After a month of reports of exploding, smoking, or burning cellphones, the Samsung galaxy Note 7 will now be banned on all U.S. flights, starting Saturday. The Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation released a statement on Friday afternoon saying the new rules will take effect on Saturday. This is sure to be inconvenient for passengers with already scheduled flights who rely on Samsung. But after almost 100 cases of overheating and fires, it’s better to be on the safe side.

“We recognize that banning these phones from airlines will inconvenience some passengers, but the safety of all those aboard an aircraft must take priority,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Starting Saturday, passengers won’t be allowed to bring their Note 7s aboard an airplane even if they are shut off. Trying to do so may lead to confiscation of the phone and fines for the passenger. If anyone would be foolish enough to try and pack the phone in the checked luggage to get around it, they would risk creating an accident and could face criminal charges. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is now considered a forbidden hazardous material under federal law.

FAA banning #Samsung #GalaxyNote7 from all flights https://t.co/WqLA1vl0W3 pic.twitter.com/RRFV0XwXQ4

— #Q13FOX (@Q13FOX) October 14, 2016

This news comes after two separate recalls of the Note 7 phones, the first one on September 15 and the second one on Thursday, which included the replacement phones that people could exchange their original ones for. The problem with the first edition was that the lithium ion battery cells were packed so tightly into a pouch that they barely fit inside the phone, leading to pinching of the batteries. This could easily break the thin plastic that separates the positive and negative sides of the battery, which could lead to a short circuit. This in its turn would heat up the flammable liquid inside enough to make the battery explode, and the replacements had similar issues.

The whole affair is estimated to cost the company $5.3 billion in lost profits. At least 13 people have reported being burned by their phones, there have been 96 reports of overheated batteries, and there are 47 registered cases of property damage. On October 5, a smoking phone led to the evacuation of a Southwest Airlines flight. Luckily that plane was still by the gate and no one was hurt. And with the new FAA rules, there will hopefully be no issues with fires caused by phones on airplanes.

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 FAA: Samsung Note 7s are Now Banned on U.S. Flights appeared first on Law Street.

In June, “Star Trek” actor Anton Yelchin was killed at age 27 after his Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled away from where it was parked and pinned him against a gate in his driveway. In the media scrutiny that followed, some major issues surrounding the car model and its gear shift became widely publicized, including the recall of nearly 1.1 million vehicles that included Yelchin’s model. On Tuesday, the actor’s parents announced that they would be filing a lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler, the parent company of Jeep, for the wrongful death of their son.

In an emotional press conference on Tuesday, Victor and Irina Yelchin announced the lawsuit, with the actor’s mother explaining that she hoped that his death “might save another life.” Their lawyer, Gary Dordick, blamed the carmakers for the accident, saying the company “failed to take action to protect the families that trusted them to make their vehicle safe. The safety recall was way too little and way too late.”

Yelchin’s death is attributed to the monostable shifter found in the car model and others made by the company. The design and operation of the shifter is reportedly not intuitive for drivers, many of whom mistakenly believe that their cars are in “park” when they are not. This issue has allegedly caused nearly 300 accidents and 68 injuries, leading the company to issue a recall this past April. The shifters were also investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which stated in its report that the “absence of an additional mechanism to mitigate the effects of driver error…constitutes a defect presenting a risk to motor vehicle safety.”

The suit isn’t the first example of legal action taken against the company since Yelchin’s death. In late June, a class action lawsuit for $5 million was filed against the company by drivers of vehicles with the same monostable shifter found in Yelchin’s vehicle. In April, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released the results of their investigation into the shifters, in which they reported that drivers often exited their vehicles after mistakenly believing them to be in the “Park” position. This defect, the report stated, “constitutes a defect presenting a risk to motor vehicle safety.”

Perhaps one of the most tragic parts of this story? The fact that the recall notice was mailed to Yelchin’s house just one week after his death. The notice informed drivers that the software in the cars could be updated to add an “Auto Park” feature which would reduce the risk of rollaway vehicles. The fact that the actor’s death could possibly have been prevented is sure to be a large part of the Yelchins’ case against the company.

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 Anton Yelchin’s Parents to Sue Fiat Chrysler for Their Son’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

Bud Light, produced by beer giant Anheuser-Busch, is apologizing after controversy broke out over one of the beer’s labels. The brand has been using a number of slogans as part of its “Up for Anything” marketing campaign; however, one sparked a lot of controversy–the phrase that posited Bud Light as “the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”

Bud Light….the perfect beer for marketers about to lose their job. #NoMeansNopic.twitter.com/dLWtDSMhXQ

— Jeff Barrett (@BarrettAll) April 28, 2015

There was a lot of backlash in response to this slogan, as many who saw it thought that it was an inappropriate, if inadvertent, nod to rape culture. The phrase “no means no” has become a popular rallying cry for those combatting the incredibly prevalent problems of rape and sexual assault. So for Bud Light to hint that its product takes away, in any way, the ability to say “no,” struck plenty of negative chords.

Moreover, there are plenty of other things that people should say “no” to if they’ve been drinking–driving, to name just one. This slogan indicates that people drinking Bud Light would engage in activities they normally wouldn’t–and that doesn’t exactly scream responsible alcohol consumption. While Bud Light’s slogan was supposed to be light-hearted, and presumably indicate that its beer would lead to a fun night where its consumers were open to new experiences, this slogan completely missed that mark.

Twitter users took to the social media platform to express a wide variety of reactions, ranging from disgust to mocking.

Sorry AB. NO does mean NO. No matter how much beer. #SoWrong #BigFail http://t.co/OXBbwQd4uq

— Rep. Stacey Newman (@staceynewman) April 28, 2015

Stolen from reddit: “No” always means “No”…especially if the question is: “Do you want a Bud Light?” #terribletagline#UpForWhatever

— TheRealLouisWeiher (@LouisWeiher) April 28, 2015

Bud Light has stopped production of the bottles featuring the slogan in question, although it won’t be recalling the ones that are already on the shelves. The bottles are sold in packs with mixed labels, meaning a 12-pack may contain a few offensive labels, just one, or none at all. Logistically speaking, a recall would have been difficult, which is understandable. Also in response to the backlash, Alexander Lambrecht, Vice President for Bud Light, released a statement:

The Bud Light Up for Whatever campaign, now in its second year, has inspired millions of consumers to engage with our brand in a positive and light-hearted way. In this spirit, we created more than 140 different scroll messages intended to encourage brand engagement. It’s clear that this particular message missed the mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible behavior. As a result, we have immediately ceased production of this message on all bottles.

It’s good that Bud Light made the call to remove the slogan from its labels, but the fact that it took such a concerted backlash to do so is a bit concerning. While we shouldn’t expect everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every current social movement, “no means no” has been a pretty visible one. The fact that a single Bud Light marketing executive didn’t think of the overall implications of their label is pretty surprising. Bud Light did the right thing by apologizing–hopefully in the future it gives a little more thought to what message it is sending to consumers.

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 Bud Light Removes “No From Your Vocabulary” in Misguided Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Car companies rarely make headlines for things that they have done right, and General Motors is no exception. GM has recalled millions of vehicles since February 2014 and has been found responsible for multiple deaths. Read on to learn everything you need to know about why GM waited so long to fix a life-threatening problem, how much GM will pay to fix said problem, and why you might want to get rid of your keychain.

What is General Motors?

General Motors is one of the largest car companies in America. It manufactures and sells ten brands of cars including Chevrolet, Buick, and Cadillac. GM sold more than nine million cars globally last year.

Why did GM issue a massive recall?

A faulty switch on the ignition of some cars would, when pressed, jiggled, or bumped a certain way, turn the key to the “off” position while driving. This would turn off power steering, power brakes, the engine, and all airbags. Drivers would effectively lose control of their vehicles. Even just a heavy keychain could be enough to set off this chain of events.

How bad was this problem?

Really bad. So far, GM has attributed 13 deaths to the faulty switch problem. That’s the largest number of auto deaths related to a recall since 2000. Rep. Diana Degette (D-CO), a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, believes that there may be as many as 100 deaths associated with the faulty switch.

Sadly, according to the report below from Bloomberg News, many of the victims were teenagers. This might be because the cars impacted were entry level vehicles that parents often buy for their kids.

GM has recalled 25.68 million vehicles this year. This is a massive number of impacted cars. To put that number in perspective, it’s equivalent to two years of the company’s output and it surpasses the average total recalls for all car companies per year.

How long has GM known?

This is the truly weird part of the story. General Motors has known that the problem existed in at least one of its cars since 2001. During pre-production of the Saturn Ion, engineers noticed the ignition problem and fixed it; however, the problem popped up again in 2004, this time in the Chevrolet Cobalt. This time GM did not fix the problem, saying the solution was too expensive. Instead, GM sent a memo to dealerships warning them of the problem and telling them to advise customers to remove heavy keychains. GM did not recall these vehicles or inform owners of the problem until 2014.

Watch Consumer Reports explain why this is such a big deal and why GM should have recalled the vehicles ten years ago.

An internal report shows that in 2006 a solution was proposed that cost nothing. The ignition switches would merely be replaced with a stronger spring that would be more difficult to accidentally turn. It’s unclear why GM did not make this change. Other reports state that the fix would have cost less than a dollar per car. Total retooling costs would have been $400,000. Apparently this was too much money for GM to spend.

GM not only knew that this problem existed, but the company also knew that people were dying as a result. The first death linked to the faulty switch took place in 2005. Sixteen year old Amber Rose died when the airbags did not deploy in her Chevy Cobalt.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is also reporting that GM withheld information that may have allowed the agency to investigate and discover the problem earlier.

How do I know if my car has been affected?

GM has been sending notifications in the mail to every GM owner, but you can also check this website.

Still, you should be wary even if the model you own has not yet been recalled. GM did not recall every broken car at once. Instead, the recalls have been coming out gradually since February as the company figures out which cars are impacted. You should remove anything heavy from your keychain if you own a GM car.

How much will this cost GM?

It has already been very costly. The huge number of recalls will absolutely result in a steep loss. GM has also announced that it will compensate victims and their families. Families will receive a minimum of $1 million, plus $300,000 for every surviving spouse and dependent.

Watch Kenneth Feinberg, Administrator of GM Compensation, explain how the company will distribute these funds:

In addition, GM has paid a $35 million civil penalty, the maximum for such a penalty, to the NHTSA for failing to quickly respond to the problem.

There are also bizarre stories developing about different incidents caused by these faulty ignition switches that GM will have to pay for. For example, a Texas woman who pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in 2004 after she crashed her Saturn Ion and killed her fiance, is now suing GM. NHTSA recently confirmed that the accident was caused by the faulty switch, and not by the driver’s negligence. GM could be in serious trouble if people who have been convicted of felonies can prove that the auto company was actually at fault. Expect similar lawsuits to pop up.

There is a loophole, however, that would allow GM to avoid liability for these accidents. You may remember that GM was bailed out by the federal government in 2009. What you may not know is that this bailout created two companies: old GM and new GM. New GM took the best assets from old GM and left the bad ones behind. This could mean that new GM would not be liable for any accident taking place before the new company was formed. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber will decide whether or not new GM is responsible for the mistakes of old GM.

In addition to recalls, how else has GM responded?

Mary Barra, who became CEO a month before this scandal broke out, has fired 15 employees over the recall failure.

Barra also publicly apologized multiple times. She has apologized at Congressional hearings, in press releases, and in a video produced by GM.

Conclusion

GM was at best negligent and and worst greedy when the company waited more than a decade to address this fatal flaw in its cars. Congress will investigate to see how this situation could be prevented in the future. In the mean time, check the recall list to see if your vehicle is affected.

Resources

Primary

General Motors: Internal Investigation

Additional

General Motors: GM Delivered 9.7 Million Vehicles Globally in 2013

The New York Times: 13 Deaths, Untold Heartache, From G.M. Defect

Politico: GM Will Compensate for Ignition Switch Deaths Starting at $1 Million

CNN: GM CEO Barra: ‘I Am Deeply Sorry’

Wall Street Journal: GM Fires 15 Employees Over Recall Failures

General Motors: Ignition Recall Safety Information

NPR: Timeline: A History of GM’s Ignition Switch Defect

CBS: Why Didn’t GM Fix Faulty Switches? A Per-Car Cost of Less Than $1

Wall Street Journal: GM Says it Has a Shield From Some Liability

Motor Trend: The GM Recall Crisis–A Matter of Confidence

U.S. News & World Report: Where Were GM’s Ethics?

Fortune: GM’s Recall Scandal: A Scorecard on CEO Mary Barra

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know Now About the GM Recall appeared first on Law Street.