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.

The jury in the Taylor Swift groping lawsuit ruled in favor of the pop star after four hours of deliberation. Swift counter-sued former Colorado radio host David Mueller for grabbing her behind at a meet-and-greet in 2013. Previously he had sued her for $3 million, claiming that her accusations were false. That suit was dismissed by a judge last week, but yesterday, the jury found in favor of Swift in her counter-suit. Mueller will have to pay her $1 in damages, an important symbolic victory for the pop star.

For Swift, this was more than a case of “he said, she said.” She hopes to inspire more victims of sexual assault to come forward. Swift recognized the uniqueness of her ability to launch a countersuit in which she was only seeking $1. After the verdict, she said: “I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this.”

According to Swift, she posed with Mueller at a meet-and-great in 2013, and he reached under her skirt to grab her butt. One of the key points of contention was a photo from the event. In it, Mueller’s hand is clearly below Swift’s back. He claimed that he had just touched her ribs, Swift says that’s when he grabbed her bare butt. Her bodyguard and the photographer testified that they had seen him grope her as well, and her mother testified about the conversation they had in the immediate aftermath in which Swift disclosed what had happened to her.

Mueller was fired from his position as a radio host two days later. In addition to suing Swift, he also sued her mother and her radio promotions director Frank Bell. He claimed that Andrea Swift and Bell told his bosses, leading to his firing. They were both found not liable as well.

Swift has said that she plans on donating to organizations that aid women who have suffered from sexual assault. And she acknowledged that as one of the most recognizable pop stars in the world, she has a unique ability to be a role model for young women, as did her lawyer, Doug Baldridge. He stated during closing arguments: “By returning a verdict on Ms. Swift’s counterclaim for a single symbolic dollar, the value of which is immeasurable to all women in this situation…You will tell every woman…that no means no.”

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 Taylor Swift Vindicated With Groping Lawsuit Win 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.

The parents of an intersex child reached a $440,000 settlement in their four-year lawsuit against the hospital that performed genital surgery on their son prior to his adoption, according to court records released Wednesday. The lawsuit is likely the first of its kind for intersex people.

Pam and Mark Crawford’s son, identified in the lawsuit as “M.C.” because he is a minor, was born intersex with both male and female genitalia. The South Carolina Department of Social Services took M.C. into custody after his biological father abandoned the family and the state determined his biological mother to be an unfit parent. The Greenville Hospital System referred M.C. to surgeons at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) who performed genital surgery on him in 2005 and 2006 to remove his male genitalia and further construct female genitalia.

The Crawfords first saw M.C. on an adoption website on which he was listed as a girl. They later learned that M.C. had been born intersex and had been assigned female through genital surgery. The Crawfords adopted M.C. when he was 20 months old. As he grew up, M.C. rejected “girlier” clothing, opted for a more “boyish” appearance, and eventually expressed that he wanted to be a boy, according to Buzzfeed.

M.C.’s family and community accepted him as he transitioned, but his parents told Buzzfeed that the social workers and the hospital’s decision to perform genital surgery on their intersex child should have never been allowed in the first place. In 2013, the Crawfords sued the South Carolina social services department, MUSC, and the hospital system, claiming the hospital had committed medical malpractice.

The Crawfords claimed that “M.C. has incurred medical bills, pain and suffering, damages, and permanent impairment” as a result of the surgery, according to court records. The hospital system settled for $20,000 last year, according to Buzzfeed. MUSC, which settled for $440,000, will pay $270,000 to a structured settlement company to purchase an annuity policy that will pay $440,000 to M.C. over the next 16 years.

While gender is increasingly being accepted as a spectrum, many people still maintain that sex is a binary system. However, intersex activists hope to demonstrate that sex, too, is more than either “male or female,” and that intersex children can be perfectly healthy without needing sex “normalization” cosmetic surgeries that they have not consented to. Additionally, intersex people’s characteristics are not limited to external sexual organs that fall somewhere in the middle of the sexual spectrum, but may also have internal sexual organs and secondary sexual characteristics that appear later in life.

An intersex kid’s non-consensual surgery malpractice case settled for $440,000. Time for real regulation: https://t.co/D7yl2IkEhK #DoNoHarm pic.twitter.com/j9EfNQ1f1b

— Kyle Knight (@knightktm) August 2, 2017

Intersex surgeries. Catastrophic results. Unproven benefits. Lifetime consequences. Don’t cut before a child can decide. #DoNoHarm

— Hayley Gorenberg (@184Justice) July 25, 2017

3 US surgeons general say childhood genital surgery “can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress.” #DoNoHarm

— Hayley Gorenberg (@184Justice) July 25, 2017

Human Rights Watch, in collaboration with interACT, spoke with intersex people, their parents, surgeons, and other professionals for a report released last week. The report condemned the practice of non-consensual cosmetic genital surgeries on intersex children. In a June report, three former surgeons general said that such surgeries “can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress.”

“Cosmetic genitoplasty should be deferred until children are old enough to voice their own view about whether to undergo the surgery,” the surgeons’ general report said. “Those whose oath or conscience says ‘do no harm’ should heed the simple fact that, to date, research does not support the practice of cosmetic infant genitoplasty.”

As acceptance expands, hopefully the stigmatization of intersex people and efforts to force them into a binary system will fade as well.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents of Intersex Child Win $440,000 Lawsuit Over Surgery 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 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.

The state of Ohio took a stand against its crippling opioid epidemic Wednesday, filing a lawsuit against five leading pharmaceutical companies that make addictive painkillers.

Ohio’s attorney general, Mike DeWine, accused the companies of “fueling” the opioid epidemic by intentionally misleading doctors and ignoring evidence regarding the addictive nature of the pain medications.

“We believe the evidence will also show that these companies got thousands and thousands of Ohioans–our friends, our family members, our co-workers, our kids–addicted to opioid pain medications, which has all too often led to use of the cheaper alternatives of heroin and synthetic opioids,” DeWine said in a statement. “These drug manufacturers led prescribers to believe that opioids were not addictive, that addiction was an easy thing to overcome, or that addiction could actually be treated by taking even more opioids.”

The defendants in the case include Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Solutions, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Johnson & Johnson, and Allergan. They are accused of Medicaid fraud and violating the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, among other charges.

Dewine said that, in 2014 alone, the companies spent $168 million on advertising branded opioids to doctors.

The drugs the companies sold include OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid, Butrans, Hyslingla, Targiniq, Percocet, Percodan, Opana, Zydone, Actiq, Fentora, Duragesic, Nucynta, Kadian, Norco, and other generic opioids, according to the press release.

According to the lawsuit, 793 million people were prescribed opioids in 2012–enough to supply every man, woman, and child in the state with 68 pills each. In 2016 that number had dropped to 2.3 million patients–still roughly 20 percent of the state’s population.

The lawsuit was filed in Ross County as Southern Ohio is likely the hardest hit area in the nation by the opioid epidemic.

In 2014 and 2015, Ohio had the greatest number of deaths in the nation from synthetic opioids, according to the lawsuit–with 1 in every 14 deaths from synthetic opioids in the United States occurring in the state. In 2015, a record 3,050 Ohioans died from unintentional drug overdoses–2,590 of those deaths came from opioids.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, earlier this month, two Democratic candidates for governor, Sen. Joe Schiavoni, (D-Boardman) and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, separately called for action against drug companies.

In 2015, Kentucky settled a similar lawsuit with Purdue Pharma for $24 million. And in April the Cherokee Nation tried something similar, filing its own lawsuit against six distribution and pharmacy companies, claiming that they unjustly profited through over-prescribing and selling opioids.

DeWine is seeking accountability from the pharmaceutical companies and unspecified damages on behalf of the state.

“It is just and it is right that the people who played a significant role in creating this mess should now pay to clean it up,” DeWine 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 Ohio AG Sues Pharmaceutical Companies Over Opioid Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, a Muslim man in Dearborn, Michigan filed a class-action lawsuit for $100 million against Little Caesars Pizza which, he claims, sold him a pork pepperoni-covered pizza falsely labeled “halal.” The lawsuit, filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court by Mohamad Bazzi, alleges breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

“It’s really upsetting,” Bazzi’s attorney, Majed Moughni, told the Detroit Free Press. “My clients want the public to know. Especially during Ramadan,” he added, referring to the month-long Muslim holiday that began on Friday, “it would be a travesty if Muslims…in Dearborn bought pizza from Little Caesars and discovered they were eating pork.”

The lawsuit describes the incident: On March 20, Bazzi says he was halfway through eating a Little Caesars pizza with his wife when they realized it was topped with pork pepperoni, not halal pepperoni. They were sure of the pepperoni’s nature, he said, because he used to work at a pizza shop, and his wife is a former Catholic who used to eat pork and can recognize its flavor.

Islamic dietary laws stipulate how certain foods are prepared and, in some cases, some foods, like pork, are banned outright. Much like the kosher meat of Jewish dietary law, halal meat is often prepared and butchered under the blessing of a religious leader. Dearborn, with its dense and thriving Muslim population, is home to a number of halal establishments. Many non-halal restaurants, like Little Caesars, offer halal options.

Jill Proctor, a spokeswoman for Little Caesars, said in a statement that Bazzi’s claim “is without merit.” She added: “Little Caesars cherishes our customers from all religions and cultures, and the communities we serve are very important to us. While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we take this claim very seriously.”

Moughni, who is representing Bazzi in the case, has a history of slightly bizarre legal claims. In 2011, when Moughni was running in the Republican U.S. House race for Michigan’s 12th District, he sued Facebook because it flagged his Facebook page in the run-up to the primary election. And in 2010, in a prescient lawsuit in the age of President Donald Trump’s “America First” platform, Moughni sued former Democratic congressman Rep. John Dingell for allegedly plagiarizing his “Make it in America” campaign slogan.

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 Man Sues Little Caesars for $100 Million Claiming it Mislabeled a Pizza “Halal” appeared first on Law Street.

Four of the Duggar sisters, who appeared on the former TLC show “19 Kids and Counting” have filed a lawsuit after the police reports that implied their brother Josh Duggar had sexually abused them were disseminated to the media. Jill Dillard, Jessa Seewald, Joy Duggar, and Jinger Duggar (the two older sisters are married and have changed their names) have filed a federal breach-of-privacy lawsuit against the city of Springdale and Washington County, Arkansas, as well as some officials involved in the investigation, and In Touch.

Stories about Josh’s abuse surfaced in 2015, but the abuse claims stem from 2006. The police reports were released as the result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made in 2015 by In Touch. In Touch approached the city officials for the documents after an anonymous tipster came to its writers with claims about Josh Duggar. The sisters argue that when they talked to the investigators in 2006 they were told that the information would be kept confidential, and under Arkansas’ FOIA rules, interviews with minors cannot be disclosed.

Essentially the sisters argue that the FOIA request shouldn’t have been complied with on the officials’ part, or at the very least the documents should have been heavily redacted. The documents provided to In Touch were somewhat redacted–in that the names of the girls and Josh were blacked out, but they still contained the names of their parents. According to the lawsuit it was easy to determine who the victims were based on that information. The sisters are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. They have also released a statement, claiming that the filed the lawsuit to protect abuse victims in the future from breaches to their privacy

“19 Kids and Counting” was cancelled after the allegations about Josh Duggar, and his parents’ horrific choice to cover up the abuse. Duggar allegedly sexually abused five girls when he was a teenager–four were his sisters–by fondling them while they slept. After those revelations, sponsors began pulling out of the show, and it was cancelled by TLC. Additionally Josh Duggar, who was working at the time at the incredibly conservative Family Research Council, resigned from his job.

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 Duggar Sisters Sue Tabloid and Police After Stories About their Brother’s Abuse 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.

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.

Chobani, best known for producing the popular Greek yogurt, has filed a lawsuit against Alex Jones. Jones, the conspiracy theorist who runs the website InfoWars.com, has claimed that Chobani’s choice to hire refugees at its Idaho factory led to a sexual assault case in a local apartment building. Jones, and InfoWars, also claimed that the refugee workers at the factory led to increased crime in the area and an uptick in TB cases. Chobani is now suing Jones and InfoWars; the lawsuit includes two counts of defamation.

The owner of Chobani, Hamdi Ulukaya, has employed about 300 refugees, mostly from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey, at its Idaho and New York factories. In November, news broke that Ulukaya was getting death threats for those hiring decisions, particularly after some right-wing news outlets started reporting the same type of misinformation as InfoWars.

One particular InfoWars segment claimed that Chobani is tied to a case in the city–Twin Falls–where the factory is located. According to reports, three refugee boys sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl in the area. The assault did happen–the boys pled guilty–but there’s no evidence to suggest that the Chobani factory had anything to do with the children. Here’s one clip:

That clip draws a connection between the factory’s presence in the town and the sexual assault case–the title of the segment was “Idaho Yogurt Maker Caught Importing Migrant Rapists.” Another Jones video that implied that Chobani had something to do with the sexual assault case included “MSM Covers For Globalist’s Refugee Import Program After Child Rape Case.” The lawsuit also points out that these claims were repeated on social media platforms, and remain online to this date.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Idaho District Court, accuses InfoWars of knowingly publishing misinformation about the company and about Ulukaya. Chobani is now seeking at least $10,000 in damages.

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 Chobani Sues Alex Jones, Claims He Spread Misinformation appeared first on Law Street.

The Cherokee Nation has filed a lawsuit in the Cherokee Nation District Court against six distribution and pharmacy companies, claiming that they have unjustly profited through over-prescribing and selling opioids.

The companies included in the lawsuit include three pharmaceutical companies: McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, and Amerisource Bergen. It also includes three pharmacies: CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart. The lawsuit claims that it was the companies’ responsibility to monitor opioid prescriptions and orders in Cherokee Nation, identify the red flags present, and report those issues to the federal government. Essentially, the companies should have noticed warning signs like individual patients trying to fill prescriptions from multiple doctors, or driving long distances to fill prescriptions for no apparent reason.

The lawsuit details the horrific effects that prescription opioids have had on the community, noting that American Indians are more likely to die from drug overdoses than other ethnic groups. Annual deaths from opioid overdose have doubled in Cherokee nation between 2003-2014, and now outnumber deaths from car accidents. It also points out that young people have been hit particularly hard. It reads:

A 2014 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found a much higher prevalence of drug and alcohol use in the American Indian 8th and 10th graders compared with national averages. American Indian students’ annual heroin and OxyCotin use was about two to three times higher than the national averages in those years.

The lawsuit also details the issues with women who are addicted to opioids and become pregnant, as well as the harm to the community as a whole when drug addiction and crime rise. The Cherokee Nation is seeking restitution for health care costs for those who have been affected by opioid addiction.

Cherokee Nation isn’t the first area to file a lawsuit against companies for the metoiric rise in opioid issues around the U.S.–earlier this year, Everett, Washington became the first city to sue a painkiller manufacturer. A tiny town in West Virginia, called Kermit, sued McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal health, Miami-Luken, AD Smith Corporation and a former Kermit pharmacy, Sav-Rite Pharmacy. Those are just a couple examples–there have been others, and until the opioid crisis in the U.S. is under control, there are sure to be more.

In the Cherokee Nation lawsuit, the companies named in the suit have either elected not to comment or have pointed out that they have stringent policies in place to deal with opioid abuse, or that addiction is the real issue.

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 Cherokee Nation Sues Opioid Providers and Pharmacies appeared first on Law Street.

Self-driving cars might soon become a common part of our lives–TechCrunch recently reported a study predicting that 25 percent of driving could be done by autonomous vehicles by the year 2030.

But the new technology is far from perfect, and has recently caused a number of incidents. In late March, a Tesla in autopilot mode hit a police motorcycle in Arizona, although the officer was able to jump off of the motorcycle before he was injured. And a self-driving Volvo being used by Uber ended up in another crash in Arizona around the same time. Over the summer, a Tesla driver died in a crash while the car was on autopilot (the driver was watching a Harry Potter movie at the time).  In September, one of Google’s self-driving vehicles ran a red light and collided with the passenger’s side of another vehicle.

So, when there isn’t a human steering the wheel, who takes the fall in court for accidents like these? Many lawyers and legal experts who have weighed in on the issue believe that the automobile manufacturers should be held liable.

However, not every case involving self-driving car crashes is the same. Recently, Michael I. Krauss, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, explored how different types of accidents and malfunctions for different types of vehicles should be handled under tort law in a piece for Forbes Magazine. Tort law involves civil cases in which one party has faced injury or damages and another party has been accused of being responsible for them.

According to Krauss, if an accident occurs because of a “manufacturing defect”–meaning the car does not operate as it was designed to operate–then the company that built it should be at fault. If there was an “informational defect”–meaning the car’s owner was not properly educated about how to operate it, and used it incorrectly as a result–then, Krauss writes, the car company should be liable only if it was negligent and failed to give sufficient instructions or warnings.

However, Krauss notes that “design defects” create a legal gray area. A design defect would occur if the choices the car has been programmed to lead the driver into an accident in response to an unforeseen issue. For example, Krauss says that if a moose jumps in front of the car, it could choose to hit the moose and potentially kill the driver or swerve onto the sidewalk and endanger pedestrians. He argues that decisions about liability in these scenarios should once again be based on whether or not the manufacturers were negligent or whether they made the best possible design choice. Such decisions could be left up to juries or decided beforehand by regulators, based on what a reasonable person might conclude, Krauss writes.

The Society of Auto Engineers has established six levels of driving automation, with level zero indicating that the driver has full control and level five indicating that the car is completely autonomous. Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, told USA Today that a human driver is responsible for any crashes involving a vehicle ranked lower than level three. Smith added that because most accidents are caused by human error, which automatic vehicles aim to eliminate, a growing reliance on self-driving cars could mean fewer accidents and thus fewer legal disputes.

But the technology isn’t perfect, and can still make the same mistakes as humans–like speeding or running through red lights. Questions about who would take the blame for these violations remain unanswered.

Government regulation of self-driving cars could be changing under President Donald Trump’s White House. In September, former President Barack Obama’s administration released a set of standards for self-driving car manufacturers that would require them to conduct extensive safety assessments and provide the results to the federal government. Because legislation that addresses the vehicles varies for each state, the Department of Transportation released a centralized list of guidelines each state could adopt. But Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary in Trump’s Administration, is now reevaluating the old administration’s rules as companies that develop the vehicles like Google and Uber push back against the amount of information they would have to report. Chao has cited safety and jobs–because the technology would eliminate the need for occupations like truck drivers–as her main concerns as she considers the issue.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Gets into an Accident? appeared first on Law Street.

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen settled a lawsuit from a group of former interns who allege they were never paid when they worked for the twins’ fashion company, The Row. The Olsens will pay out $140,000, and each of the 185 interns that filed the class-action suit will receive $530.

The group of interns first sued the Olsens in 2015, with some of them claiming they worked 50-hour weeks and carried out the same work as company employees for no compensation or college credit. One design intern said she was hospitalized for dehydration as a result of working too hard. The suit argued that they should have received minimum wage and overtime.

The Olsens–whose empire is worth about $300 million, according to Page Six–aren’t the only celebrities who have faced backlash from interns for owing them money. In July, instead of going to court, an intern who designed singer Aaron Carter’s website crashed the page when Carter failed to pay him $50,000.

In 2013, PBS’s Charlie Rose settled a lawsuit with a former intern who worked on his show, agreeing to pay about $110,000. In 2014, Lionsgate faced a lawsuit from a past unpaid intern at the “Wendy Williams Show.” First daughter Ivanka Trump does not pay interns at her company either, according to a blog post on Trump’s website written by an intern.

In 2014, Condé Nast–the media company behind magazines like The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and Vogue–scrapped its internship program after getting hit with a lawsuit from two interns who said their pay amounted to less than $1 an hour.

In the debate over unpaid internships, critics have said that low-income students can be forced to miss out on the experience if they need paying jobs to handle all of their expenses. On the other hand, covering the cost of paid interns could mean that companies will have to limit the number of internship opportunities they offer.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen Settle Lawsuit from Unpaid Interns 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.

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.

Last week the “Today” show warned viewers of a possibly dangerous brand of exploding firearm targets that are sold over the counter, calling them a potential tool for terrorists. But, it turns out that likening these targets to bombs has seriously angered the product’s manufacturer, causing it to take action. Tannerite Sports filed a libel and slander suit against NBC Universal News Group, alleging that the Today Show’s “Bombs for Sale” print and video segments reported by NBC News national investigative correspondent Jeff Rossen were defamatory.

The video segment ran last Monday in conjunction with an online news story titled Bombs for Sale: Targets Containing Dangerous Explosive Being Sold Legally. The segment was part of “Rossen Reports,” an investigative unit that provides segments for the Today Show, NBC Nightly News, and Dateline NBC. The segment alleged that a brand of exploding shooting targets called Tannerite were, essentially, bombs for sale.

Tannerite is a brand of binary explosive targets that are intended to detonate when shot by a high-velocity firearm bullet. The product has become a hit with gun enthusiasts, because it explodes when you hit the target, letting you know if you’ve made the shot. The product is able to be sold without the usual restrictions that apply to explosives based on a technicality; they separate the two ingredients in its explosive that are sold together–ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder. Individuals must combine the substances in the container themselves for the product to be active. Rossen stated that ammonium nitrate is the same substance that was used in the Oklahoma City Bombing, as well as IEDs used on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The report reiterated the potential dangers of the product, citing a 2013 FBI intelligence bulletin, which issued a warning that exploding targets have “potential use as explosives in IEDs by criminals and extremists.”

When NBC contacted Tannerite Sports LLC, for comment makers of Tannerite said:

No additional regulations are needed beyond current laws because the product is safe when used correctly. The only injuries that have ever happened were results from the shooter misusing the product. Only girly-men want to regulate Tannerite Rifle Targets.

That highly offensive “girly-men” comment may have been directed towards the concerned folks over in Maryland, since the state is currently the only one to ban the purchase of the exploding targets without an explosives license.

What the issue really boils down to is whether or not Rossen’s reporting was defamatory or accurate?

From what I can tell from the lawsuit, Tannerite is taking offense mostly to its product being referred to as a bomb, which the company says it is not. A bomb can be defined as “an explosive device fused to detonate under specified conditions.” Tannerite is a container that is designed to explode on impact with a high-velocity firearm bullet. It can be destructive–in one woman’s case caused her to nearly lose a hand. Keeping that in mind, Rossen’s reporting doesn’t seem inappropriate.

Rossen’s report may have resulted in the company’s reputation being altered, as well as caused Tannerite some economic loss, but that’s what happens when consumers react to information. It’s tough to see his reporting as being either malicious or reckless, but we’ll have to wait and see what’s decided if this case even goes to court. Ultimately this lawsuit’s semantical debate over the word “bomb” may end up doing little to help Tannerite’s PR predicament.

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 NBC Sued Over “Bombs for Sale” Story appeared first on Law Street.