had each other’s passports on them.

Woman files lawsuit against JetBlue Airways for flying her son, 5, to the wrong city. https://t.co/5z4R4PkeEc

— Global News Toronto (@globalnewsto) September 30, 2016

Martinez’s lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. She has already rejected an offer of a $10,000 gift from JetBlue, and the company did also refund her $475 for the plane ticket. The airline has not responded to any media inquiries, but according to New York Daily News officials are conducting an internal investigation. They will then forward the information to the U.S. Department of Transportation before any legal actions can proceed. Martinez’s attorney Sanford Rubenstein said:

Any parent can understand the terrifying fear a mother goes through knowing that her child is missing. This never should have happened and the JetBlue employees should be ashamed of themselves.

According to previous statements from JetBlue, both children were always under the surveillance of airline staff. But it’s easy to understand this is the worst nightmare for any parent, and why Martinez is moving forward with the suit.

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 Woman Sues JetBlue For Mixing Up Kids appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like every family has them–a treasure trove of embarrassing childhood photos. But what happens when those family photos leave the albums, household frames, or boxes, and make it on to social media? One 18-year-old woman from Austria is upset that her parents have posted a number of embarrassing photos from her childhood on Facebook, and is now suing them over those postings.

The 18-year-old, whose name isn’t being made public right now, claims that her parents have posted over 500 images of her as a child over the last seven years. Those include photos of her doing things like being potty-trained, bathing, and other normal childhood activities. But, she claims that the constant exposure of her photos have “made her life a misery.” The photos are viewable by her parents’ combined 700+ Facebook friends.

The woman told local press:

They knew no shame and no limit–and didn’t care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot–every stage was photographed and then made public.

Her father claims that he owns the copyright to the photos, but she argues that because the photos are of her she has the right to privacy. According to Fusion writer Charles Pulliam-Moore:

The family has a court date set for this November and if a judge rules in the girl’s favor, her parents could be forced to pay their daughter for damages as well as cover the cost of her legal fees. In addition to paying out monetary restitution, the court’s decision could set a precedent for similar legal complaints submitted by children against their parents.

There are plenty of concerns that parents should take into account when posting photos of their children online–such as those photos falling into the wrong hands–but being sued by their children probably wasn’t a previously well known one. While this case is being played out in an Austrian court, it raises important questions about who owns a photo and what decisions parents should be able to make about their children’s digital footprints.

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 Austrian Teen Sues Parents For Posting Embarrassing Childhood Photos appeared first on Law Street.

A judge in Atlanta ruled in a civil lawsuit that Bobbi Kristina Brown’s boyfriend Nick Gordon is legally responsible for her death. He repeatedly failed to show up in court, which led the conservator of her estate to win the suit by default. The lawsuit originally sought $50 million in damages for Brown’s unlawful death. A final amount will be determined by a jury in light of Friday’s ruling.

Bobbi Kristina Brown, the daughter of Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown, died in a way that was chillingly similar to that of her mother. In January 2015 she was found unconscious, face down in a bathtub in her Atlanta home. She died in hospice care in July that year.

According to her autopsy, she had morphine, cocaine, alcohol, and prescription drugs in her body when she died. Because of the unclear circumstances surrounding her death, no one was certain whether it was a suicide, murder, or an accident. Nick Gordon was never charged with a crime for Brown’s death.

In August 2015, the conservator of Brown’s estate, attorney Bedelia Hargrove, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Gordon. The lawsuit accused him assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and transferring money from her account without authorization.

JUST IN: Nick Gordon ‘found responsible’ for death of Bobbi Kristina Brown by judge https://t.co/CmJLuWfPju pic.twitter.com/4zZ9smwqSy via @ajc

— Laura A. Harris (@LauraHarrisWFTS) September 16, 2016

According to the lawsuit, Gordon came home intoxicated after a night out and got into an argument with Brown. During the ensuing exchange, the court filing alleges that he gave her a “toxic cocktail,” which left her unconscious. It  also claims Gordon then put her face down in a bathtub filled with cold water, which caused her to suffer brain damages. Gordon then went into the bedroom, where a female guest was waiting, and said, “Now I want a pretty little white girl like you.” After about 15 minutes he tried to wake Brown up and unsuccessfully preformed CPR.

Gordon’s best friend spoke out about Brown’s in court, saying that she once called him in panic after Gordon attacked her. Gordon has continuously denied having anything to do with Brown’s death, but because he failed to show up in court on multiple occasions, the court ruled against him.

R. David Ware, a lawyer for Brown’s conservator, said after the ruling:

In court today, we finally finished a long journey for justice for Bobbi Kristina Brown. The court agrees with us, by striking Mr. Gordon’s answer that he is legally responsible for her death. The only thing left to prove is the value of her life. We intend to do that.

But Brown’s aunt who spoke to reporters outside of the courthouse was still filled with anger. Although she was pleased with the court’s ruling, she said she wanted to see justice for her niece and for Gordon to be arrested.

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 Nick Gordon Found Responsible In Death of Bobbi Kristina Brown appeared first on Law Street.

Katie Couric, famous journalist and current Yahoo! Global News Anchor, now faces a $12 million lawsuit for her recent documentary “Under the Gun.” The plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League who were interviewed for the movie and claim that their representation in the film was unfairly edited and amounts to defamation.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), as well as two of its individual members, filed a lawsuit against Couric and others that produced the film in a U.S. District Court in Richmond, in which they argue that a clip of the movie was edited unfairly and constitutes defamation. The lawsuit reportedly seeks $12 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages per plaintiff.

The segment in question involves Couric’s interview with several members of the VCDL, specifically the clip involving a question about their views on background checks for gun purchases. The clip was edited to make it appear as though the plaintiffs were unable to answer a question, when in fact, they quickly responded to Couric.

Here’s the clip as it appeared in the movie:

And here’s the audio from the actual interaction given to the Washington Free Beacon:

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue,

The fictional exchange is defamatory because it holds the Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks.

It’s pretty obvious that the movie’s editing amounts to a dishonest representation of what happened. The film makes it look like Couric’s question–which asks whether background checks are necessary to prevent terrorists and criminals from purchasing guns–completely stumped the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League whom she was talking to. But when you listen to the actual audio, you notice that the interviewees almost immediately provide a rebuttal. Moreover, the film was edited to show b-roll footage of the VCDL members sitting still for about eight seconds after they were asked the question prior to cutting to the next scene. This added to viewers’ perceptions that they were stumped by the question when, in fact, they quickly responded.

This is also something that Couric herself has admitted. In a statement on the documentary’s website, Couric wrote, “I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.” She continued: “I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.”

Although everyone can agree that the clip was misleading, the question that remains is whether it amounts to defamation. Defamation lawsuits are not easy cases to win. The plaintiffs will need to prove that Couric and the other producers acted with “actual malice.” This means that not only was their work false or misleading, but it also intended to do reputational harm to those in the clip.

A misleading portrayal of someone may be less likely to be considered defamatory compared to showing something insulting about a person that is verifiably false. Defamation claims also need “clear and convincing evidence” to support their claims, a relatively high standard for the burden of proof.

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Stephanie Soechtig, the movie’s director who is also named in the suit, told CNN:

It’s ironic that people who so passionately defend the Second Amendment want to trample the rights guaranteed to a filmmaker under the First. Stephanie stands by ‘Under the Gun’ and will not stop her work on behalf of victims of gun violence

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 Katie Couric Faces $12 Million Defamation Lawsuit for Gun Documentary appeared first on Law Street.

The movie theater chain Cinemark will no longer pursue the $700,000 in legal fees that four surviving victims of the shooting were to pay after they lost a lawsuit to the theater. Four years after the mass shooting at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, this particular case is finally closed after the remaining plaintiffs reached a deal.

Attorneys for the theater chain on Tuesday said:

All plaintiffs in this matter have now waived appeal of the jury’s verdict and the case can now be deemed completely over. Defendants’ goal has always been to resolve this matter fully and completely without an award of costs of any kind to any party.

Surviving victims initially sued Cinemark for not having sufficient security at its theaters, hoping to raise the bar for other theaters across the country. They brought up the lack of security cameras, guards, and silent alarms on the emergency exit doors.

However, Cinemark’s lawyers concluded the theater could have done nothing to prevent the shooting and that the ultimate responsibility lay with the shooter. Cinemark was entitled to ask the plaintiffs to pay for its litigation costs, a bill that amounted to $699,187.13. But now they’ve reached an agreement, which means that any appeals will be dropped and Cinemark will not demand any legal fees from the victims.

The shooting in 2012 left 12 people dead and over 70 injured, including children and an unborn baby. The assailant James Holmes entered the movie theater during a screening of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises,” dressed in a long black coat, a gas mask, throat protector, and leggings. He carried an assault rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns and allegedly said something like “I am the Joker” before he started his shooting rampage. He also had dyed his hair shock orange.

Holmes’ mother spoke out about the event in May this year and urged people to be more open about mental health issues. She didn’t know her son suffered from schizophrenia until she was in court.

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 Cinemark Drops Claim of $700,000 in Legal Fees from Theater Shooting Survivors appeared first on Law Street.

Forty-one Nigerian students have sued Alabama State University for misusing their government’s scholarship money, overcharging the students, and treating them “like animals.” Though it is one of America’s historically black colleges, the students think discrimination was a contributory factor. “I’m a black man and I’m proud to be black, but I felt discriminated against,” said former student Jimmy Iwezu to The Daily Beast. He also said the school called him and his fellow Nigerian schoolmates “cash cows”.

Students Godsgift Moses, Promise Owei, Thankgod Harold, Success Jumbo, Savior Samuel and others, came to America thanks to generous scholarships for four years of college from the Nigerian government. The government paid around $30,000–$35,000 per student per year—to cover tuition, books, room and board and any other expenses. But instead of forwarding excess money to the students’ accounts, the University held on to the money.

Nigerian students sue Alabama University for treating them ‘like animals’ https://t.co/eQNpI9WW4g via @todayng pic.twitter.com/JHpbbCWuP6

— Nigeria Newsdesk (@NigeriaNewsdesk) September 12, 2016

According to the students’ lawyer Julian McPhillips, who first filed a lawsuit in April that was dismissed, these students were treated differently from other attendees. The scholarship money that is supposed to go to the students was instead used to help solve the school’s “bond issues,” pay for a new stadium, and create a new civil rights awareness center.

The Nigerian students were not allowed to eat anywhere other than the school cafeteria and their scholarship funds were charged for living in the school’s dorms even if they didn’t live there. The cost for living on campus was also allegedly raised specifically for the Nigerian students, who had to pay $3,000 per semester. One student named Success Jumbo was married and lived off campus, but the school took money from his scholarship for dorm expenses anyway, instead of transferring the money to his personal account to use for his actual rent. Jumbo told the Montgomery Advertiser:

I got married May 2014. I’ve approached ASU on several occasions, I even took my wife and my baby to them and said, ‘Look, I no longer live on campus. I believe you guys understand the importance of being married. I need to get this money so I can use it to pay for my housing elsewhere.’

“The school compelled us to buy books from the book store and eat only at the cafeteria,” said Iwezu. “I tried to make them understand, ‘Hey, we don’t want to live in the dorms anymore, and we don’t want to eat our entire meals at the dorms.”

After complaining and demanding a refund for the students, McPhillips received an answer from the school–its officials said: “there is no financial agreement between the University and the individual Nigerian students,”–and the request was denied. Another student was charged for summer school after he graduated that he never attended or even applied to.

“They had me as if I was going to school this summer. I asked them, ‘I graduated in May, so where is the scholarship money my government gives to you?’” said Kehinde Batife.

But the students won’t give up–on the other hand, they’re more determined than ever to fight for their cause. Batife said: “I cannot forget about this and I’m ready to fight the school, even if it means 10 years from now I’m still fighting to get justice.”

“I want justice to prevail, and the remaining money should go to [Nigeria’s] Treasury and make a better life for other Nigerians,” concluded Iwezu.

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 Nigerian Students Sue Alabama University For Using Up Their Money appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Fogle, former Subway spokesman, experienced an incredibly quick plummet from grace after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and sexually assaulting minors. He was sentenced to over 15 years in prison, and is currently serving out that sentence, but civil suits against Fogle are still making their way through the court system. Fogle is fighting one particular civil suit against a girl whose photos he allegedly had possession of, and has a particularly gross countersuit–Fogle is claiming that her parents are responsible for the emotional anguish she is currently experiencing due to their divorce.

His alleged victim is reportedly seeking $150,000 in damages because she was unknowingly photographed nude and semi-nude by hidden cameras when she was a child by Fogle’s known accomplice Russell Taylor. Taylor–as well as his wife, who allegedly knew about the creation of child pornography–are also named in the lawsuit against Fogle.

But Fogle’s argument is what’s making the news, because it’s particularly upsetting. Fogle is claiming that she was neglected by her divorced parents. He claims that that supposed neglect and the fact that her parents fought in front of her are the root causes of her emotional distress. According to his lawyers, via court papers obtained by the Daily Mail:

B.T. and J.T. maintained a hateful and abusive relationship toward each other, which included, but was not limited to, engaging in frequent fighting and arguing between themselves; abusing alcohol and getting drunk; and engaging in frequent fighting, physical abuse, and arguing with Jane Doe, which caused Jane Doe to suffer from emotional distress, anxiety, and major depression before she learned of any allegations [about Fogle and Taylor].

Another section reads:

B.T. and J.T., by their actions, caused Jane Doe to suffer from emotional distress and depression which then resulted in Jane Doe engaging in destructive behaviors, including, but not limited to alcohol abuse, substance abuse, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation with regard to which B.T. and J.T. are liable.

If you thought Fogle couldn’t get any more hated…this may do it–there’s  been a lot of understandable outrage over these claims.

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 Jared Fogle Sues Alleged Child Pornography Victim’s Parents appeared first on Law Street.

After a four-year hiatus and seemingly endless teases of new music, Frank Ocean delivered a cryptic gift to fans on August 18 in the form of a mysterious visual album titled “Endless” on Apple Music. While lovers of “Nostalgia Ultra” and “Channel Orange” didn’t hesitate to stream the 45-minute musical project, many audiophiles couldn’t help but wonder if Frank was still yanking our chains with what appeared to be his version of a woodworking performance art piece. But their suspicions were quickly answered.

Two days later Ocean dropped his album “Blonde” via his independent label Boys Don’t Cry. Equipped with genre-bending sounds, famous collaborations, and accompanied by a striking music video for the song “Nikes,” this was the album fans had been waiting for. But why two albums?

As it turns out the double debut was actually part of a well-calculated move on Ocean’s part that allowed him to independently release his album “Blonde” sans the involvement of former label Def Jam and its parent company Universal Music Group (UMG). By dropping “Endless” a few days prior, Ocean effectively fulfilled his contractual obligations, freeing him from the label.

Not only was this strategy lucrative (it’s estimated that Ocean has already earned over $1 million from the album in its first week), but it was essentially a big f**k you to the industry execs who were left what amounts to a very long music video.

According to Billboard, “UMG chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge reacted swiftly by informing the heads of his labels that Universal was done with streaming exclusives on one platform and on a global basis, which has been at the center of the streaming services’ arms race in the last 18 months.”

But is Ocean completely off the hook after staging his grand coup?

Well, it’s hard to say. In July, Billboard reported that Def Jam had spent $2 million on recording costs for Ocean’s album, at the time thought to be called “Boys Don’t Cry.” It’s speculated that Ocean payed this advance back with money from his new deal with Apple, effectively releasing him from any recoupable claims from Def Jam. But if Ocean’s “Endless” failed to meet the label’s quality standards, or if “Blonde’s” release violated contractual time stipulations, Def Jam could have grounds to sue.

UGM hasn’t announced if it is planning to file a lawsuit, so most of this is pure speculation, but if I were Frank, I’d have my legal team keep an eye out over the next couple months.

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 Could Frank Ocean Be Sued Over ‘Blonde’ Album Switcheroo? appeared first on Law Street.

Just in time for the first day of school for many kids, Federal Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas announced that he is blocking the Obama administration’s directive that allows transgender students to choose whichever bathroom is consistent with their gender identity.

This means schools will face no consequences if they do not accommodate bathroom or locker room options for transgender students. The blocking of the order will apply nationwide for the time being.

The government’s bathroom directive became official in May after the Justice Department sued North Carolina over its bathroom bill, HB2, which prohibited people from using bathrooms that do not correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared North Carolina’s policies to racial segregation.

On August 12, Texas and 12 other states filed a lawsuit against the government at a hearing in Fort Worth, saying the bathroom rules are unconstitutional and complaining they would loose billions of dollars if they do not follow the rules. The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, called Obama’s “illegal federal overreach” and said to Associated Press:

This president is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform. That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to protect states and school districts.

But the Obama administration disagreed and argued earlier this year that the bathroom guidelines are non-binding and have no legal consequences.

Even though the government never explicitly said that schools need to follow the bathroom rules to not lose their funding, it was implied in court documents that stated the schools that get federal funding ”are clearly on notice that anti-discrimination polices must be followed.”

Judge O’Connor also claimed that existing laws that require schools to not discriminate people on the basis of sex do not apply to transgender students since “the plain meaning of the term sex meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”

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 Texas Judge Blocks Obama’s Directive on Transgender Student Bathroom Use appeared first on Law Street.

You are peacefully lying on your back with both of your arms in the air, pleading with police not to shoot you. Instead of letting you walk away unharmed, a police officer shoots you in the leg. What would be your next plan of action? File a lawsuit against the officer?

Well, that’s the latest in the incident with Charles Kinsey, a 47-year-old behavioral therapist from North Miami, Florida,  who was shot in the leg by police while trying to help his autistic patient. In case you missed it, check out Law Street’s coverage of the incident here.

Kinsey filed a federal lawsuit against North Miami police Officer Jonathan Aledda, arguing that Aledda and other officers wrongfully arrested him and used excessive force. In the lawsuit, it also says that Aledda did not help stop the bleeding after he shot Kinsey, even after officers figured out there was no weapon at the scene. Because of the physical, emotional, and mental trauma the incident caused, Kinsey and his lawyer are demanding a jury trial and unstated monetary damages. 

After he was shot, Kinsey was handcuffed and lay bleeding in the middle of the street, according to the lawsuit. It also alleges that when North Miami officers arrived at the scene, they immediately grabbed assault rifles from their cars and approached in a “military-style formation.”

Kinsey’s attorney, Hilton Napoleon, filed the lawsuit and in it, said,“by failing to render aid, Officer Aledda allowed Mr. Kinsey to unnecessarily bleed out on the ground for a significant period of time, which further exasperated Mr. Kinsey’s recovery time for his injuries.” 

Aledda has been placed on paid administrative leave.

The autistic man Kinsey was looking after, Arnaldo Eliud Rios, 23, has been at the psychiatric ward of a Miami hospital and was traumatized by the event, said his mother, Gladys Soto. Rios and Kinsey met at the hospital last week for the first time since the shooting.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Behavioral Therapist Shot by North Miami Police Officer Files Federal Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe received fierce opposition from Virginia republicans when he released an executive order in late April to restore voting rights to over 200,000 ex-felons. McAuliffe’s opponents argued that he was overstepping his restoration powers in his capacity as governor and that he only had the power to restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis. On July 22, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he had indeed overstepped his constitutional powers in a 4-3 decision, shooting down his blanket restoration move. 

When he first took up the fight to restore voting rights for released felons, McAuliffe—who has historically been engaged in national democratic politics as former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign—was criticized for using restoration as a political tool. With one in five adult African-Americans being disenfranchised in Virginia, republican opponents argued that McAuliffe was trying to “unlock” the minority vote in the wake of the 2016 presidential election.

McAuliffe starkly denies this. Rather, he claims that any citizen who has completed the full term of their sentence shouldn’t be disenfranchised. McAuliffe aims to relieve some of the ex-felons’ burden by restoring voting rights, as disenfranchisement is one of the most significant collateral consequences facing prison releasees.

While the Howell v. McAuliffe decision is certainly a setback, McAuliffe isn’t done with his battle for voting rights quite yet. In a statement released following the July 22 decision McAuliffe promised that he will still pursue restoration. The governor will individually sign 13,000 restoration orders this month and will not stop signing restoration orders until all affected individuals reclaim their right to vote.

Virginia is one of less than ten states that still disenfranchises felons who have completed all terms of their sentence, and is one of less than five states where over 20 percent of African-American adults are disenfranchised. Thus felon disenfranchisement—in addition to the disproportionate incarceration of African-Americans—has the innately undemocratic effect of suppressing minority votes and minority voices.

McAuliffe holds that his action is unpartisan, that he is acting to alleviate the intense injustices that have plagued Virginia’s past. He holds that voting rights ensure certain citizens aren’t being unfairly targeted and excluded from the democratic process.

During his tenure, McAuliffe has championed many issues of inequality. Such instances include initiating preschool programs in impoverished schools/communities, vetoing multiple pieces of legislation aiming to restrict abortion access, and more. The closing sentiment of his statement on the voting rights case sums up the progressive governor’s spirit: “The struggle for civil rights has always been a long and difficult one, but the fight goes on.”

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Governor Wages Fierce Fight for Voting Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Do you love to bash bad companies and restaurants on Yelp? You’d better be careful, because now you could be sued for posting a negative review online.

Over the past few months there has been a surge in businesses suing Yelp reviewers for nasty reviews. In February, a Texas couple was sued for leaving a negative review of a pet sitting company. In the review, the clients cited difficulty contacting their pet sitters as well as confusing fees as some of the reasons they did not enjoy their experience. After the review was posted, the pet sitting company brought a lawsuit against the clients for over $6,700. The reason for the lawsuit? Apparently the couple had signed a non-disparagment agreement in their contract.

This instance of Yelp legal trouble was not the first of its kind. Around a year ago, a New Yorker visited a local dentist and had a negative experience. The woman, Mary Rohs, claims she had to wait over an hour and was then greeted by a curt and dismissive dentist, Dr. Nima Dayani. According to court records, Dr. Dayani has a different account of Rohs’ appointment than she does, claiming that she was in the office for an extended period of time as a part of her thorough exam. Two days after Rohs posted the negative review, Dr. Dayani sued her, saying the review was defamatory. He claimed that he generally welcomes positive and negative reviews, but Rohs’ went too far:

[Rohs] accsued me of malpractice by saying I didn’t diagnose her. When you are publicly accusing someone of malpractice, you are damaging their reputation.

In response to the increase in lawsuits, Yelp has stepped in to warn its users. In several circumstances, the company has issued warning banners on companies’ pages on its site that read:

Consumer Alert: Questionable Legal Threats

This business may be trying to abuse the legal system in an effort to stifle free speech, including issuing questionable legal threats against reviewers. As a reminder, reviewers who share their experiences have a First Amendment right to express their opinions on Yelp.

An example can be found on a moving and storage company’s page, yet another company that has an ongoing legal battle with a customer for defamation. Yelp wants to make sure users are aware of the potential trouble they could get into with posting negative reviews.

This increased concern for consumer safety comes alongside some consumer-oriented legislation being introduced in Congress. The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 was introduced this April and works to ban gag clauses–portions of contracts that prohibit signers from speaking negatively about a business–from consumer-business contracts. The act also aims to protect the right of the consumer to speak freely about a company. The bill still has a long way to go, but would be a step in the right direction as far as protection of consumer free speech goes.

While it may seem scary that you could be sued for expressing your opinion online, it is important to remember that these cases are not super common. Part of the reason that legislation against these suits is just now developing is that this type of lawsuit is so new in the litigation sphere. Rest assured that your freedom of speech is still protected and that you will, most likely, not be sued for your next disparaging taco bell review.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Yelp Users Getting Sued for Negative Reviews appeared first on Law Street.

If you watch a lot of “Law and Order” you might be under the impression that courtroom stunts are common–that pulling out props or making grand gestures are the norm. But in reality, stunts are relatively rare, and successful stunts are rarer, which makes the fact that attorney Nick Rowley dressed up in a chicken suit during a closing argument and won a lawsuit brought against the Kern County School District in California, all the more impressive.

The case was Mitchell Carter v. Kern County School District and focused on the events that transpired at Bakersfield High School in 2010. According to Courtroom View Network, Mitchell Carter, a student at the time, dressed up in a chicken suit at a football rally to make fun of their rival Clovis West High School, which has a golden eagle mascot. He was encouraged to do so by the administration. When Carter went out in the suit the first time, he was attacked by students from Bakersfield. Carter tried to back out of entering the rally a second time, but says that he was compelled to go back out by the administration. Carter claims that a school administrator warned that he may have to pay the chicken suit’s rental fee if he didn’t go back out.

When Carter, dressed in the chicken suit, entered the rally the second time he was rushed by Bakersfield High School students and suffered a traumatic brain injury. He now suffers from psychological problems, has a hard time keeping up with college classes, and will need to pay for growth hormone therapy for the rest of his life because his pituitary gland was damaged. In addition to accusing the school of pushing him to do the stunt, Carter also claimed that the school didn’t break up the fight that caused his brain trauma in a timely fashion.

Rowley said: “He was put in the most hated, personified figure at that time: the opposing team’s mascot…They dressed him up and had him play the fool.” Here’s a video of Rowley explaining the situation, chicken suit and all, courtesy of Courtroom View Network:

While the school district’s attorneys tried to argue that Carter picked fights with members of the team, the jury sided with Carter, finding the school district “100 percent liable for the student’s injuries.” The school district’s settlement with Carter totals $10.5 million.

Rowley donned the chicken costume about 20 minutes into his closing argument, to make a point about why Carter put his suit on in the first place. Rowley pointed out it wasn’t for personal glory, or attention, but because of his school spirit–Carter went through the humiliating act of wearing a chicken suit because his school asked him to. While the defense objected to Rowley’s use of the chicken suit, its rhetorical heft was undoubtable. While props in the courtroom don’t always work, Rowley’s calculated risk clearly paid off. After all, it’s not every day you see an attorney put on a chicken suit in the middle of a courtroom…at least not outside of a TV show.

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 No Clucks Given: Attorney Dresses up in Chicken Suit During Closing Argument appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook is being accused of providing “material support and resources” to Hamas in a new $1 billion lawsuit. Lawyers allege that the popular social network was used to plot attacks by the militant Palestinian group that killed four Americans and wounded one in Israel, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.

The lawsuit, which was filed on July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York states:

Hamas has recognized the tremendous utility and value of Facebook as a tool to facilitate this terrorist group’s ability to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies. For years, Hamas, its leaders, spokesmen, and members have openly maintained and used official Facebook accounts with little or no interference.

Shurat Hadin, an Israeli legal advocacy group, filed the lawsuit on behalf of families whose relatives were killed in terror attacks. That same group is behind another lawsuit that is currently seeking an injunction to require prompt removal of posted content that may incite violence.

Plaintiffs in the most recent lawsuit include Stuart and Robbi Force, the parents of 29-year-old U.S. Army veteran and Vanderbilt University graduate student Taylor Force who was fatally stabbed in a Hamas attack while visiting Israel on a school trip. They are joined by the parents of 16-year-old Yaakov Naftali Fraenkel, who was kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank in June 2014; the parents of three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun, who was killed in Jerusalem during a vehicular terrorist attack in October 2014; the son of 76-year-old Richard Lakin, who was killed in a shooting and stabbing attack in Jerusalem in October 2015; and Menachem Mendel Rivkin, who was seriously injured in a January 2016 stabbing attack in Jerusalem.

These families hope to prove that Facebook was being used as a tool for terrorism and operated in direct violation of the Antiterrorism Act, which bars U.S. businesses from providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. However, many experts believe Facebook will be legally protected under the  Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from content posted by third-party users.

Facebook responded to Bloomberg’s request for comment with a statement saying,

[We want] people to feel safe when using Facebook. There is no place for content encouraging violence, direct threats, terrorism or hate speech on Facebook. We have a set of Community Standards to help people understand what is allowed on Facebook, and we urge people to use our reporting tools if they find content that they believe violates our standards so we can investigate and take swift action.

It’s unclear if the lawsuit will succeed in holding Facebook legally responsible because anti-terrorism efforts and freedom of speech are both at play. It will be interesting to see how the case moves forward.

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 Facebook Accused of Supporting Hamas in $1 Billion Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat has long been known for facilitating explicit content thanks to its function that erases pictures after a few seconds. But now a 14-year-old and his mom are suing Snapchat Discover because of that kind of content. The Discover channel features different media outlets with their own feeds of content that are produced exclusively for Snapchat and are often provocative or racy in order to attract followers.

What is Snapchat Discover?

Today the app involves so much more than taking a photo that disappears after a few seconds. You can face swap, add filters that give you the look of a bee, a puppy, or a vampire, follow news, save your images and videos and send private messages. The Discover function lets you follow your media outlet of choice–Cosmopolitan, Vice, MTV, or Buzzfeed, among others.

The class action lawsuit filed by the anonymous 14-year-old and his mom says that Snapchat doesn’t warn about content that is sexual or offensive. Kids are being exposed to content that is aimed at adults, such as articles named “Beware of Whiskey Dick” and “10 Things He Thinks When He Can’t Make You Orgasm.” According to the lawsuit:

Specifically, through Snapchat Discover, Snapchat is currently engaged in an insidious pattern and practice of intentionally exposing minors to harmful, offensive, prurient, and sexually offensive content, without warning minors or their parents that they would be exposed to such explicit content.

These pictures are from some of the articles that are mentioned:

A mom's lawsuit seeks millions from Snapchat for exposing kids to offensive content https://t.co/2WkkP8pjXg pic.twitter.com/IHA1dOjW49

— Fast Company (@FastCompany) July 9, 2016

What Is Snapchat’s Responsibility?

A spokesperson for Snapchat said in a statement that the company still hasn’t received the lawsuit, “but we are sorry if people were offended. Our Discover partners have editorial independence, which is something that we support.”

The argument is that if Snapchat is only a platform for social media, it has no responsibility over what is posted on the platform. But Ben Meiselas, one of the attorneys behind the lawsuit told BBC: “The layout, its format, what’s presented on a day-to-day basis–Snapchat is not a passive observer of this content.” A statement released in January 2015 about the Snapchat Discover Channel feature said that “it’s the result of collaboration with world-class leaders in media to build a storytelling format that puts the narrative first.” According to Meiselas, it’s that kind of language that indicates Snapchat has taken on the role of a publisher rather than just a platform.

However, an individual employed by one of the media companies that that has a Discover Channel, who asked to speak on the condition of anonymity, told Law Street that Snapchat does not have any input into their editions before they go live.

Snapchat is just four years old and is valued at $16 billion. It has 150 million users and is the app of choice for teenagers and young people. Since this is a class action lawsuit, a win for the 14-year-old could lead to financial compensation for many more kids.

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 Teen Sues Snapchat Discover Over Explicit Content appeared first on Law Street.

A Title IX lawsuit against the University of Tennessee-Knoxville has been settled for $2.48 million with a group of eight women who accused the school of fostering a “hostile sexual environment,” listing incidents dating back to 1995, mostly involving allegations against male student athletes.

The announcement of the settlement comes just two days before the university has to formally respond to the case in the U.S. District Court. However, though UT is paying out nearly $2.5 million, it is not admitting guilt or negligence.

The lawsuit was first filed in February, when six women filed a civil suit claiming that athletes who were found guilty of assault went unpunished. They alleged that perpetrators and their teammates discouraged women from reporting rape charges, and that an athlete who tried to help a woman who had been assaulted was attacked by a fellow athlete. The women are dismissing the lawsuit against UT, according to David Randolph Smith, the Nashville attorney who represents the eight women.

“My clients and I are dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice and signed the settlement agreement,” Smith said in a statement. He added:

We are satisfied that, while universities everywhere struggle with these issues, the University of Tennessee has made significant progress in the way they educate and respond to sexual assault cases. My clients and I are also convinced that the University’s leadership is truly committed to continue its exemplary efforts to create a model as it relates to sexual misconduct.

The lawsuit claimed UT’s administrative hearing process was one-sided and denied victims the “rights to a hearing and to the same equal procedural, hearing, and process rights as given to perpetrators of rape and sexual assault.” It also accused the university of interfering with investigations and providing lawyers for students accused of misconduct. The $2.48 million payout from UT to the eight women will be split between UT’s athletic department and central administration. The money will not come from taxpayer dollars, student fees or donor funds, according to the school’s lawyers.

Joe DiPietro, UT System President, announced that in the next few weeks he will appoint an independent commission to review the current programs in place that combat sexual assault, and assess what areas need to be strengthened.

“I continue to say that one incident of sexual misconduct is one too many,” DiPietro said. “But unfortunately, on a college campus, these incidents will happen. When they do, I want the confidence of knowing that we did everything within our power to appropriately deal with the situation, and we provided the necessary support for all involved. There are no excuses for anything less.”

UT Chancellor Jimmy Cheek is also spearheading his own initiatives—he will hire six more people for Title IX compliance positions.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Tennessee Settles Sexual Assault Lawsuit for $2.5 Million appeared first on Law Street.

A judge has ordered “The Wolf of Wall Street,” aka Leonardo DiCaprio, to testify in a lawsuit against the filmmakers of the 2013 movie. You might think it would be flattering to have a character featured in a movie with one of the biggest stars of today based off of you, but businessman Andrew Greene claims that it portrayed him as a “criminal, a drug user and a degenerate.” Now he wants $25 million in damages.

@BBCWorld @LeoDiCaprio
Is he going to be questioned about The Titanic sinking as well?

— Paul_Ed (@eddo75) June 17, 2016

Greene is the former executive at the brokerage firm the film depicts, Stratton Oakmont, portrayed through the character Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff, the guy with the bad toupee. DiCaprio plays the main character, Jordan Belfort, who founded Stratton Oakmont and made a fortune by defrauding investors.

Greene initially sued Paramount Pictures for over $50 million in 2014. Paramount claims that Koskoff, played by P.J. Byrne, is a mashup of multiple people and that Greene is just one of them. The hairpiece played a role in many jokes in both the movie and in Belfort’s memoir that the movie is based on.

Oh, it's not even about Jordan Belfort. It's about how Nicky Koskoff was portrayed to look bad in the film lol. pic.twitter.com/7BDABHMzRF

— Tea Lizard (@brettSTYX) June 17, 2016

The judge rejected Greene’s claims of defamation, but allowed him to change his suit to malicious libel. The plaintiff’s side wanted DiCaprio to testify since he played a big part in the production of the movie, but he has so far been “too busy.” The defendants claim that the accounts of director Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Terence Winter should be enough. They have also argued that DiCaprio didn’t have any means of controlling other actors’ performances.

.@LeoDiCaprio is being asked to testify against the creators of Wolf of Wall Street in a defamation case. #9Today https://t.co/98ZIaOo6OA

— The Today Show (@TheTodayShow) June 15, 2016

But the judge sided with the plaintiffs, and has now ordered DiCaprio to court. However, the orders are vague, stating he should show up for his testimony “at a reasonable time and place agreed to by the parties.”

The real “Wolf of Wall Street,” Jordan Belfort, spent 22 months in prison for money laundering and fraud. He went on to write his biography and is still paying off debts to the victims of his financial schemes.

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 Leonardo DiCaprio to Testify in Lawsuit Against “The Wolf of Wall Street” appeared first on Law Street.

Can posting spoilers about your favorite show be considered a form of copyright infringement? AMC, the network that airs the massively popular show “The Walking Dead,” seems to think so, based on recent threats made by its legal team toward a fan community.

Moderators of the Facebook page “The Spoiling Dead Fans” posted Sunday that they had received a cease-and-desist letter from AMC threatening legal action against the community for speculating about a character death from last season’s finale (possible spoilers below, if you’re not caught up on the show).

It’s unclear on what legal grounds the network can threaten the lawsuit–the group says that AMC is claiming “copyright infringement,” under the belief that the group’s leaders received “trade secret information” regarding the next season that they were sharing with their followers. The members deny this, and claims that they were simply speculating about the cliffhanger.

“The Spoiling Dead Fans” is an online community that gives fans a forum to discuss the show. Fans can also submit photos of the show’s filming in Georgia, allowing them to further speculate about possible plot points. The page’s creators, however, maintain that all of the photos taken on their site are obtained legally, without any trespassing or law-breaking.

The page, which has a following of almost 370,000 fans, has been targeted previously by AMC for copyright infringement: posts have allegedly been taken down, and the page has been blocked by Facebook after being reported under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The moderators also claim that the network has been trying to intimidate members by threatening arrest “among other questionable acts.”  However, this cease and desist letter has taken the network’s threats to the next level and forced the group to take down the posts in question for fear of legal action.

“The Walking Dead” is easily one of the most popular shows on TV at the moment, making it somewhat understandable that major plot points are being kept under lock and key as if they are classified documents. However, if speculating about a show can now get people in legal trouble and result in the alleged harassment of a fan community, then AMC has definitely taken this way too far.

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 “The Walking Dead” Fan Page Threatened with Lawsuit for Spoilers appeared first on Law Street.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in favor of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations to ensure an open internet in the U.S. In the wake of this latest victory for web activists and advocates of net neutrality, here are four things to consider as we move forward:

1. Your internet access won’t change, but it could get worse.

The FCC has been operating under stronger regulations from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) since February 2015–ISPs are now considered public utilities. However, if these regulations were not in place, ISPs would be allowed to manipulate the flow of the internet.

Debate on net neutrality focused on whether it was fair for ISPs to prioritize certain content providers who could pay more, and slow traffic to other content providers. What this meant for the average internet user was potentially higher buffering times on streaming services like Netflix and slower traffic to websites with lower priority. Yikes.

2. AT&T, lover of monopolies and telecommunications, is back at it again

AT&T has been one of the most vocal opponents of the reclassification of ISPs as telecommunication services and the government regulation that accompanies that reclassification. AT&T, among other opponents, claims that this intervention will lead to less innovation and investment.

In reaction to the ruling, AT&T Senior Executive VP David McAtee released a statement claiming, “We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal.”

But we’ve already seen U.S. v. AT&T in the 1970’s when AT&T was found to be breaking anti-trust laws in its monopolization of local telephone service in the U.S. And then there was the time the company tried to buy T-Mobile but abandoned the effort after a lawsuit was brought by the DOJ’s antitrust division.

Maybe AT&T just doesn’t understand that the U.S. government and its citizens have decided that we oppose the predatory business practices that are made possible with monopolies. But in case nobody has told them; no AT&T, you can’t keep trying to re-monopolize one of the most important services in the world.

3. We still have a long way to go to ensure an open, public internet service

Internet being considered a public utility is a big step. However, while we rejoice in our ability to binge-watch “Game of Thrones” at equal speeds, individuals living in rural and poor communities still face limited internet access.

Internet use in rural areas is at 78 percent, compared to 84 percent in urban and suburban areas. However, not all internet is equal. Oftentimes in rural areas, especially in parts of the south and western U.S., internet is offered at higher prices and lower speeds.

The dialogue around internet use also often disregards the inevitable fact that for poor families, buying computers that can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and is not a priority, and often is not possible. The internet cannot truly be considered an open, free, and public service until we address the high prices and differences in speed and quality of internet faced by rural and poor communities throughout the U.S.

4. Don’t be surprised if you see net neutrality in the Supreme Court

In case the comment from AT&T’s David McAtee didn’t tip you off, it is widely suspected that net neutrality will find itself in the Supreme Court soon as AT&T and other providers have expressed intention of appealing the case.

The D.C. Court of Appeals found no merit to the arguments of ISPs in the case decided on Tuesday. Further, the issue has already been looked at in part by SCOTUS. In 2005, SCOTUS decided National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services by essentially saying that since the legislation in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was ambiguous, the FCC got to decide how to classify internet service (as a telecommunications service or an information service). The FCC clearly has since decided to classify internet as a telecommunications service. Nevertheless, expect to see net neutrality top headlines in a Supreme Court appeal soon.

But until then, we celebrate this win as one step close in a battle for universal access to the internet, the largest, most empowering, and most accessible information database in the world.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Court Upholds Net Neutrality: 4 Things You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

A woman named Titi Pierce from Warner Robins, Georgia, is suing Warner Brothers over a segment Ellen DeGeneres did on her popular daytime talkshow. Pierce is a Robins Air Force Base engineer and a real-estate agent. On her February 22 show, DeGeneres showed footage of one of Pierce’s real estate signs and mispronounced her name as “titty Pierce.” As a result of the mocking, Pierce has allegedly received threats and harassment, and filed a lawsuit in District Court on Thursday.

Pierce’s name is actually pronounced “tee-tee” and is originally a Nigerian name meaning “flower.” However, DeGeneres made a series of breast-related jokes about Pierce’s name in a segment about funny signs. DeGeneres also contrasted Pierce’s real estate sign with another sign advertising the “Nipple Convalescent Home,” stating: Titty Pierce, sounds like she might have spent some time in that nipple home, I don’t know.”

The segment was broadcast in February, and then shown again on a rerun in April. It was also posted to the show’s Facebook page.

Pierce’s lawsuit claims that DeGeneres’s show showed her phone number when the sign was displayed (although it was blurred out on the version that was posted to Facebook.) As a result of the show, Pierce claims to have received a number of harassing and mocking phone calls. In response her office posted on Facebook:

Loving that our own Titi Pierce of CBRF (Coldwell Banker Robbins & Free) was on the Ellen DeGeneres show, but wish it was because they knew how fabulous and classy Titi is and not to poke fun. We love you Titi and are proud to have you in the CBRF Family.

Pierce’s lawsuit alleges that DeGeneres “defamed her, invaded her privacy and intentionally inflicted distress.” Pierce is asking for damages, and is aiming to keep the segment from airing again.

Check out the clip in question below (although note that the number has been now blurred out):

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 Warner Brothers Sued After Ellen DeGeneres Mocks Woman’s Name appeared first on Law Street.

Even though “American Idol” is officially over, the show’s legal drama continues.

On Thursday the show’s producer filed a $6 million lawsuit against Season 11 winner Phillip Phillips for an alleged breach of contract.

According to Billboard, 19 Entertainment, which filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy earlier this year, alleges that Phillips “has been holding onto as much as $1 million of 19’s money and that he should also be forced to pay at least $5 million for repudiating and breaching various agreement.”

This isn’t the only pending legal dispute between the pair. In 2015, Phillips filed a petition with the California Labor Commissioner seeking to void his recording, management, and merchandising deals with the company, which he called “oppressive, fatally conflicted.”

Phillip alleges that the contract he signed as a precursor to his success excluded him from his album’s crucial decision-making process and “manipulated” him into performing for free for “Idol” sponsors, which he says is in violation of California’s Talent Agencies Act.

He also claims that 19 Entertainment hired a manager for his first two albums–2012’s “The World from the Side of the Moon” and 2014’s “Behind the Light”–who earned more royalties than he did.

The petition, which was put on pause as a result of 19 Entertainment’s bankruptcy filing, could have huge implications for these reality competition shows if contestants forgo signing contracts in lieu of Phillips’ pending litigation.

This very well may have been the reasoning for 19 Entertainment going on the offensive against Phillips.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the complaint claims that Phillips has been holding onto somewhere between $850,000 and $1 million in “anticipation” that his agreements (which include a recording and publishing deal) would be voided. The complaint adds:

Phillips has refused and insists that he will continue to refuse to perform pursuant to the Agreements, thereby causing Plaintiffs additional damages. The amount of the additional damages from these continuing breaches is not presently calculable with precision but will be presented at the time of trial and will exceed $5,000,000.

Phillips’ attorney Howard King isn’t convinced, and equated 19’s suit to a killer seeking mercy from a victim’s family member. King told the Hollywood Reporter,

19’s new complaint is a blatant attempt to evade California’s jurisdiction and thwart its fundamental public policies crafted to protect artists. 19 cannot murder its parents, then seek mercy as an orphan.

It’s unclear when Phillips’ petition to void his contract will finally resume.

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 “American Idol” Producer Sues Season 11 Winner Phillip Phillips For $6 Million appeared first on Law Street.

The drama between Hulk Hogan and Gawker continues after news broke Wednesday that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel secretly bankrolled Hogan’s legal bills for his lawsuit against the site.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that there may be some validity to the conspiracy theories speculating that the former WWE star had a financial backer funding his costly three-year legal battle with the gossip news site.

Then on Tuesday, the rumors quickly turned into reality when Forbes reporters Ryan Mac and Matt Drange claimed to have uncovered the financial backer’s identity. In an article published Tuesday night the pair wrote:

According to people familiar with the situation who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, Thiel, a cofounder and partner at Founders Fund, has played a lead role in bankrolling the cases Terry Bollea, a.k.a. Hogan, brought against New York-based Gawker. Hogan is being represented by Charles Harder, a prominent Los Angeles-based lawyer. A spokesperson for Thiel declined to comment.

Hogan sued Gawker after the gossip blog published a portion of Hogan’s leaked sex tape with Heather Cole, who at the time was married to Hogan’s best friend, radio personality Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem. In late March, Hogan was awarded $140 million in damages.

According to the Times,

Questions about the independence of Mr. Bollea, who never mentioned a third-party backer, first emerged when his lawyer removed a claim from his complaint that had the effect of eliminating Gawker’s insurance company from the case. That struck many legal observers as odd, given that most lawyers seeking large payouts want to include claims that are insured against because doing so increases the chances of a settlement.

If Thiel is the one financing Hogan’s legal bills, it would make some sense. Thiel, who is gay, has been outspoken about his hate for Gawker ever since the site crossed ethical boundaries when it tried to out him in a piece titled “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.”

As it stands there’s still a lot we don’t know about the pair’s potential partnership. For example, is Thiel Hogan’s only backer? How did they become involved with one another? Will Hogan pay Thiel back if he wins? After all, it is not illegal for a third party to fund someone’s legal bills. In fact, this arrangement is not at all uncommon, and often happens when the third party has an ulterior motive.

Since Hogan’s case ended, Gawker has been hit with several new lawsuits filed by Hogan’s lawyer, Charles Harder, that target certain writers, and on Wednesday a judge denied Gawker’s motion for a new trial in the Hulk Hogan case.

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 Tech Billionaire Secretly Funded Hulk Hogan’s Lawsuit Against Gawker appeared first on Law Street.

Planned Parenthood filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday against Ohio’s Health Department because of a new law that will cut down funding for the health organization. The law is supposed to come into effect on May 23 and will affect the $1.3 million that Planned Parenthood gets from the state of Ohio–the state is tasked with handing out both federal and state funds to relevant programs and organizations. While this money is only a small portion of Planned Parenthood’s budget, according to the lawsuit, several thousands of patients could miss out on cancer screenings, HIV tests, and more.

Governor John Kasich signed the bill back in February. In the lawsuit, the Ohio branches of Planned Parenthood claim that the law is mere punishment because they provide abortion services, an accusation that Kasich’s office hasn’t commented on yet. They also say that it is a violation of equal protection laws, since it doesn’t treat Planned Parenthood in the same way as other healthcare institutions.

The lawsuit has spurred a variety of different reactions on Twitter:

Planned Parenthood wastes tax payer's money with another frivolous lawsuit in #Ohio ~ Proabort attorney… https://t.co/6IFQSTMNmn

— KeepLifeLegal (@KeepLifeLegal) May 11, 2016

Planned Parenthood sues over Ohio law that strips funding https://t.co/CWrqwrPL1o #10TV pic.twitter.com/rom4TV9jiB

— 10TV.com (@10TV) May 11, 2016

According to Reuters, Planned Parenthood has filed a total of 15 lawsuits in a little less than a year (since mid-2015). The influx of lawsuits started when a bunch of anti-abortion activists released fake video footage supposedly showing Planned Parenthood officials trying to sell fetal tissue. The video, that actually contained a photo of a stillborn baby and not an aborted fetus, was proved heavily edited and “thoroughly discredited.”

Abortion is still a very sensitive and polarizing subject in the U.S. Forty-one states have some kind of restriction in place on when women are able to get an abortion, meaning only nine states have not specified any prohibition on timing at all. According to Planned Parenthood, three out of 10 American women have an abortion at some point in their life.

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 Planned Parenthood Sues Ohio Over Funding Cuts appeared first on Law Street.

Walmart is suing Visa in order to require customers with chip-enabled debit cards authorize their transactions with a PIN instead of a signature.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York Supreme Court, Walmart claims Visa is forcing the retailer to allow chip-using customers to use signatures, even though signatures are essentially “worthless as a form of authentication.”

According to the The New York Times, a Walmart spokesman said in a statement:

This suit is about protecting our customers’ bank accounts when they use their debit cards at Wal-Mart. We have long advocated for ‘PIN verification’ as opposed to the less secure signature verification for debit transactions. PIN is the only truly secure form of cardholder verification in the marketplace today, and it offers superior security to our customers.

Currently, Walmart customers with chip-enabled cards are asked to use a PIN at checkout, but they have the option to use a signature instead. Walmart is hoping to make these transactions safer by standardizing PIN use, since it claims 91 percent of fraudulent debit card purchases are authorized with signatures.

Chip cards were developed as a safer alternative to standard magnetic strips. These cards are able to encrypt and authenticate data for each transaction, rather than simply recite your credit card number and expiration date to any machine.

Retailers were required in October to install chip-reading terminals into their stores, or face the threat of being liable for fraudulent transactions. Prior to the deadline, banks were on the hook for these charges.

Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove continued,

Visa has acknowledged in many other countries that chip-and-pin offer greater security. Visa nevertheless has demanded that we allow fraud-prone signature verification for debit transactions in our U.S. stores because Visa stands to make more money processing those transactions.

Visa has not released a statement yet addressing these allegations, but more information is likely to come out as the story develops.

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 Walmart Sues Visa to Require PINs for Chip-Enabled Debit Cards appeared first on Law Street.

A petsitting company, Prestigious Pets, is suing a Texas couple over a negative Yelp review. The company is seeking a staggering $200,000 to $1 million in damages for the negative feedback.

The couple, Robert and Michelle Douchouquette, hired the company to watch their dogs and beta fish while they were out of town in October 2015. But they weren’t happy with the service they were provided, and reviewed the company accordingly. According to Consumerist:

The pet-owners expressed their dissatisfaction with the service, taking issue with the company’s fees and billing, an apparent lack of updates from the sitter, the fact that the sitter didn’t leave the house keys behind as requested. The couple also claim that their fish might have received sub-optimal care in their absence.

The petsitting company claims that as a result of this review, it has lost business, received threats of harassment, and was left a “shell of its former success.” The plaintiffs further claim that as a result of the negative review they’ve experienced “numerous rape and death threats… in addition to other forms of harassment such as identity theft, impersonations, crank calls, etc.” The petsitting company is claiming that the Douchouquettes violated a non-disparagement clause in the contract they signed with the company. The lawsuit not only alleges that the couple violated that clause, but also defamation and business disparagement.

The court will have to determine whether or not the lawsuit brought by Prestigious Pets is frivolous. The attorney for the Douchouquettes is claiming that the lawsuit is a SLAPP (a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.) Essentially that would mean the only reason Prestigious Pets brought the suit is an attempt to get the Douchouquettes from posting negative things about the company.

Prestigious Pets’ Yelp page now has a warning to let reviewers know what the company is up to. It states:

You should know this business has issued legal threats and/or taken legal action against reviewers for exercising their free speech. If your review accurately describes your firsthand experience, you have a First Amendment right to express your opinion on Yelp.

We’ll have to see if the lawsuit is successful–$1 million really does seem a bit too high a price to pay for one bad Yelp review, especially when free speech considerations are taken into account.

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 Petsitting Company Sues Couple Who Left Bad Yelp Review appeared first on Law Street.

At a research facility in Atlanta, Georgia, eight chimpanzees wait in limbo–out of work with nowhere to go.

The hairy retirees–Abby, Agatha, Elvira, Faye, Fritz, Lucas, Tara, and Georgia–were slated to follow up their careers as biomedical research subjects with a life of being gawked at by tourists at the Wingham Wildlife Park in Kent, England.

But a second lawsuit was filed by the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) on Monday, delaying the transfer for the time being.

In November 2015, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) granted a permit to the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta to offload the eight primates to the English zoo. USFWS withdrew the permit following a suit filed by NEAVS, an organization that fights to eliminate the use of animals as test subjects. The organization cites the zoo’s lack of accreditation, inexperience with caring for chimpanzees, and intentions of breeding as reasons for its complaint.

FWS responded by delaying the permit and extending the public comment period. Last Thursday, however, USFWS announced it would reissue the permit as early as May 1.

“In reopening it, we’re shocked that world renowned conservationists are against it, yet FWS still believes it doesn’t have to obey laws of reason or true interpretation of the language of laws,” said Dr. Theodora Capaldo, president and executive director at NEAVS and the leading plaintiff in the most recent lawsuit against USFWS.

The language of the law in this case is crucial. The Endangered Species Act, enacted in 1976, provided a boon to animals classified as “endangered,” a status that guarantees such animals will not be relegated to a life in a laboratory. Captive chimpanzees are deemed “threatened” (wild ones are considered “endangered”), allowing them to be used as subjects in biomedical and behavioral studies.

But last June, FWS Director Dan Ashe recognized the classification as a “mistake,” and initiated a move to grant all Pan troglodytes (chimpanzees) endangered status, prompting private research labs like Yerkes to quickly find a suitable home for the animals.

Before the decision to transfer the eight chimps–who constitute a fraction of Yerkes’s chimp population–five U.S. based primate sanctuaries offered to house them. Primate Rescue Center, a sanctuary in Nicholasville, Kentucky, met with top staff from Yerkes in April 2014, according to the sanctuary’s executive director, when both sides anticipated the rebranding of chimps from “threatened” to “endangered.”

The preemptive move failed when Yerkes pulled out after the sanctuary requested financial support for a plot of land in northern Georgia where they planned to house the chimps.

“It was like a punch in the gut [when Yerkes announced the zoo transfer] because nobody else was afforded to opportunity to say ‘hey wait, let’s talk about keeping these chimp in the U.S.’,” said April Truitt, Executive Director of the nonprofit Primate Rescue Center sanctuary, whose 30 acres in leafy central Kentucky is currently home to over 50 primates, including 11 chimps.

Prominent primatologists and anthropologists spoke out during the second round of public comment, which commenced in late February.

“If USFW responds to the very important achievement of treating chimpanzees as an endangered species by allowing Yerkes to offload its chimpanzees to a commercial zoo, the system will be undermined,” wrote Richard Wrangham, professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard and founder of The Kibale Chimpanzee Project.

Richard Leakey, a famed paleoanthropologist and son of legendary archeological couple Louis and Mary Leakey, also spoke out against the move in a public comment:

“As an Ambassador for the Great Apes Survival Partnership (GRASP), I am committed to ensuring the best possible future for chimpanzees around the world… I cannot find any reasons why this proposed transfer should be approved.”

Yerkes issued a statement on its website when the second round of public comment was announced:

“We remain confident in our decision to donate eight chimpanzees to WWP [Wingham Wildlife Park] in the commitment WWP is making to provide lifetime care for these animals.”

The transfer was indeed approved, largely due to a proposed donation from Yerkes and Wingham to the Population and Sustainability Network, an international nonprofit group that focuses on improving women’s health. After granting captive chimpanzees “endangered” status last June, the USFWS requires all exports of the animals to be actions “that have been shown to support or enhance survival of chimpanzees include habitat restoration and research on chimpanzees in the wild that contributes to improved management and recovery.” It seems a donation to a group that focuses on another primate–human beings–fits that description.

When the permit was initially granted to Yerkes last November, both the research facility and the zoo in Kent proposed to meet the new requirement by donating to the Kibale Chimpanzee Project and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Both turned down the donations.

The USFWS would not comment on pending litigation, according to an email sent from their Division of Public Affairs.

At least one chimpanzee advocate supports the move.

After witnessing the “wonderful extensive indoor and outdoor housing which has been purpose-built to receive chimpanzees” at Wingham, Jane Goodall commented in favor of USFWS’s decision. Goodall is one of the world’s foremost experts of chimpanzees and has studied the creatures in the forests of Tanzania for over five decades.

And while the eight chimps awaiting their fate in Atlanta declined to comment for this story, Truitt, Capaldo and a host of others who have intimate experience with the animals believe it’s simply unfair for them to endure a second life as a “commodity” at a “roadside zoo” in a foreign country. Truitt stressed that this case is about more than eight individuals, but can set a precedent that might ensure retired research chimps a future as curiosities behind a glass enclosure.

“It is about these eight chimps, but it also is about the other over 200 that are privately owned,” she said. “Just keep them here. I believe that’s what we should do.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Second Lawsuit Filed to Stop Transfer of Chimpanzees to ‘Roadside Zoo’ 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.

Trying to get an artist’s latest album nowadays is like playing a game of musical chairs with streaming music services’ subscriptions.

For example if you want Taylor Swift’s 1989 album, forget about trying to stream it on Spotify, you need to head over to Apple Music in order to “Shake it Off.” Now let’s say you then wanted to watch Rihanna’s pre-release of her latest “Kiss it Better” music video or wanted to anxiously stalk Beyoncé’s highly awaited album release, well then you’d need a subscription to her hubby Jay Z’s subscription service Tidal.

The promise of exclusivity from these sites/apps is so powerful in fact, that it has managed to convince many money-conscious millennials to forego their beloved free versions, for monthly paid access.

So when Kanye declared to consumers that his 7th solo studio album would appear exclusively on Tidal, some Yeezy fans shelled out the $9.99 monthly fee no questions asked, and easily doubled Tidal’s subscribers from 1 million to 2.5 million almost overnight.

My album will never never never be on Apple. And it will never be for sale… You can only get it on Tidal.

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016

Tidal quickly became the most downloaded app in the App Store, and Tidal reported that the album was streamed 250 million times in the first 10 days of its release.

The only problem is, “The Life of Pablo” didn’t actually stay exclusive to Tidal. A couple weeks after its debut, the album appeared on Apple Music,  Spotify, and then finally West’s website–and Tidal subscribers took notice.

One California man is so angry that he’s filed a class action lawsuit against both Kanye and Tidal. Justin Baker-Rhett alleges that Tidal used its one month free trial and West’s “exclusive” album to boost sales for the service the he says was “quietly teetering on the brink of collapse.”

“Kanye has the power to send one tweet out into the world and get 2 million people to act on it. This suit is about holding him accountable when he abuses that power,” said Jay Edelson, the founder and CEO of Baker-Rhett’s law firm Edelson PC, in a statement to Rolling Stone.

The lawsuit is asking that Tidal delete the “private information” of both Baker-Rhett and anyone else that joins with the class action suit, claiming that they swindled subscriber’s card information could amount to as much as $84 million for Tidal.

So far neither Tidal, nor West have released public statements addressing the lawsuit’s allegations that they tricked fans into subscribing.

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 Did Kanye West Trick Fans Into Signing Up for Tidal? appeared first on Law Street.

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is threatening to sue rapper Azealia Banks after a mixup over a satirical article spawned a profanity-laced Twitter feud that is definitely NSFW.

The feud probably came as no surprise to hip hop fans, since the “212” rapper’s fledgling music career has easily been overshadowed by her propensity for internet trolling.

When Banks isn’t calling flight attendants “f*ggots” or renaming Iggy Azalea “Igloo Australia,” she lets her “trigger fingers turn to twitter fingers” by inciting nasty feuds with celebrities seemingly at random.

However, the normally unapologetic rapper may have just swallowed a bit of her pride after Palin threatened to take legal action if Banks didn’t issue a public apology.

But before we get to that, let’s recap the bizarre timeline of events that got us here.

March 31:

A satirical website posted an article with a clickbait title claiming to quote Palin as saying “Even The French Understand That Slavery Wasn’t Our Fault, Because The Negroes Liked It.” Fake Palin went on to say,

I’m going to say it once again loudly and clearly: Negroes loved being slaves and they were doing just fine under our rules. So, you see, you can’t really blame us for any of it, not legitimately.

April 3:

Banks presumably stumbled upon said article (clearly not knowing that that it is fake), and launched into one of her notorious Twitter rants.

The tweets have since been deleted, but not before someone at the Media Research Center quickly managed to snag screenshots that can be seen here.

***Warning: This is where the NSFW part comes in

Banks writes:

12:42 am

Sarah Palin needs to have her hair shaved off to a buzz cut, get headfucked by a big veiny, ashy, black dick then be locked in a cupboard.

12:44 am

Hideous. At least suk a nigga dick or summ’ before you start talking shit about “black people willingly accepting slavery”. Least she can do

12:46 am

Honestly… Let’s find the biggest burliest blackest negroes and let them runa train on her. Film it and put it on worldstar.

April 4

Breitbart publishes an article titled “Rapper Azealia Banks Calls for Sarah Palin to Be Gang-Raped by Black Men.”

April 5

(This is point where deciphering the timeline got a little bit messy, so I’m going to break it down by event.)

Palin Responds on Facebook

Palin responds to the article by writing an open letter to Banks on her Facebook, in which she writes,

Hey Female Rapper – listen up, little darling. No one has any idea what you’re wigging out about in these bizarre, violent rants against me, but you’re obviously not exercising enough intelligence to acknowledge you’ve been sucked into believing some fake interview in which I supposedly offered comments representing the antithesis of my truth.

Palin then promises to check her daughter’s playlist to make sure none of Banks’ “anti-woman, pro-rape garbage” is on it.

Legal Threats Are Made

Taking Trump’s lead, Palin then tells People Magazine in an interview that she plans to take legal action against Banks “on behalf of all reasonable women of every age, race and political leaning” if Banks doesn’t issue a public apology.

Banks Responds on Twitter

LOL, if Sarah Palin actually decides to sue me i’ll only use the controversy to make myself an even larger American Cultural Figure.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

The Sarah Palin page in history will be condensed to a footnote in the Azealia Banks chapter. Well behaved women seldom make history.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

Everyone can tell you’re spreading them cheeks for Mr. Trump Sarah….. you ain’t got to lie.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

Then She Kinda Apologizes

In a now-deleted letter posted to her Tumblr, Banks combines a mix of flattery and insults to pen what very well may be the strangest apology ever. At one point Banks attempts to explain to the 52-year-old politician the distinctions between “running a train” on someone and rape, as well as ends the letter by saying that “if Bristol Palin listened to my music she probably wouldn’t have all those cotdamn kids!!!! ;-P #sis #iud #stayinschool #causeitsthebest””

So…now you should be all caught up.

It’s extremely doubtful that Palin will actually accept Banks’ apology, especially since the rapper’s recent Twitter feed has become largely devoted to mocking Palin. That being said, a legitimate lawsuit doesn’t necessarily seem all that likely either. For now, all we can do is sit back and wait for Palin’s response.

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 Azealia Banks’ Feud With Sarah Palin is Bizarre and Definitely NSFW appeared first on Law Street.

This week in Live Action Role Play (LARP) news, Jordan Gwyther–priest, father, avid LARPer, and founder of larping.org–is no longer being sued by an Indiana archery company for patent infringement.

Let’s back up and talk about this step by step. For some background knowledge, LARPing is defined as:

A type of role-playing game in which each participant assumes a particular character and acts out various scenarios at events which last for a  predetermined time.

Essentially, people dress up in all kinds of outfits and act as those characters in a group setting. It is common for people to LARP as comic book characters, anime characters, and even medieval characters. Fighting in some form is frequently involved.

In this case, Global Archery sued Jordan Gwyther last October for patent and trademark infringement because he was reselling foam arrows shipped from Germany to people in the LARP community to use in LARP battles. The Indiana-based company was enraged by Gwyther’s competition and filed a complaint against him in an Indiana district court claiming they own the patent on all foam arrows used in LARP.

Part of the drama surrounding this case is the public stir that it has created among LARPers. Global Archery started the suit by bragging about their large legal budget, over $150,000, and filing for a gag order against Gwyther when he attempted to start a GoFundMe campaign to raise money to cover his legal costs. The account, which was started around a month ago, has raised almost $8,000 to help pay for legal fees and features a compelling video from Gwyther about how the very fabric of LARP is being challenged by this lawsuit.

Between the slow build of the dramatic background music and the serious rhetoric about the endangerment of the LARP community, the video makes a compelling argument as to why people should give money to Gwyther’s cause. He also claims he will donate all funds leftover after the lawsuit to a charity of the donors’ choice.

While Global Archery has decided to drop the lawsuit surrounding patent violations, they are still suing Gwyther for infringement of Global Archery’s trademark, Gwyther’s purchase of Google Ads surrounding his business, and for false advertisement. John Jackson, the founder of Global Archery, told Ars Technica the following upon review of the original case:

After the dust has settled and our legal counsel has had time to analyze a translated copy of the German prior art reference provided to Global Archery by Mr. Gwyther’s counsel, Global Archery has decided to voluntarily dismiss the patent counts against Mr. Gwyther with prejudice.

The good news for Gwyther is that, within the past few days, he has received word that Newegg, a tech company supported by Lee Cheng, a famous anti-patent-troll legal expert, has reviewed this case and is going to support him throughout the legal proceedings. Newegg has donated $10,000 to Gwyther’s case and created new t-shirts partially designed by Gwyther to sell in order to raise even more money. Newegg is well known for helping defend against patent trolls and Cheng specifically spoke out about this case claiming that it,

Represents the same type of abuse of intellectual property rights Newegg has stood up to for years. Global Archery’s patents would likely not withstand an invalidity challenge, but they are leveraging them to demand settlement terms that would effectively force this enthusiast and entrepreneur out of business.

So what does this mean for all you LARP fans out there? Well, if Gwyther loses this case, there is a high probability that Global Archery will become one of the only places to get your foam-tipped arrows. But, we can all probably rest easy knowing that some of the best legal counsel when it comes to patent trolling is on Gwyther’s side. And, hey, if you feel so inclined, buy a shirt to help out Gwyther’s cause.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post LARPer Goes to Battle in the Courtroom Over Foam-Tipped Arrow Patents appeared first on Law Street.

In an ironic development, the Kardashian sisters are now being accused of not enough self-promotion: Kourtney, Khloe, and Kim are being sued for over $180 million due to lack of marketing and promotion efforts for their “Kardashian Beauty” makeup line. In court filings obtained by Radar Online, the Plaintiff, Hillair Capital Management, LLC, alleges:

…in July 2014, whereby Hillair agreed to put up millions of dollars to help the Kardashians salvage their struggling ‘Kardashian Beauty’ makeup line after former distributor, Boldface, went belly up amidst legal and financial troubles. The essence of the parties’ bargain was that Hillair would put up millions of dollars to fund the continued distribution of the Kardashians’ line, and the Kardashians would continue to be the faces of the line and actively promote, market and support the line, while making certain concessions under their existing deal with Boldface.

The problem, Hillair alleges, is that the sisters did not uphold their end of the bargain: “the Kardashians wanted a better, more lucrative deal than they had struck with Hillair after the money to continue the line was already committed, and they used their ability to withhold their support of the line to attempt to force Hillair into a buyout of its interest.”

In return, Hillair is now demanding the return of the over $10 million it invested into the company, as well as up to $180 million in loss of value of equity interest.

This makeup line has been the cause of multiple legal headaches for the Kardashian sisters. The line was launched in 2012 under the name Khroma Beauty, but was accused of trademark infringement by two different companies: the Los Angeles-based Chroma Makeup, and a separate Florida-based company called Kroma Makeup. While the former was denied by courts, the second (Kroma with a K) was successful in forcing a temporary injunction to stop sales of the Kardashian’s brand for the duration of the trial. As a result, the company was finally forced to change its name to “Kardashian Beauty” in 2013.

The troubles only continued from there: the distributor of Kardashian Beauty, Boldface Licensing and Branding, began to experience financial troubles, which is where Hillair stepped in and agreed to invest. Now, the management company is alleging that its deal specified that the Kardashians would continue the promotions they had been working on under their previous deal with Boldface, which they allegedly did not do.

Another day, another Kardashian lawsuit we’re “keeping up with.”

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 Kardashians Sued for Not Promoting Makeup Line appeared first on Law Street.

The crazy case between Hulk Hogan and Gawker has finally reached a decision–and Hogan has emerged victorious. A jury awarded the famous professional wrestler $115 million after a two week trial, but just six hours of deliberations.

Hulk Hogan sued Gawker after the media company released a sex tape of Hogan and the wife of a former friend of his. Hogan claimed that Gawker violated his privacy by releasing the tape, and that they didn’t reach out to him, or the woman in the tape, Heather Cole, before releasing it publicly on the site in an article entitled: “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed Is Not Safe for Work but Watch It Anyway.” To read the full details of the case, check out our previous coverage here.

Really, the argument on the part of Hogan’s lawyer came down to privacy, and whether or not the video that Gawker published was actually “newsworthy.” But Gawker’s lawyers argued that this came down to First Amendment rights. Gawker’s attorney, Michael Sullivan, stated his concern that this case would open up a dangerous door for public figures to sue media companies. According to CNN:

Sullivan warned that Hogan’s lawsuit could have a chilling effect on free press if ‘powerful celebrities, politicians and public figures would use our courts to punish people.’ ‘We will all be worse off as a result,’ he said.

Before the ruling came out this evening, Eric Goldman, co-director of Santa Clara University’s High Tech Law Institute spoke to Fusion about the case and stated:

Right now, there’s an ‘anything goes’ mentality when it comes to publishing information about celebrities. If Gawker loses, we might begin to see some rethinking of that mentality. If Gawker wins, I think it will further embolden online publishers that anything related to celebrities is fair game.

Given that the six jurors sided with Hogan, and Gawker did lose, that first consideration may be true. However, it seems like Gawker’s lawyers are going to appeal the case–as Gawker founder Nick Denton read from a written statement:

Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case. … That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately.

Given the high price tag and high profile nature of this case, the appeal will be one to watch.

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 Hulk Hogan Wins Gawker Lawsuit: How Will this Affect Freedom of the Press? appeared first on Law Street.

Lindsey Lohan has finally been given the go ahead to proceed with her 2014 lawsuit against the game makers of “Grand Theft Auto V.” She claims they used her likeness without her consent to create one of the in-game characters.

Lohan alleges that the game’s publisher Take-Two Interactive “unequivocally” referenced her when creating the character Lacey Jonas.

So how much of a resemblance does the character have to LiLo?

According to a fan site for the game, Jonas’ character is described as a spoiled young blonde starlet famous for her work in high school movies, who spends most of her time in the game trying to evade the paparazzi. She’s also described as being “full of herself” and very “image-conscious.”

The amended complaint filed by Lohan alleges that the game also references her star role in “Mean Girls” and the West Hollywood hotel where she once lived. Lohan also claims that the publishers “used a look-alike model to evoke [her] persona and image” by imitating a bikini-clad photo of her that was taken in 2007.

You can see the similarities in the images below.

Can’t imagine why anyone thinks GTA’s ‘Lacey Jonas’ was based on Lindsay Lohan. http://t.co/qnZm2QgF23 pic.twitter.com/hiefD3vENP

— HuffPostUKTech (@HuffPostUKTech) August 28, 2014

New York Supreme Court Judge Joan Kennedy dismissed a motion on Friday filed by Take-Two and its subsidiary Rockstar Games, which hoped to prevent Lohan from moving forward in the case.

Take-Two had argued that Lohan’s complaint was frivolous and she was suing the company purely for the publicity. In an attempt to discredit Lohan, Take-Two tried to prove the actress has a history of filing misappropriation suits, citing her lost suit against Pitbull over a rap lyric as evidence, and that the lawsuit was filed too late.

However, Judge Kennedy rejected the claim stating,

Defendants have not been able to prove, at this juncture of the litigation, that the republication exception to the one year statute of limitations is not applicable to this case because the intended audiences were the same as those of the original publication and the images consistently remained the same.

Judge Kennedy’s verdict can be read in full here.

In many ways, Lohan’s lawsuit bears of a lot of resemblance to a similar dispute between Activision Blizzard, the makers of the hit “Call of Duty” series, and former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega tried to sue to the company over a character in Call of Duty: Black Ops II, whom he says was based on him, but the lawsuit was thrown out in 2014.

The judge in that case ruled “Noriega’s right of publicity is outweighed by defendants’ First Amendment right to free expression.”

This recent win for Lohan is small victory for the star who’s had her fair share of losses in the courtroom. It’s not hard to see why Lohan would think she and the character bear a resemblance. Still, there’s no telling how the case will play out in the courtroom.

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 Lindsay Lohan’s Lawsuit Against “Grand Theft Auto V” Will Proceed appeared first on Law Street.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, a famous New York landmark, is making its admissions policies clearer. This outcome is the endpoint of a 2013 lawsuit that alleged that signs at the museum misled guests.

The Met has always been and will remain free. This is due to terms laid out in the Met’s lease with the city that stipulate that the museum will not charge for admission. However, that doesn’t preclude anyone from making donations–the museum’s admissions policy is referred to as “pay what you wish.” Signs have traditionally stated that there are recommended admissions prices: “$25 for adults, $17 for seniors and $12 for students.”

The lawsuit was brought in 2013 by two visitors from the Czech Republic and one New York City resident. They claim that the language on those signs was misleading. The case was just settled, and now the language will be changed. The signs will now read “suggested admission” as opposed to “recommended admission” out of a hope that the slightly softer language will be clearer. Additionally, the signs will now include these sentences: “The amount you pay is up to you. Please be as generous as you can.” The language change will affect the website as well as the signs placed at admissions desks. The layout of the physical signs will also be edited for clarity–the words “suggested” and “admission” will be the same size.

Daniel Weiss, the president of the Met, explained:

For what the museum provides, a $25 fee is actually quite a bargain. But we don’t want the public to feel that they have to pay it. We want to strike a fair bargain with every visitor.

Chief executive Thomas P Campbell additionally stated:

All of our recent branding and marketing work has been aimed at simplifying our message of welcome to the public and emphasizing that we are accessible to the widest possible audience.

It’s highly unlikely that the clearer signs will make too much of a dent in the Met’s operating budget. As Gawker points out, the Met is very wealthy, and has an over $2.5 billion endowment. So, the change won’t really make a big different for the Met, but it certainly will be clearer for visitors to one of New York City’s top art museums.

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 After Lawsuit, Metropolitan Museum of Art Clarifies Admissions Policies appeared first on Law Street.

Johnson’s Baby Powder is a staple in many American households. Not only does it soften babies’ bums and prevent diaper rash, but it can also be used by adults as a great deodorizer, dry shampoo, and ant repeller. But before you begin bathing in this magical powdery cure-all, you might like to know that it may also be good for causing cancer, according to a recent Missouri jury ruling.

A St. Louis jury ordered consumer goods manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to pay $75 million to the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to her use of the company’s talc-based Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products.

The civil suit by Jacqueline Fox, who lived in Birmingham, Alabama, was part of a larger case involving 60 plaintiffs. A St. Louis jury awarded $10 million in actual damages and $65 million in punitive damages to Fox’s family after her son, Martin Salter, took over as plaintiff following her October 2015 death. Fox had used Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products for 35 years before being diagnosed three years ago with ovarian cancer.

Since Fox’s case was the first to come to trial, it will likely set a precedent for the other cases still to come. According to Reuters, about 1,000 cases have already been filed against Johnson & Johnson in Missouri state court , and another 200 in New Jersey.

In a press conference Jere Beasley, a lawyer for Fox’s family, said they were “able to prove statistically that 1,500 women have died every year from the association of talc and ovarian cancer.” The legal team was also able to prove that Johnson & Johnson had prior knowledge that its hygienic talc was unsafe. An internal memo dating back to September 1997 was submitted into evidence, that showed a company media consultant suggesting that “anybody who denies” the risk of using hygienic talc and ovarian cancer is “denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Despite the jury’s outcome, there is still some debate over whether or not talc powder is a direct cause of ovarian cancer. Talcum powder in the past often used talc containing asbestos, which are known carcinogens, whereas modern powder does not. Therefore it’s possible that some people may have developed cancer with contaminated talc in the past.

According to USA Today, Carol Goodrich, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, said the company stands by the talc used in all “global products” and they are “evaluating” their legal options. Goodrich said in a statement,

The recent U.S. verdict goes against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in multiple products, and while we sympathize with the family of the plaintiff, we strongly disagree with the outcome.

The huge dollar sign attached to this payout can only mean good things for the now hundreds of plaintiffs still waiting to go to trial. But if  Johnson & Johnson continues to lose, these damages could have dire consequences for the company.

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 Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $72 Million in Talc Powder Cancer Case appeared first on Law Street.

The pop star who brought us such hits as “Tik Tok” and “Your Love Is My Drug” has been going through an intense legal battle over her contract with her producer and alleged rapist, Dr. Luke. Her lawsuit hit a snag last week when a New York judge denied Kesha an injunction that would have allowed her to record with other studios, instead forcing her to remain in her contract until the details of the lawsuit are settled.

Kesha’s fight against Dr. Luke has been in the public eye since 2013, when fans began the campaign to “Free Kesha” from Dr. Luke’s control. The singer soon revealed that her producer had not only restricted her music and lyrics, but verbally, physically and sexually abused her, culminating in a stay at a rehab facility. She filed the lawsuit in 2014 in an attempt to break her contract and record music elsewhere.

After the injunction was denied, Dr. Luke broke his silence on the matter, claiming he has never assaulted Kesha. Despite his statements, the singer has received an outpouring of support from fans and celebrities, including a $250,000 donation from Taylor Swift.

But regardless of whether or not you believe Dr. Luke or you believe Kesha, the denied injunction means the same thing: Dr. Luke and his record label’s money is more important than the well-being and mental state of the singer whom they claim to represent. Given the gravity of the allegations against Dr. Luke, it should not be the case that Kesha must stay in a career-throttling contract with her alleged abuser until he is proven guilty.

Contracts in the music industry are notoriously bad about allowing musicians any sort of artistic freedom, often signing them on for long periods of time with constricting regulations.  Of the injunction, the judge said, “You’re asking the court to decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated and typical for the industry.”

What makes her case atypical, however, are the rape and abuse allegations. Denying her an out is an attempt to diminish her claims, and the action shows a lack of support for rape victims in general. It says to them that, until their claims are proven, it didn’t happen. This is a result of the victim-blaming society in which we live, where rape victims are questioned and their abusers are allowed to go free.

In Kesha’s case, what more proof is needed? She has gone through rehabilitation and treatment for the trauma she experienced, and is pursuing a lengthy and expensive legal solution to her misery. If an artist simply wanted to break a contract, there are simpler ways to do so.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kesha’s Denied Injunction Spits In The Faces Of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

In a world where over-the-top celebrity Twitter beefs are commonplace, we should never forget that you can still get in trouble for spreading lies about someone. This is especially true in the case of former “mononymous” music couple Ciara and Future, whose less-than-civil uncoupling has led to a $15 million defamation lawsuit.

Ciara reportedly sues Future for $15 million. https://t.co/eHOECVqzd7 pic.twitter.com/ZWmhQnSuVH

— Complex (@ComplexMag) February 9, 2016

Ciara filed the slander and libel suit against her former fiancé and son’s father after he made multiple “false and defamatory statements” criticizing her parenting skills and relationship with Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russel Wilson. If you’re on social media and stay relatively informed on pop culture, it’s not hard to figure out exactly which statements she’s referring to.

In January, Future went on a Twitter rant that started with a classy subtweet that read, “This bitch got control problems.” He then went on to write, “I gotta go through lawyers to see babyfuture…the fuckery for 15k a month.”

Before that Future had publicly bad mouthed his ex in July on the popular radio show “The Breakfast Club” after photos surfaced of Wilson pushing his son in a stroller. Around that same time, Future also appeared in an interview with HuffPost Live, where he overshared about his and Ciara’s sex life after Wilson had publicly divulged that the couple was abstaining for religious reasons. Future said, “God told me something else. He ain’t tell me to wait. I guarantee you that.” He then added, “We prayed afterwards though. After we did it, we prayed. That’s a true story.”

In the lawsuit Ciara states that Future’s defamatory statements were “clearly published with actual malice,” and  were  publicity stunts to promote his album release and tours. Ciara also claims Future made said comments in an attempt to disparage her character, destroy her reputation as a good mother, diminish her brand, and impair her professional career in the entertainment industry.

As a result she’s asking a judge to order Future to stop publishing personal information regarding their relationship and their son online, and delete the aforementioned tweets with a public retraction. She’s also asking that her lawyers fees be paid for and that she be awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

while Future was running his mouth, Ciara was gathering all her receipts for this 15 million dollar lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/5T6ze9wFqi

— CHRIS. (@chrissayssoo_) February 9, 2016

Not surprisingly, the large asking price has many fans divided on the issue, especially on social media. But the fact of the matter is that if Ciara does end up wining it’s unlikely she’d receive the full asking amount. However, from the sound of it, Ciara could end up having to pay Future himself after rumors began circulating that the rapper may countersue claiming Ciara made money off of badmouthing him.

If their history is an indicator of what’s to come, we can confidently conclude that things are about to get real ugly. Hopefully everything works out, for their son’s sake, the pair is stuck dealing with one another for 16 more years.

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 Ciara Files $15 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Ex-Fiance Future appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone knows the shape of a KitKat bar–but can Nestle (KitKat’s parent company) legally keep people from replicating it? According to a British judge, the KitKat shape can’t be trademarked–the decision was just handed down earlier this week.

Apparently this has been a long legal saga in Europe, with Nestle bringing attempts to trademark the KitKat shape to both the British High Court and the European Court of Justice. Nestle first tried to trademark the shape back in 2010, in an attempt to keep competitors, particularly Cadbury, from making chocolate bars in similar shapes.

However, Judge Arnold of Britain’s High Court ruled that the shape of KitKat hadn’t “acquired a distinctive character” to the point where it could be trademarked. The big legal question was whether or not someone could look at a KitKat bar and know what it was, even without any distinctive markings or packaging. Judge Arnold pointed out that Nestle had never promoted the shape when marketing the KitKat bar, and the bar’s wrapping obscures the shape. He stated in his ruling that while the shape may be distinctive, it isn’t the only thing that consumers use to identify the candy bar, stating:

In these circumstances it seems likely that consumers rely only on the word mark KitKat and the other word and the pictorial marks used in relation to the goods in order to identify the trade origin of the products. They associate the shape with KitKat (and therefore with Nestlé), but no more than that.

The idea of trademarked a candy bar shape isn’t totally crazy though; some cases have been successful in the past. For example, Toblerone, which does have a distinctive mountain-like look, has been able to trademark its shape.

This case also wasn’t the first time that European candy companies have gone head-to-head over seemingly arbitrary intellectual property claims. In 2013, Nestle and Cadbury tussled in court over Cadbury’s attempt to trademark the shade of purple it uses for its chocolate wrappers. Cadbury wasn’t successful at that attempt, either.

So for now, it seems like the case of the KitKat shape is decided (at least in European courts) but Nestle is promising to appeal the suit. At this point though…”Gimme a break.“

Update: An earlier version of this post used the term “copyright” instead of “trademark.” The language has been updated.

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 British Judge Rules Nestle Can’t Trademark the KitKat Shape appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever been “sub-tweeted,” then you know that it’s not a good feeling. Sub-tweeting is the social phenomenon that occurs when someone tweets about you without “@mentioning” you, which gives you a notification. While sub-tweeting is seen mostly as a petty social faux pas, consistently tweeting “at” or about someone after they’ve made efforts to block you could become criminal.

Two women–Heather Reilly and Stephanie Guthrie–who are active on Twitter, filed a lawsuit against Gregory Alan Elliott, who allegedly tweeted at them and about them constantly. Elliott was charged with criminal harassment, marking it the first harassment case in memory to hinge exclusively on online contact.

After they briefly considered hiring Elliott to provide graphic design work, he and Guthrie launched into a Twitter fight about then-Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and feminist objections to certain video games. According to Guthrie and Reilly’s claim, Elliott tweeted frightening and hurtful statements about the two which caused them to fear for their safety. This material included one tweet mentioning their location at the time, saying “A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight.”

The two of them blocked Elliott on Twitter, but he was still able to tweet about them, and use hashtags they were likely to see. The Canadian criminal code prohibits anyone from knowingly or recklessly harassing another person through conduct that causes that person reasonably fear for their safety. Ultimately, the judge held that Elliott didn’t definitively know that he was harassing them, as the women continued to tweet back about his comments. This, in the court’s opinion, elevated the exchanges to political discourse, and that while it was impassioned, it didn’t cross the line into causing safety concerns. Elliott was found not guilty, meaning that for now, the distinction between political arguments and personal attacks is drawn pretty clearly in that court.

Of course, obsessively tweeting someone you don’t know could actually be the key to a new relationship, if you’re less creepy about it.

Danielle Ceaser, 22, is a big fan of Jake T. Austin, a 21-year-old actor known for his work on “The Fosters” and “Wizards of Waverly Place.” Dating back as far as 2009, when the actor was just 14 and Ceaser 15, she tweeted “I wanna meet @JakeTAustin so badly,” and asking “…is it bad that I wanna kiss youu right now?.” She continued to tweet that the two were destined to meet. She announced that she put photos of Austin up on her wall, and told the world that the two would get married, and that “he just doesn’t know it yet :).”

Just like most love stories, the obsessive tweeting was met with a “follow” from Austin’s account in 2011, a sort of holy grail for superfans. Then, the two actually met at a meet-and-greet opportunity in 2012. Ceaser continued to post all about Austin for the next three years, and suddenly Austin posted a picture of the two kissing on his Instagram. It became official–the fangirl who had set her sights on Austin for over seven years is now finally dating him. In this example, relentless tweeting resulted in a happy ending. It would be a Cinderella story, if Cinderella had run a Prince Charming-themed fanblog since she was in middle school before attending the ball. So, Twitter has evolved into a lot of new things–it can be a tool for creepy stalking, or a venue for love. It all just depends on how the tweets are received.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Stalking Can Lead To Lawsuits, Or Love appeared first on Law Street.

In July, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress released a series of videos that implied that Planned Parenthood profited from the sale of fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood has long maintained that the videos were edited in a misleading fashion, and that the fetal donation program was entirely legal, the videos have been widely debunked, and multiple investigations have turned up no wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. But as the videos have become an increasingly popular political tool, and debates about the federal funding of Planned Parenthood continue, Planned Parenthood is officially fighting back by filing a federal lawsuit against the Center for Medical Progress.

Planned Parenthood is suing the Center for Medical Progress on a few different grounds, including illegally conspiring in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), mail fraud, trespassing, invasions of privacy, and illegal recording.  A fake fetal tissue procurement company called “BioMax” is also named in the lawsuit.

Planned Parenthood is arguing that the release of the videos created a dangerous environment for its employees–multiple individuals who work for the nonprofit have been threatened with bodily harm. There was also a deadly shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, that left three people dead. The shooter, Robert Lewis Dear, has made presumed references to the videos and has claimed that he is a “warrior for babies.”

Chief legal counsel for Planned Parenthood’s California affiliates, Beth Parker, stated:

Planned Parenthood staff has been demonized, the providers have been threatened with death, picketed at their homes, bombarded with hate mail, and forced to move or go into hiding.

Kathy Kneer, CEO of Planned Parenthood’s California affiliates also made a strong statement about the importance of the lawsuit, stating:

CMP’s reckless and dangerous actions have created a poisonous environment that fuels political attacks on access to reproductive health care and feeds threats against our health centers. We’re going on the offensive to expose this fraud for what it is and hold the people behind it accountable – in order to prevent further harassment of our patients and staff and protect access to the preventive and reproductive health care Planned Parenthood provides to millions of people each year.

The Center for Medical Progress has released a statement, essentially saying that it doesn’t have anything to fear with the lawsuit. David Daleiden, the leader behind the videos stated: “Game on” upon hearing about the lawsuit. But while it probably won’t help with the constant political fights that await Planned Parenthood in the future, the organization is officially out for vengeance against the Center for Medical Progress, and justifiably so.

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 Planned Parenthood Sues the Center for Medical Progress Over “Sting Videos” appeared first on Law Street.

Lloyd “Carl” Fields Jr. was tragically killed during an ISIS attack in Jordan last November. Fields, a defense contractor from Florida, was at the International Police Training Center in Amman training a policeman who killed him; ISIS later took credit for the attack. Now, Fields’ widow has filed a lawsuit against Twitter, arguing that the social media platform has essentially supported the rise of ISIS by allowing the terrorist group to spread messages and fundraise using its technology.

The lawsuit filed by Tamara Fields alleges that:

Without Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most- feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible. According to the Brookings Institution, ISIS ‘has exploited social media, most notoriously Twitter, to send its propaganda and messaging out to the world and to draw in people vulnerable to radicalization.’ Using Twitter, ‘ISIS has been able to exert an outsized impact on how the world perceives it, by disseminating images of graphic violence (including the beheading of Western journalists and aid workers) . . . while using social media to attract new recruits and inspire lone actor attacks.’ According to FBI Director James Comey, ISIS has perfected its use of Twitter to inspire small-scale individual attacks, ‘to crowdsource terrorism’ and ‘to sell murder.’

The fact that ISIS has used Twitter to spread messages, raise funds, and entice converts isn’t a secret. But the question that this lawsuit essentially poses is whether or not Twitter should be held responsible for those uses. Twitter’s “Abusive Behavior” policies state that “Users may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.” But exactly what that means is hard to qualify–particularly when ISIS members or sympathizers may used coded words or phrases, and when the difference between an ISIS member and a jokester, or a rabble-rouser, aren’t necessarily easy to glean. Moreover, if Twitter blocks one user, a new account usually pops up in its place. So, for a giant tech platform like Twitter, preventing ISIS from using it may be easier said than done.

Twitter has responded to the lawsuit, stating:

While we believe the lawsuit is without merit, we are deeply saddened to hear of this family’s terrible loss. Like people around the world, we are horrified by the atrocities perpetrated by extremist groups and their ripple effects on the Internet. Violent threats and the promotion of terrorism deserve no place on Twitter and, like other social networks, our rules make that clear. We have teams around the world actively investigating reports of rule violations, identifying violating conduct, partnering with organizations countering extremist content online, and working with law enforcement entities when appropriate

Fields’ lawsuit isn’t just about damages though–she’s asking the court to issue an order that Twitter has violated the Anti-Terrorism Act, which could could require not only Twitter to seriously overhaul its policies to become more responsible for how the network is used, but seriously affect our social media landscape as a whole.

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 Wife of Man Killed by ISIS Sues Twitter 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.

The U.S. government has officially filed a civil suit against Volkswagen for violating the Clean Air Act; the latest step in a saga that has taken several months to unravel and appears to look worse for the car manufacturer at each turn.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has made allegations against the German automaker that mostly stem from the discovery that some of Volkswagen’s cars had “defeat devices” installed. Essentially a defeat device would kick in during an emissions test, to make it appear as though the cars were running at standards that were in accordance with the Clean Air Act. However, when the cars were out on the road, their emissions were significantly higher–in some cases up to 40 times greater than the federal standards allow. The DOJ is alleging that about 500,000 of those were sold in the United States. Volkswagen admitted in September that it was aware of the implications of these devices, and is currently negotiating with American regulators on how to conduct a recall of the affected cars.

The federal civil suit against Volkswagen doesn’t preclude the DOJ from filing criminal charges against the company as well. But given the higher burden of proof needed to prosecute a criminal case, it makes some sense that the civil suit has come first.

Assistant Attorney General John Cruden of the environment and natural resources division at the Justice Department explained the motivations for the lawsuit in a statement released by the DOJ:

Car manufacturers that fail to properly certify their cars and that defeat emission control systems breach the public trust, endanger public health and disadvantage competitors. The United States will pursue all appropriate remedies against Volkswagen to redress the violations of our nation’s clean air laws alleged in the complaint.

The DOJ also outlined the public health danger that could come from Volkswagen’s deception, warning that it could cause nitrogen pollution, and stating:

NOx pollution contributes to harmful ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. These pollutants are linked with asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses. Exposure to ozone and particulate matter is also associated with premature death due to respiratory-related or cardiovascular-related effects. Children, the elderly and people with pre-existing respiratory disease are particularly at risk of health effects from exposure to these pollutants.

Volkswagen will have a hard road ahead when it comes to fighting off this civil suit. Given that it could end with the company paying billions in fines, it’s certainly one to watch.

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 U.S. Government Sues Volkswagen For Clean Air Act Violations appeared first on Law Street.

After a two year investigation into complaints of civil rights and health violations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a $4 million settlement for former employees at the Sara Lee factory located in Paris, Texas. This case marks the largest settlement in EEOC history involving a hostile work environment. The EEOC took on the case after twenty-five workers filed complaints against the company during their time at the now-shuttered factory, which closed in 2011. Attorneys now estimate that over seventy employees stand to benefit from the settlement. In addition to financial reparations, the company will be required to implement measures to prevent workplace discrimination and to submit regular reports to the EEOC. Read on for a look inside the landmark case.

The Allegations Against Sara Lee

The EEOC’s two year investigation found that black employees were targets of intimidation and were denied promotions that went to their white peers. Black employees reported racial slurs and graffiti during their time at the factory, incidents which were corroborated by the EEOC. A lawsuit filed separately from the EEOC complaint revealed that the graffiti included racial slurs, threats, and crude drawings of apes and black men with nooses. A large portion of the alleged abuse came from white supervisors within the factory and several Sara Lee officials have been accused of ignoring complaints from black employees about the conditions within the factory. In addition, workers were reportedly exposed to black mold asbestos and other toxins during their daily work. The working conditions were so hazardous that:

One of the cake lines was nicknamed the ‘cancer line,’ because so many people were getting sick, said Sara Kane, one of the workers’ attorneys, of the law office Valli, Kane & Vagnini.

According to the investigation, black employees were exposed to these conditions while their white colleagues were promoted to positions located in safer areas of the factory. These white employees were allegedly often less-experienced than their black co-workers but they received promotions nevertheless.

According to the EEOC’s report, several black employees contracted cancer and other diseases as a direct result of their exposure to toxins in the workplace. When black employees reported their diseases to management, their complaints were either ignored or dismissed as being unrelated to working conditions within the factory. The closure of the factory in 2011 meant that the EEOC had relatively limited exposure to the physical conditions of the factory, so the investigation did rely heavily on interviews with employees.

 The Role of the EEOC

The EEOC enforces federal laws against discrimination in most companies with 15 employees or more (although this can vary according to certain jurisdictions and circumstances). The EEOC processes both private sector and federal sector violations of discrimination laws, although it takes a more active investigative role in private sector cases. There are two distinct private sector and a federal sector mediation programs, which each offer dispute resolution with EEOC cooperation. If conciliation cannot resolve a private sector dispute, the EEOC has the right to pursue litigation and also has a right to participate in an ongoing lawsuit. According to the EEOC website,

The EEOC has the authority to investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Our role in an investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and then make a finding. If we find that discrimination has occurred, we will try to settle the charge. If we aren’t successful, we have the authority to file a lawsuit to protect the rights of individuals and the interests of the public. We do not, however, file lawsuits in all cases where we find discrimination.

The EEOC may handle tens of thousands of complaints every year, but they very rarely escalate to the heights that the Sara Lee case has, which makes the future of Sara Lee critically important. If Sara Lee complies with the EEOC regulations and actively changes its workplace environment in the coming years, it will serve as a model for other companies that have had large-scale reports of discrimination. The successful transformation of the Sara Lee case will lie with its parent company–Tyson Foods.

A New Name and a New Brand

In 2012, so chronologically after the alleged abuse occurred, Sara Lee went through a major re-branding, effectively splitting the business in two. The food side of the business was labeled Hillshire Brands while the tea and coffee end of the company (centered in Europe) was named D.E. Master Blenders 1753. The name change was speculated to have been prompted by lackluster sales of meat products.

In 2014, Hillshire Brands completed a merger with Tyson Foods, Inc. which The Wall Street Journal referred to as the “meat industry’s biggest deal.” After the merger, Hillshire’s chief executive Sean Connolly stepped down, clearing the way for new leadership. However, the Sara Lee discrimination case did not disappear with the name change. Although headlines associate the case with Sara Lee, Tyson is now liable for the settlement and for rebuilding the brand’s image in the wake of the EEOC investigation. In an interview with Buzzfeed News, Tyson Foods spokesperson Worth Sparkman said the company is

‘Committed to treating our team members with dignity and respect and have a policy against harassment and discrimination,’ noting Tyson Foods requires annual training and offers a toll-free help line for workers to report any concerns without fear of retaliation. ‘While we don’t agree with all of the allegations in this case, we oppose any unlawful discrimination in the workplace and believe it makes sense to resolve this matter,’ Sparkman wrote in an email. When asked which allegations the company disagrees with Sparkman said, via email, ‘We’ll point out that any alleged conduct in this case occurred before portions of Sara Lee were acquired by Tyson Foods in 2014.’

The Tyson brand has also had a series of legal skirmishes over working conditions over the past few years. This November, the Supreme Court heard a case against Tyson in which employees argued that Tyson unlawfully failed to pay for the time it took them to put on and then remove safety equipment during their daily tasks. In a lower court, employees were awarded half of what their counsel requested. The case has raised interesting questions about collective action lawsuits, as the case involves more than 3,000 workers in total: Should that many employees be allowed to file their complaint at one time, in a single case?

The Supreme Court has approached the case less as an issue of wage violations and more as a debate over what the threshold should be for the number of participants in a collective action lawsuit. Yet, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the employees, Tyson may pay out even more than they it in the Sara Lee case–approximately $6 million.

Conclusion

The Sara Lee case is a unique one in that a significant number of workers were courageous enough to file complaints and patient enough to wait for the legislative process to work over several years. Not every discrimination case is investigated by the EEOC, either because there is not sufficient evidence or because victims do not feel safe reporting misconduct. Hopefully, the Sara Lee case will inspire other companies to enact preventative measures to disband discrimination. The EEOC has delivered a decisive victory for the employees of the Texas factory, and we’ll have to see what effects it might have in future discrimination cases.

Resources

CBS Dallas Forth Worth: $4M Settlement Awarded In Sara Lee Discrimination Case

The Chicago Tribune: Sara Lee Discriminated Against Black Employees, Attorneys Say

Dallas Business Journal: EEOC Wins Record Settlement for Former Texas-based Sara Lee Factory Workers

Buzzfeed: Sara Lee Will Pay $4 Million To Settle Racial Discrimination Suit

Business Insider: Turning Sara Lee Into Hillshire Brands Is A Perfect Example Of How Not To Name A Company

The Wall Street Journal: Tyson Completes Acquisition of Hillshire

EEOC: Overview

JD Supra: United States Supreme Court Hears Argument in Tyson Foods’ FLSA Collective Action

The New York Times: Supreme Court Hears Case for Tyson Foods Class-Action Lawsuit

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The EEOC and Sara Lee: A Landmark Discrimination Case in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

Urban Outfitters: it seems like every week or so the retailer is making headlines for pissing someone off. Whether it’s marketing a Kent State sweatshirt seemingly covered in blood spots, selling a shirt that proclaims “Eat Less,” or asking its employees to come in and work without pay, the brand is almost always under fire. But now it may have to pay for its controversial practices–the Navajo Nation is suing Urban Outfitters for marketing some products as “Navajo”–and a federal judge just agreed to let the suit move forward.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2012 in a U.S. District Court in New Mexico by the Navajo tribe. The tribe took issue with the products sold by Urban Outfitters that were labeled as “Navajo”–they included items such as clothing, jewelry, and accessories. Urban Outfitters used the Navajo name on products that the Navajo tribe argued were offensive–including a Navajo Print Fabric Wrapped Flask, despite the fact that the sale and consumption of alcohol are banned on the reservation located in Southwestern United States. The tribe also took issue with the “Navajo Hipster Panty.”

What, you don’t like Navajo patterned panties and booze flasks? Huh! “@ailsasachdev: Argh Urban Outfitters!!! pic.twitter.com/cpbhFQouti”

— Maria La Ganga (@marialaganga) September 16, 2014

It’s Navajo Nation v Urban Outfitters #IntellectualProperty #trademark via @TheFashionLaw pic.twitter.com/LRJjorhqPC http://t.co/gQYhJwDQp8

— Marksmen (@MarksmenTweets) October 6, 2015

While the products were removed from Urban Outfitters after the tribe sent a cease-and-desist letter, the tribe still decided to file suit. The tribe’s complaint accuses Urban Outfitters of alleged trademark violations, unfair competition, and violation of the arts and crafts act.

The act being referred to is the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1935. That act makes it illegal to sell products that imply or falsely suggest that they were made by American Indians when they were not. According to the Farmington Daily Times:

Under a 1990 amendment, tribes received the right to bring lawsuits against any person or entity who sells a product ‘in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization.’

Additionally, the Navajo Nation has a number of trademarks that cover the use of the name “Navajo.”

However, Urban Outfitters fought back against the lawsuit, claiming that the tribe couldn’t show that any injury was done to it when the company used the name “Navajo.” However, it was based on that claim that U.S. District Judge Bruce D. Black just ruled that the tribe does have standing to move forward with its lawsuit. So, the lawsuit will continue, and Urban Outfitters is going to have to come up with another way to avoid paying a big penalty for its use of the Navajo Nation’s trademark and name. But, given its track record, I’m sure we’ll see Urban Outfitters in the news again soon.

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 Navajo Nation to Continue Lawsuit Against Urban Outfitters appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever late night channel-surfed, chances are you’ve seen one of Hollywood hairstylist Chaz Dean’s infomercials marketing his sulfate-free hair care line WEN.

The line, which is known for its 5-in-1 cleansing conditioner that promises to “take the place of your shampoo, conditioner, deep conditioner, detangler, and leave-in conditioner,” quickly catapulted to national success with the help of glowing testimonials from celebrities like Brooke Shields and Alyssa Milano–leading to a “no-poo” trend in hair care.

Yet despite the constant stream of accolades, WEN has long suffered intermittent rumors that its products cause users’ hair to come out in handfuls. The company has been party to multiple lawsuits in the past, but the accusations finally came to a head thanks to a staggering class action lawsuit that has been joined by over 200 disgruntled women in 40 states who say the line is responsible for causing bald spots on their heads.

Women are speaking out after they say a popular hair product is making them go bald https://t.co/WBYLeVPeyp pic.twitter.com/pD1KiJfVZH

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) December 15, 2015

On March 17, 2015 Dallas attorney Amy Davis filed the lawsuit against Guthy-Renker, the infomercial giant responsible for selling the line, alleging that “one or more of the Products’ active ingredients act as a depilatory and caustic agent, either by causing a chemical reaction that damages the hair strand and/or follicle.”

Several comments from online forums of customers reporting similar hair loss while using WEN were included in the court document along with photo evidence. In the photos, large bald spots primarily on the women’s crowns are visible.

The lawsuit also accused WEN and Guthy-Renker of trying to cover up their scandal by removing unfavorable reviews of their products from the Internet and social media sites that would have warned customers of potential dangers. According to the lawsuit,

Defendants paid for false and misleading blogging about the Products on the Internet and social media sites but failed to attribute the false and misleading statements to Defendants or as advertising. These acts also constitute a violation of the CFAL.

However, WEN vehemently claims it is not responsible for these women’s baldness. WEN spokesperson Joe Hixson issued a statement to Buzzfeed saying,

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support any claim that our hair care products caused anyone to lose their hair. There are many reasons why individuals may lose their hair, all unrelated to Wen hair care products. We intend to vigorously contest the allegations made against our products.

That directly contradicts the reasoning laid out in the lawsuit as to why the product caused balding on these women. In order for the plaintiffs to win they’ll have to prove there was a direct correlation between their use of the product and their loss of hair. If they manage to do that, it could be disastrous for the haircare giant.

WEN hair conditioner lawsuit by USA TODAY

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 Over 200 Women Claim WEN Hair Products Caused Hair Loss in Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Bill Cosby.

You used to be able to say that name and conjure up happy memories of family-friendly sitcom episodes, flamboyant knitted sweaters, or pudding pops. But not anymore.

Now America’s former “favorite dad” has become synonymous with drugging women with quaaludes and raping them, after more than 50 women came forward to accuse the comedian of sexual assault. As a result, Cosby is lashing out by filing a defamation lawsuit against seven of his accusers, claiming they ruined his reputation for “financial gain.”

The lawsuit filed Monday is a counterclaim to a civil lawsuit filed by Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, Linda Traitz, Louisa Moritz, Barbara Bowman, Joan Tarshis, and Angela Leslie. The seven women had joined together in a defamation suit initially filed last year by three accusers against Cosby in a federal court in his home state of Massachusetts. According to USA Today, it is currently the largest of the half dozen civil lawsuits filed against Cosby in recent months.

In a statement tweeted Monday, Cosby’s lawyer Monique Pressley wrote,

Mr. Cosby states plainly that he neither drugged no sexually assaulted the defendants and that each defendant has maliciously and knowingly published multiple false statements and accusations from Fall 2014 through the current day in an effort to cause damage to Mr. Cosby’s reputation and to extract financial gains.

My statement re today’s lawsuit filed by @BillCosby against all 7 accusers in Massachusetts lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/XRYoV4gXpC

— Monique Pressley (@MoniquePressley) December 14, 2015

Cosby’s lawsuit comes across as a last-ditch effort to save himself from shelling out a fortune to the dozens of women who claim he assaulted them in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Statutes of limitations for rape prevented the 78-year-old from facing any legal charges for the assaults. Therefore many of his accusers have now opted to file civil lawsuits instead. Cosby, however, has repeatedly denied claims of any wrongdoing.

According to unsealed court documents, Cosby testified in 2005 that he had obtained the sedative drug Quaaludes, with the intention of giving them to young women in order to have sex with him. This revelation came as shock to many who had came to the defense of the former star amidst the allegations.

While we’ll never see Cosby criminally charged with assaulting these women, there is some hope for justice in the civil cases currently pending. However, his defamation suit makes it clear that he doesn’t plan to go down without a fight.

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 Bill Cosby Countersues Seven Rape Accusers For Defamation appeared first on Law Street.