Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

General Law and Lawsuits

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#601

Post by RTH10260 »

Fortnite video game maker to pay $520m over privacy and billing claims
Epic Games agrees with FTC to pay $275m fine for collecting data on children and refund customers $245m for deceptive practices

Associated Press
Mon 19 Dec 2022 15.29 GMT

The video game company Epic Games will pay a total of $520m in penalties and refunds to settle complaints involving children’s privacy and methods that tricked players into making purchases, US federal regulators said on Monday.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said that it had secured the record-breaking settlements for two cases from Epic Games, which makes the popular game Fortnite.

“Epic used privacy-invasive default settings and deceptive interfaces that tricked Fortnite users, including teenagers and children,” the FTC chair, Lina Khan, said in a statement.

Epic Games agreed to pay a $275m fine for collecting personal information on Fortnite players under the age of 13 without informing their parents or getting their consent.

It is the biggest penalty ever issued for breaking an FTC rule.

The company is also refunding $245m to customers who fell victim to so-called “dark patterns” and billing practices.

Dark patterns are deceptive online techniques used to nudge users into doing things they did not intend to do.

In this case, “Fortnite’s counterintuitive, inconsistent, and confusing button configuration led players to incur unwanted charges based on the press of a single button,” the FTC said.

Players could, for example, be charged while trying to wake the game from sleep mode, while the game was in a loading screen, or by pressing a nearby button when simply trying to preview an item, it said.

“These tactics led to hundreds of millions of dollars in unauthorized charges for consumers,” the FTC said.

Epic Games said it was making the payment to resolve concerns over “past designs of the Fortnite item shop and refund systems”. The FTC will use distribute the money “to Epic customers at their discretion”, the company said.

“Statutes written decades ago don’t specify how gaming ecosystems should operate,” the company said. “The laws have not changed, but their application has evolved and longstanding industry practices are no longer enough.”



https://www.theguardian.com/games/2022/ ... cy-billing
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6555
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

General Law and Lawsuits

#602

Post by Slim Cognito »

Surprising even to me, I've never played Fortnite. I can live with that.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

General Law and Lawsuits

#603

Post by Kriselda Gray »

A Judge Said Movie Studios Can Be Sued For False Advertising In Trailers After A Pair Of Ana De Armas Fans Filed A Federal Lawsuit

http://shorturl.at/vBDHS
Conor Woulfe, who is from Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza of San Diego County, California, each paid $3.99 to rent Yesterday on Amazon Prime because de Armas appeared in the film’s trailer. They were disappointed to find she wasn’t in the film and have since January been pursuing a $5 million lawsuit as representatives of a class of movie customers who were deceived by the trailer.

On Tuesday, they cleared a hurdle when US District Judge Stephen Wilson issued an order rejecting Universal’s attempt to dismiss the entire case.

Universal had argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out because movie trailers should be protected under the First Amendment. They called the trailer an “artistic, expressive work” that conveys the theme of the film — not simply a commercial that would be covered by rules against false advertising.

“What is obvious about trailers generally and the Yesterday trailer in particular: they are expressive works in their own right and may not be relegated to a class of ‘purely commercial’ speech that receives watered-down First Amendment protection,” lawyers for Universal argued in a motion.

Lawyers for Woulfe and Rosza, meanwhile, said the two have never seen an actor present in a trailer who wasn’t also in the film. The judge allowed their allegations that Universal had violated California’s false advertising and unfair competition.
If this ruling survives any appeal it could make things interesting for movie studios, who have taken in recent years to including footage in trailers that had been eliminated from the completed film (like in this case) or even go so far as to film scenes specifically and solely for the trailer with no intent of ever including them in the movie. (NOT to mention the time-honored practice of editing movie review quotes to sound like rave reviews even if the reviewer actually had nothing good to say about it.)

I know I've always felt a bit cheated by that (though I never thought to sue about it) because, no matter what the studio says in the article above, I've always seen trailers as purely advertisements for the movie and not a work of art unto themselves. The whole purpose of trailers - the only reason they are made - is to get people to buy tickets. Except for spoof trailers, they don't exist apart from the film they're promoting.

I'll be somewhat surprised if the case actually gets anywhere, but I think the plaintiffs have a point nonetheless.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

General Law and Lawsuits

#604

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-ch ... ffordable/
Lawsuit Challenges Seattle’s Mandatory Housing Affordability Law—A Law That Makes Building Housing Unaffordable

At the center of the case is Anita Adams. She’s a lifelong Seattleite who grew up and raised a family in the city’s Central District. With Seattle’s housing costs remaining stubbornly high, Anita’s two children cannot afford to live near her. That didn’t sit right with her, so she started to dream about building an addition to her property with room for her two kids and father-in-law. But when she started to research the process, she determined that although the city’s zoning-code made her plans permissible, the MHA effectively made it too expensive to build her addition: the law could force her to pay more than $75,000 in fees just to get a building permit. That made Anita’s dream unattainable.

The MHA program, which went into effect citywide in April 2019, charges property owners exorbitant fees whenever the owner builds a “new structure” or makes additions or alterations to existing structures that increase the number of “dwelling units.” To avoid paying the fees, the only other option is to lease constructed units at below-market rates for a minimum of 75 years. The law makes no distinctions between longtime homeowners looking to make an addition, like Anita, and major developers building high rise luxury apartments.

To make matters worse, the MHA fees for Anita’s neighborhood—$35 per square foot—are substantially higher than other, more wealthy neighborhoods like Madrona or Queen Anne. The law ultimately makes it prohibitively expensive for small property owners to build housing and reduces the amount of affordable housing.

The city was warned of the economic impact MHA would have on small-scale developers. The city-commissioned report on MHA’s “economic feasibility” acknowledged that MHA’s fees were economically feasible for high-end housing development, but would make developments of affordable housing economically challenging—warning that many projects would “need to attain above-market rents in these areas to be feasible.”
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

General Law and Lawsuits

#605

Post by raison de arizona »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:34 am A Judge Said Movie Studios Can Be Sued For False Advertising In Trailers After A Pair Of Ana De Armas Fans Filed A Federal Lawsuit

http://shorturl.at/vBDHS
:snippity:
If this ruling survives any appeal it could make things interesting for movie studios, who have taken in recent years to including footage in trailers that had been eliminated from the completed film (like in this case) or even go so far as to film scenes specifically and solely for the trailer with no intent of ever including them in the movie. (NOT to mention the time-honored practice of editing movie review quotes to sound like rave reviews even if the reviewer actually had nothing good to say about it.)

I know I've always felt a bit cheated by that (though I never thought to sue about it) because, no matter what the studio says in the article above, I've always seen trailers as purely advertisements for the movie and not a work of art unto themselves. The whole purpose of trailers - the only reason they are made - is to get people to buy tickets. Except for spoof trailers, they don't exist apart from the film they're promoting.

I'll be somewhat surprised if the case actually gets anywhere, but I think the plaintiffs have a point nonetheless.
Wow, interesting. I don’t buy the “trailer as a work of art” business. It is false advertising and should be covered by applicable statutes. I don’t think it is worth $5M though.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

General Law and Lawsuits

#606

Post by raison de arizona »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Sat Dec 24, 2022 10:20 am https://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-ch ... ffordable/
Lawsuit Challenges Seattle’s Mandatory Housing Affordability Law—A Law That Makes Building Housing Unaffordable
I get what they are trying to do with those laws, but they need to be reworked. She should be able to accomplish her goals without spending that much in a simple permit.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

General Law and Lawsuits

#607

Post by Kriselda Gray »

raison de arizona wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 6:10 pm Wow, interesting. I don’t buy the “trailer as a work of art” business. It is false advertising and should be covered by applicable statutes. I don’t think it is worth $5M though.
Yeah, this kind of my feeling on it, too.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

General Law and Lawsuits

#608

Post by noblepa »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:39 pm
raison de arizona wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 6:10 pm Wow, interesting. I don’t buy the “trailer as a work of art” business. It is false advertising and should be covered by applicable statutes. I don’t think it is worth $5M though.
Yeah, this kind of my feeling on it, too.
Ten years ago (not sure when) someone tried to sue one of the big movie theater chains. Their claim was that the theaters were lying about when the movie started. They advertised that the show started at, say, 7:30, but there were 20-30 minutes of trailers for other movies and other advertizing, before the feature film started. The judge tossed it.
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

General Law and Lawsuits

#609

Post by Ben-Prime »

noblepa wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 8:15 pm
Kriselda Gray wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:39 pm
raison de arizona wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 6:10 pm Wow, interesting. I don’t buy the “trailer as a work of art” business. It is false advertising and should be covered by applicable statutes. I don’t think it is worth $5M though.
Yeah, this kind of my feeling on it, too.
Ten years ago (not sure when) someone tried to sue one of the big movie theater chains. Their claim was that the theaters were lying about when the movie started. They advertised that the show started at, say, 7:30, but there were 20-30 minutes of trailers for other movies and other advertizing, before the feature film started. The judge tossed it.
This amuses me because we have always considered this a feature and not a bug. It's the padding time one needs.

In Bangladesh, for example, I went with a couple of Embassy colleagues on a social outing to see Rise of Skywalker. The movie started at exactly the scheduled time and we missed the first five minutes because we were still wrangling to our seats with drinks and snacks. And instead of showing the trailers up front, they stop the movie halfway through even if the movie doesn't have a formal intermission, and show trailers then as a mid-movie break. Not fun to suddenly have the lights come half-way up and trailers start running as they cut away from a lightsaber battle in progress. We three were the only Americans in the theater and we were, frankly, stunned.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#610

Post by RTH10260 »

‘A Nightmare That Has Stayed with Me’: ICE Detained and Nearly Deported California Man Even Though He Is a U.S. Citizen

By Nyamekye Daniel |
Published on December 21, 2022

A U.S. Citizen was detained and almost deported because immigration officers refused to believe he belonged in the country, according to a lawsuit obtained by Atlanta Black Star.

Brian Bukle, 62, born in the British Virgin Islands, was automatically naturalized through his parents in the 1960s when he was nine, but in June 2020, while he thought he would be going home from prison to reunite with his son in time for Father’s Day, he was told that Immigration and Customs Enforcement “wanted” him out of the country.

“I came this close to being deported and losing everything, a nightmare that has stayed with me to this day,” Bukle said.

Civil advocates believe Bukle was subjected to the treatment because of his race. The U.S. government settled a wrongful arrest lawsuit with Bukle on Dec. 5 for $150,000. Data shows ICE disproportionately selects Black immigrants for deportation.

According to the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Black immigrants are more likely to be targeted for deportation and come in contact with ICE than immigrants of other races. While 7 percent of noncitizens in the U.S. are Black, they account for 20 percent of those facing deportation triggered by the criminal justice system, the organization that advocates against anti-Black racism in the immigration process said.




https://atlantablackstar.com/2022/12/21 ... s-citizen/
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

General Law and Lawsuits

#611

Post by Maybenaut »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:39 pm
raison de arizona wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 6:10 pm Wow, interesting. I don’t buy the “trailer as a work of art” business. It is false advertising and should be covered by applicable statutes. I don’t think it is worth $5M though.
Yeah, this kind of my feeling on it, too.
It’s a class-action lawsuit where the real winners are the class-action attorneys ostensibly vindicating the rights of the little guy (whose damages are negligible) over the big meanies who made all the money. The two named plaintiffs are’t getting all that money even if they succeed. Given its class-action status, 5 million doesn’t seem all that high to me.

What’s not clear (although it might be more clear if I took the time to read the complaint) is who makes up the class.

Is it only the people who rented the movie on Amazon Prime for $3.99 as these folks did (and who can be positively identified because Amazon keeps records)?

Or is it everyone who saw the movie in theatres and paid upwards of $20 (this is the class I’d be in - none of these others apply to me because I’ve never seen the trailer and have no idea who whatsername is).

Or is it everyone who saw the movie, or everyone who saw the trailer and *then* saw the movie?

Or is it everyone who saw the trailer and then saw the movie with the specific expectation that whatsername would be in it?

Or is it everyone who saw the trailer, then saw the movie with the specific expectation that whatsername would be in it, *and* can show that they wouldn’t have wasted the $3.99 or $20 or whatever had they not been misled by the trailer.

Questions, I haz them.

Yesterday was a really cute movie, btw.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

General Law and Lawsuits

#612

Post by humblescribe »

My legal skills are nonexistent.

This would be my proposal:

(1) Fine the movie company an amount of money. This will go to the lawyers and a pittance to the individual named plaintiffs who brought the initial complaint.
(2) Instruct the movie company never to mislead potential customers with trailers that have scenes that were excised from the final film or have actors who do not appear in the final release.
(3) Require that for the next two releases of their moving pictures that the retail price for general release audiences be discounted at the box office by 25% or more. (The theater and the studio will have to negotiate the payment between them.)

I agree with Maybenaut that it would be nigh on impossible to determine who is an eligible member of the class and how much to compensate them for this false advertising.

But I would hazard a guess that over the decades there have been class action suits against companies that did something wrong and profited by it. Yet identifying the consumers would be impossible. A dim bulb in my memory seems to recall some sort of action against a product manufacturer who short-filled their retail packaging for several months before it was discovered and some sort of suit or other legal thingy was brought. Who keeps grocery receipts?

**A friend of mine worked for years for a company that actually produced movie trailers. He said that they would receive a bunch of film from the studio, and their people would splice together these trailers in varying lengths. They worked with the studio with any overdubbed script and then hired narrators (like Don La Fontaine) to show up, speak his lines and leave. I don't know if the studio had the final say-so on the trailer or if that decision was left up to the company that made it.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

General Law and Lawsuits

#613

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA15Idc8
Court of Appeals rules overseas workers not protected by whistleblower law

AU.S. appeals court on Tuesday ruled that U.S. employees who work overseas for companies based in the U.S. are not protected by a federal law prohibiting retaliation against workers who report securities violations.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected a bid by former top Asia-based lawyer for Morgan Stanley, Christopher Garvey.

Garvey aimed to revive claims that he was forced to resign in 2016 after working with the company since 2006 when he reported alleged illegal activities that predominantly occurred outside the U.S.

He argued that the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), which protects workers who report concerns about violations of securities laws, applies to securities fraud that occurs overseas but affects U.S. markets.

However, the court of appeals argued that SOX’s whistleblower protections do not bar securities fraud, arguing that it instead “protects employees from retaliation by making it unlawful for a company to ‘discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of [the employee’s protected activity.]'”

Two other circuit courts in Boston and New York reached the same agreement.

Morgan Stanley denied retaliating against Garvey, who filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Labor.

The former executive director of a legal and compliance division for Morgan Stanley subsidiaries, based in Japan and Hong Kong, claims that he was forced out of his job after he reported alleged corporate corruption and other illegal activities to his superiors.

However, an administrative law judge ruled that SOX did not apply to overseas workers, which led Garvey to appeal with the D.C. Circuit.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

General Law and Lawsuits

#614

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.reuters.com/legal/hershey-s ... 022-12-29/
Hershey sued over chocolate containing heavy metals

In a proposed class action filed on Wednesday, Christopher Lazazzaro said he would not have bought or would have paid less for Hershey's Special Dark Mildly Sweet Chocolate, Lily's Extra Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa and Lily's Extreme Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa had Hershey disclosed their metals content.

Hershey did not immediately respond on Thursday to requests for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed in the federal court in Central Islip, New York.

Some studies suggest that the antioxidants and relatively low levels of sugar in dark chocolate could help prevent cardiovascular disease.

Lazazzaro, a resident of Nassau County, New York, sued two weeks after Consumer Reports unveiled the results of scientific testing of 28 dark chocolate bars for lead and cadmium.

The magazine said that while all 28 contained the heavy metals, 23 including chocolate from Dove, Godiva, Lindt and Trader Joe's contained potentially harmful levels of lead, cadmium or both for people who eat one ounce of chocolate a day.

Hershey's Special Dark bar and Lily's 70% bar were high in lead, and Lily's 85% bar was high in lead and cadmium, the magazine said.

Lazazzaro said reasonable consumers would be turned off by such levels because they pose a "serious health risk," and that consumers rely on Hershey to be truthful about ingredients in its products.

The case is Lazazzaro v Hershey Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 22-07923.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

General Law and Lawsuits

#615

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fast- ... r-AA15Nizz
Fast-food industry coalition sues to block California labor law AB 257

A group of businesses and restaurant trade groups sued Thursday to stop California from implementing a new labor law boosting protections for fast-food workers.

The landmark California law would, among other things, create a worker representative body with the power to raise wages.

The group, known as the Save Local Restaurants coalition, is attempting to qualify a referendum that would put the law on hold and ask California voters whether to uphold or repeal it on the November 2024 ballot. Save Local Restaurants submitted slightly more than 1 million unverified signatures this month, well more than the required minimum, making it likely the referendum will eventually be certified for the ballot.

With the process of verifying submitted signatures still underway, California's Department of Industrial Relations said in a letter to the coalition that the law would go into effect Jan. 1, 2023.

The coalition said putting the law into effect would set a "dangerous precedent" that threatens voters' right of referendum. The group filed the lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court to "ensure the democratic process established by the California Constitution is respected."

When the secretary of state issued a notice Dec. 9 acknowledging a sufficient raw count of signatures submitted, AB 257 became "ineffective and unenforceable in its entirety," the coalition said.

The lawsuit represents yet another tussle over AB 257, also known as the Fast Recovery Act, amid allegations by labor advocates who sponsored the law that signatures were obtained fraudulently and criticism that industries with deep pockets have increasingly turned to the ballot to delay progressive laws enacted by the state Legislature.

More than 50 referendum measures have qualified for the California ballot in the century since the creation of the referendum process, but "not in a single one of those prior instances did the State ever attempt to temporarily enforce the referred statute while the signature review process was underway," said Kurt Oneto, an attorney with law firm Nielsen Merksamer who is representing the referendum proponents.

In the Tuesday letter to the coalition, Industrial Relations Department Director Katrina Hagen said she and her staff were working to establish the Fast Food Council created by AB 257 and had "an obligation to proceed" with implementing the law "in the absence of clear authority providing that AB 257 is suspended merely upon submission of unverified signatures."

Hagen wrote that the law would be put on hold "if and when" the referendum challenging it qualifies for the ballot.

The lawsuit argues in response that referendum proponents have the power to suspend an "objectionable law from otherwise taking effect" by completing their end of the process — collecting and filing the minimum number of signatures with county election officials — before the 90-day deadline.

"Any additional, purely administrative time taken by elections officials to complete the signature verification process or 'certify' the measure for the ballot, cannot undermine or interfere with this constitutional right of referendum," the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction requiring California officials to suspend the Jan. 1 implementation of the law until the signature verification process is completed and, if there are enough valid signatures to qualify the referendum for the ballot, until voters weigh in.

AB 257, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Labor Day, creates a mandate for a first-of-its-kind council to set standards for fast-food wages, hours and other workplace conditions.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

General Law and Lawsuits

#616

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

That was quick.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ju ... r-AA15Pn99
Judge puts hold on California law that could have raised fast-food worker wages

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge has put a temporary hold on a new California law boosting protections for fast-food workers that was set to go into effect Jan. 1.

The order comes in response to a lawsuit filed Thursday by a coalition of major restaurant and business trade groups that is backing an effort to overturn the law, called AB 257, through a referendum on the California ballot in November 2024. If the referendum qualifies for the ballot, it would block AB 257 until voters have a say.

The temporary restraining order was issued by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang "in light of the incredibly short time frame provided to the Court to hear this matter," she wrote. The lawsuit was filed Thursday and sought an injunction for the next day.

The order prevents the law from being implemented until the court has a chance to hear the case and decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction. A hearing is scheduled for Jan. 13.

The deadline for election authorities to complete a random sample verification of signatures is Jan. 25. The California secretary of state's office will decide whether to certify the referendum after verification is completed.

The law requires the signatures of 10,000 fast-food restaurant employees to move forward with creation of the council once the law goes into effect.

Service Employees International Union California, which sponsored AB 257 and opposes the effort to overturn it, said it has submitted nearly double the number of signatures required by the statute to establish the Fast Food Council.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#617

Post by RTH10260 »

U.S. judge orders Norwegian Cruise Line to pay $110 million for use of Cuba port

Fri, December 30, 2022 at 11:13 PM GMT+1
By Brian Ellsworth

MIAMI (Reuters) - Norwegian Cruise Line must pay $110 million in damages for use of a port that Cuba's government confiscated in 1960, a U.S. judge ruled on Friday, a milestone for Cuban-Americans seeking compensation for Cold-War era asset seizures.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom in Miami follows her March ruling that the use of the Havana Cruise Port Terminal constituted trafficking in confiscated property owned by the plaintiff, Delaware-registered Havana Docks Corp.

"Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Havana Docks Corporation and against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd," reads the decision.

"Plaintiff is awarded $109,848,747.87 in damages," it says, adding that Norwegian should also pay an additional $3 million in legal fees and costs.




https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-ju ... 53380.html
additional pick
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has harshly criticized the Helms-Burton Act, describing it as an extra-territorial violation of international law.

Havana Docks had also sued cruise lines Carnival, Royal Caribbean and MSC under the Helms-Burton Act, which allows U.S. nationals to sue over use of property seized in Cuba after 1959.

The ruling could fuel more lawsuits by Cuban exiles pursuing claims, which according to one estimate are worth $2 billion, over asset seizures under late Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

It may also serve as a reminder to multinational firms of the complications that can come with doing business in Cuba.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#618

Post by RTH10260 »

Fighting for the Digital Future of Books: 2022 in Review

BY CORYNNE MCSHERRY
JANUARY 1, 2023

Informed citizens need comprehensive libraries that meet people where they are. Today, that means online spaces that welcome everyone to use their resources, invite them to create new and truthful works, and respect the interests of both authors and readers.

EFF client Internet Archive has created one of those spaces. Through Controlled Digital Lending (“CDL”), the Internet Archive and other nonprofit libraries make and lend digital scans of print books in their collections, at no cost to their patrons. CDL allows people to check out digital copies of books for two weeks or less, and only permits patrons to check out as many copies as the Archive and its partner libraries physically own. That means that if the Archive and its partner libraries have only one copy of a book, then only one patron can borrow it at a time, just like any other library. Through CDL, the Internet Archive is helping to foster research and learning by helping its patrons access books and by keeping books in circulation when their publishers have lost interest in them.


CDL is fundamentally the same as traditional library lending; it’s just another way of getting a book to the one patron who borrowed it. But four of the biggest publishers in the world want to shut it down. In 2020, they sued the Internet Archive for copyright infringement. In 2022, both sides filed briefs asking the court to decide the question as a matter of law. Supported by authors, libraries, and scholars, the Internet Archive’s briefs explained that CDL is a lawful fair use that serves copyright’s ultimate purpose: enriching our common culture. The publishers, for their part, claim that the Internet Archive's CDL program harms their ebook licensing market. But their theory has a fundamental flaw: even with unlimited access to years of sales data, they cannot point to a dime they have lost or are likely to lose because of the Internet Archive’s digital lending.

The outcome of this case is likely to define the future of books in the U.S. CDL makes it easier for patrons who live far from a brick-and-mortar library, or who have print disabilities, to access books. But that's just the beginning. The Internet Archive’s CDL program also helps fight disinformation by facilitating ongoing easy access to authoritative sources for Wikipedia articles. It helps fight censorship by giving librarians a way to curate and share books banned by local school districts. Like all library lending, it helps the public discover new works that they love enough to purchase their own copies. Digital lending also makes it possible for patrons to access books without having their reading habits tracked by commercial entities, like OverDrive and Amazon, that may not share librarians’ traditional commitment to protecting privacy. Perhaps most importantly, it gives librarians the power to curate their own digital collections, just as they curate their physical collections.



https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/12/f ... 022-review
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#619

Post by RTH10260 »

Seems that this book will be banned
A reporter's memoir of her jail time gets banned in Florida prisons

October 28, 20226:01 AM ET
JACLYN DIAZ

One journalist's memoir of rehabilitation is being banned in Florida state prisons.

When an author's book gets banned or confiscated, one might imagine that the writer might be frustrated, or even angry.

But when Keri Blakinger received word that the Florida state prison system placed her book, Corrections in Ink, on a temporary ban, she tweeted, "Honestly, I AM SO PROUD."

Blakinger, who is a journalist covering prisons for The Marshall Project, was really responding tongue-in-cheek — an ironic response to a truly head-scratching situation.

the cover of 'Corrections in Ink' by Keri Blakinger
St. Martin's Press
"It's kind of hilarious that the prison system — now that I am rehabilitated and doing good things in the world — says that my writing is dangerously inflammatory," she told NPR. "I also think it's absurd that one of the reasons for the ban was that the book presents 'a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.' The book is literally a story about rehabilitation."

Blakinger was notified about the ban by The Prison Book Program, a nonprofit group that had attempted to send a copy of her memoir to an inmate. The book was instead impounded, meaning that until the Florida Department of Corrections' Literature Review Committee approves of the book, it's banned from every state-run carceral facility.

The department told NPR that Corrections in Ink is currently under review by the committee, which will determine if "it contains subject matter that is inadmissible per Florida Administrative Code." Under the policy, the book's publisher is afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision.



https://www.npr.org/2022/10/28/11319374 ... ban-memoir
keribla@mstdn.social Keri Blakinger @keribla@mstdn.social

Happy New Year to everybody except for Florida prison officials who decided this week to permanently ban my book.

I hope you are hungover for like two weeks.



#florida #bannedbooks #correctionsinink #journalism #criminaljustice



Jan 01, 2023, 17:34
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#620

Post by RTH10260 »

NYC millionaire pharma executive convicted of killing autistic son found dead after Supreme Court revokes bail

Danielle Wallace
Mon, January 2, 2023 at 2:01 PM GMT+1

Gigi Jordan, the multimillionaire pharmaceutical executive convicted of killing her 8-year-old autistic son inside an upscale New York City hotel room, was found dead at home on Friday morning, reports say.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had issued an order hours earlier revoking Jordan’s bail.

The 62-year-old was convicted of manslaughter in 2014 in connection to the death of her son, Jude Mirra.

The socialite from Belgium allegedly admitted to using a syringe to plunge a lethal cocktail of painkillers, tranquilizers and sleeping pills mixed with alcohol and orange juice down the boy’s throat inside their $2,300-a-night suite at the luxury Peninsula Hotel in Manhattan in February 2010.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/nyc-milliona ... 07224.html
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#621

Post by RTH10260 »

Oregon governor erases about $1.8M in fines for roughly 7,000 drivers

Jonathon Ramsey
Sun, January 1, 2023 at 11:08 AM GMT+1

Two new measures in Oregon and Nevada turned minor traffic offenses from criminal matters into civil matters at the stroke of the new year. The result is many thousands of drivers will be able to restore suspended driving licenses, have bench warrants cleared, and not worry that an inability to pay civil fines in the future will land them in jail. The process in Oregon entailed two steps. First, Governor Kate Brown signed House Bill 4210 in 2020, the bill prohibiting the state from suspending a resident's driver's license for not paying traffic fines applied for minor infractions. The bill doesn't affect suspensions for misdemeanor or felony infractions like driving under the influence.

Second, Brown ordered that all outstanding court fines up to the time HB 4210 came into effect on October 1, 2020 be cleared from court records. The governor's office said the order covers nearly 7,000 drivers and about $1.8 million in unpaid fines that state circuit courts have on the record. The actual number is higher because it doesn't count fees issued by municipal and justice courts, those amounts shielded from the state Department of Motor Vehicles for some reason. Much of the total sum is considered uncollectable, though, being more than three years old. Most people who can pay do so quickly, so when a debt languishes for years, payment is unlikely.

The order doesn't clear a driver's record of court-issued sanctions besides the fine, like court-ordered restitution. The upshot is that all the roughly 7,000 drivers in the circuit court system with suspended licenses for unpaid fines can soon reapply to get their driving privileges back. The Oregon Capital Chronicle said the courts will begin sending notices of reinstatement to the DMV, and drivers can let the DMV know they believe their license should be restored.




https://www.yahoo.com/autos/oregon-gove ... 00882.html
(original: AutoBlog)
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

General Law and Lawsuits

#622

Post by RTH10260 »

Incoming Iowa attorney general Brenna Bird tells 19 staffers to resign

Jared Strong/Capital Dispatch
Tue, January 3, 2023 at 4:27 PM GMT+1

The incoming, newly elected Iowa attorney general has asked for the resignations of 19 current staffers, including many in leadership positions but also some longtime staff attorneys, according to Lynn Hicks, a spokesperson for the office who was among those asked to resign.

Brenna Bird, a Republican county attorney who defeated longtime Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat, in the November election, requested the resignations on Dec. 22, according to letters obtained by Iowa Capital Dispatch.

“We appreciate your past service to the State of Iowa,” wrote Sam Langholz, whom Bird has selected as her chief deputy when she takes control of the office next week. “But the people of Iowa have elected a new attorney general. To best serve them — and to do the things she told Iowans she would do — the Attorney General-Elect is realigning the office and building a new team that matches her vision for the office.”

Bird pledged during her election campaign to more vigorously defend laws enacted by the Republican-controlled Legislature and to challenge policies enacted by President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Langholz, former senior counsel for Gov. Kim Reynolds, has worked for the attorney general’s office for about two years and has helped defend against challenges to the governor’s policies and administrative actions.

His letter to 19 of his colleagues asked that their resignations be effective at 8:30 a.m. Jan. 3, at the latest.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/incoming-iow ... 08576.html
(original: The Des Moines Register)
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

General Law and Lawsuits

#623

Post by Dave from down under »

And if they choose not to resign? then what?
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

General Law and Lawsuits

#624

Post by Dave from down under »

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-05/ ... /101828154

The mastermind of the US college admissions bribery scheme that ensnared celebrities, prominent businesspeople and other parents who used their wealth and privilege to buy their kids' way into top-tier schools has been sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison.

Key points:
Rick Singer bribed coaches and paid off exam administrators to help students from wealthy families get into prestigious colleges
Singer was used by celebrities including Full House actor Lori Loughlin and Desperate Housewives star Felicity Huffman
The scandal has put a spotlight on the secretive admissions system used by the top US colleges

The punishment for Rick Singer, 62, is the longest sentence handed down in the sprawling scandal that embarrassed some of the nation's most prestigious universities and put a spotlight on the secretive admissions system already seen as rigged in favour of the rich.

For more than a decade, as an admissions consultant for wealthy families, Singer paid off entrance exam administrators to inflate students' test scores and bribed coaches to designate applicants as recruits for sports they sometimes didn't even play to boost their chances of getting into the school.
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

General Law and Lawsuits

#625

Post by humblescribe »

Meanwhile, in more macabre and morbid news:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... parts-sale

A woman (20 years) and her mother (15 years) were sentenced today to federal prison for the unlawful sale of body parts that they fraudulently cannibalized from corpses brought to their funeral home in Montrose, Colorado. The judge sentenced the daughter to the maximum sentence allowed under the statute.

Just disgusting, not only from a business fraud perspective (the families were unaware of their intentions) but also from a ghoulish perspective. :cantlook:
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”