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.

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.

In a tragic, but very confusing story, a woman from Utah is suing herself–and a Utah court just said that she can move forward. Barbara Bagley, is representing her late-husband Bradley Vom Baur’s estate, suing the woman whose negligence may have caused the auto accident in which he passed away. The person who may have caused the accident? That’s right–it’s the same Barbara Bagley. So Barbara Bagley is suing Barbara Bagley. Confused yet? I sure am. How exactly can someone sue themselves?

Well, essentially it’s the same as when two separate people are involved in an accident like this–if someone passes away in a car accident, their “estate” can sue the person who caused the accident. In her lawsuit, she is essentially just arguing that Bagley who controls Vom Baur’s estate, and Bagley who drove the car are two different parties with two different interests. She’s asking for unspecified damages for his medical and financial expenses, loss of financial support and companionship, and the physical pain he suffered.

Bagley was driving a Range Rover in 2011 with her husband when she lost control. The car flipped after she hit a bush, and her husband, Vom Baur, was thrown from the car. He suffered extensive injuries and passed away a little over a week later. The side of Bagley that controls Vom Baur’s estate is claiming that she was negligent for failing to look ahead properly and keep control of her vehicle.

This may be a tactic to get the insurance money that Bagley desires. University of Utah Law Professor Shima Baradaran explains:

She is claiming her own negligence in her husband’s death. In order to recover for the costs of his death she has to kind of claim her own negligence. So basically she’s suing herself so that the insurance recovery can follow.

This does mean that Bagley has two separate sets of lawyers. The lawyers defending Bagley on behalf of her late-husbands estate are privately hired. The attorneys defending her as a driver come from her insurance carrier.

Now, of course, there’s been a legal battle before the case actually commenced over what Bagley is doing. The lawyers for Bagley as the driver have tried to get the case thrown out. As they wrote in a motion to dismiss:

Further, if this suit is allowed to continue, a jury would be asked to determine whether Barbara Bagley’s fault caused Barbara Bagley’s own harm. The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate Barbara Bagley for the harm she caused herself. The jury will be highly confused — it cannot order a person to compensate herself In January 2014, a judge actually dismissed the case. But this week, an appeals court said that Bagley is able to sue herself.

Originally, a judge agreed with them, and threw out the case in 2014. But this week, an appeals court reversed that decision, and said that the case can move forward. The defense–the insurance company representatives for Bagley–hasn’t said whether or not it will try to bring it to the Supreme Court.

It’s a weird case, certainly, although not entirely unexpected in today’s litigation-happy world. In some ways it’s also a heartbreaking case–a woman is admitting that her negligence caused her husband’s death because that’s the way that she’s going to be able to pay off his bills. Finally, it’s a fascinating case. The ability to separate different parts of legal identity is certainly a mostly-unexplored field. Whether or not this case goes forward, or whether it ends up at the Utah Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see which of Bagley’s interests succeeds.

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 Utah Appeals Court Rules Woman May Sue Herself appeared first on Law Street.

How many times do we check online reviews of a product before choosing to buy it? Reviews are important for many consumers to make sure they are spending their money on something that is of good quality. But can companies really sue customers for posting a negative review of a product on an online forum?

After posting a negative Amazon review of a Mediabridge brand router, a Florida man recently received a letter from Mediabridge’s lawyers threatening a lawsuit. The company claimed that the review contained false information intended to hurt its reputation and that the man’s statements could be considered slanderous. The company went on to warn that it would sue the man unless he removed his review, stopped purchasing Mediabridge products, and ceased future discussion of the company on the internet.

Can companies really sue individuals over their negative reviews on the internet?

Legal precedent works in favor of the companies. For example, Virginia courts heard a case in 2012 of a similar issue on Yelp and Angie’s List. A retired military captain living in Fairfax County posted a negative review of a contracting service on Yelp and Angie’s List claiming that not only was the service poor, but also that she was billed for services that weren’t performed, and the contractor may have also stolen jewelry. The contractor, Christopher Dietz, sued her for $750,000 for defamatory remarks on an internet review site. Dietz argued that the reviewer’s statements were false and that her negative review impacted his business and reputation. The court held for the contractor. The case was later overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court.

How could this affect consumers?

Providing real insight into the quality of goods and services is the purpose of consumer reviews. It is helpful to read positive reviews in order to make a wise purchase, but negative reviews are also important to warn others of faulty products and poor service. If consumers realize that they can be sued over their critical comments about products, however, many may not be truthful or even write reviews at all anymore. Consumers have a right to know information about the quality of a good o service before they spend their money, but if people are deterred from sharing this information for fear they may create legal trouble for themselves it will become much harder for consumers to make informed decisions.

Can consumer reviews be protected?

Companies like Amazon need to step up to protect their customers. According to Amazon’s terms of use, product sellers are not allowed to demand consumers remove their reviews. These terms are there for a reason: Amazon wants customers to freely critique the items they have purchased through the site. If companies threaten customers with lawsuits over negative reviews, then Amazon needs to step in.

—

Sarah Helden (@SHelden430)

[National Journal] [TIME] [Amazon]

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Reviewers Beware: Negative Product Reviews Might Cost You appeared first on Law Street.

Internet legalities, security, and commerce are confusing. There a lot of gray areas when it comes to what is legal but also, the consequences for internet crimes are clearly lacking as well. If there is no fear of the law, what incentive is there for people to abide by the law? One ubiquitous internet crime is piracy, or the act of obtaining copy written content without paying for it. This type of crime is conducted by a variety of methods; among them are peer to peer downloading and streaming.

Let’s take a look at the history…

Obtaining content online first commenced with downloading information from a single location. Downloading is the process of copying data, usually an entire file from a main source to a peripheral device. The term is often used to describe the process of copying a file from an online service or bulletin board service (BBS) to one’s own computer. During a direct download, you are only downloading the file(s) from an individual server unlike a torrent.

Today, torrenting is much more popular, where users download crowd sourced content. Torrenting is the act of downloading files from a large network in which all of the users are sharing the same file. A torrent allows you to download the file from multiple users, with the capability to also share some of it back. Both the act of downloading and torrenting content violates the Copyright Act of 1976.

While it is evident that downloading/ torrenting is an issue looking at Voltage Pictures Case, the new issue in piracy is streaming. Streaming is simply the method of relaying the data over a computer network as a steady continuous stream, allowing playback to proceed while subsequent data is being receive

It is significantly more difficult to file lawsuits against perpetrators who are streaming; they are not hosting or sharing the file. Likewise, obtaining IP addresses and personal info of people who stream videos is complicated. Torrents are much easier to track due to file sharing during downloading. This in itself, make torrents easier cases to prosecute. For the time being, companies mainly target the low hanging fruit- people who download from torrents.

Most notably, the latest streaming issue is with Aereo. Currently, Aereo batting television providers  in the Supreme Court. They created an antenna that could receive “free” television, and then charged others to view it using the cable from their antenna.

So is streaming content safe and legal?  

Streaming is a slippery slope for prosecutors, as there are no definitive answers to this question. The answer depends on many variables including the site and file type. Due to the lack of any conclusive rulings, the legality of streaming is in a state of limbo. In an attempt to clear the air, the Copyright Office contends there is no violation when a reproduction manifests itself in a fleeting manner that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated. Though the law is convoluted, it is useful to note that owners, such as the Motion Picture Association of America, rarely go after individuals who watch streaming movies. Illegal or not, it’s costly and difficult to track these users down.

Even if the ruling comes down as piracy, I would compare this activity to jaywalking. Yes, it is considered illegal. Yes, you should not do it. But the fact of the matter is everyone does it.

[Mother Jones] [Aereo]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Streaming become Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.