Just about a month after being accused of using pirated books to train its AI, Apple is facing another similar proposed class action lawsuit. As first reported by Bloomberg Law, two neuroscience professors from SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, NY, claimed that Apple used their “registered works without authorization.” The neuroscientists, Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik, said Apple trained its AI models using “shadow libraries” and “web-crawling software” that provide access to pirated, copyrighted books, including two of their own.
In the previous class action lawsuit, a separate pair of authors also alleged that Apple committed copyright infringement when using published works to train Apple Intelligence models without consent. Apple isn’t the only tech giant facing copyright lawsuits related to its AI, as OpenAI is in a similar situation after being sued by The New York Times for similar accusations. While these AI models are relatively new, there’s already a case that may have set some precedent. Earlier this year, Anthropic settled a class action lawsuit by agreeing to pay $1.5 billion to 500,000 authors involved in the case, which revolved around copyright claims.
Alphabet President Donald Trump $22 million as part of a settlement in a class action lawsuit brought against the company over the suspension of various YouTube accounts following the January 6 riot at the US capital, as first reported by the. The suit includes other plaintiffs whose YouTube channels were banned that will split an additional $2.5 million in settlement payouts.
Trump in 2021, alongside lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook over similar suspensions, claiming they infringed on his first amendment rights. Twitter, now known as X since its acquisition and rebrand by Elon Musk, paid President Trump roughly $10 million to settle that suit. Meta also with the president over his suspension from the platform for $25 million earlier this year.
This settlement comes shortly after Alphabet to the House Judiciary Committee lambasting government pressure to moderate content on its platforms. The company also shared that YouTube would be offering a path to reinstatement for accounts previously banned for COVID-19 or election integrity related misinformation.
The settlement from Alphabet will be paid to the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit partner of the National Park Service, and will be earmarked for construction of the that President Trump is building at The White House. The monies from the Meta settlement were similarly earmarked.
This summer Paramount, parent company of CBS, brought by the president over claims that the network intended to “confuse, deceive and mislead the public” by editing an interview with Kamala Harris. The media company paid $16 million to settle the president’s suit. Three weeks later the the $8 billion acquisition of Paramount by Skydance.
Even though Google’s AI Overviews were introduced with a comically rocky start, it’s about to face a far more serious challenge. Penske Media, the publisher for Rolling Stone, Variety, Billboard and others, filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming the tech giant illegally powers its AI Overviews feature with content from its sites. Penske claimed in the lawsuit that the AI feature is also “siphoning and discouraging user traffic to PMC’s and other publishers’ websites,” adding that “the revenue generated by those visits will decline.”
The lawsuit, filed in Washington, DC’s federal district court, claims that about 20 percent of Google searches that link to one of Penske’s sites now have AI Overviews. The media company argued that this percentage will continue to increase and that its affiliate revenue through 2024 dropped by more than a third from its peak. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said that the tech giant will “defend against these meritless claims” and that “AI Overviews send traffic to a greater diversity of sites.”
Earlier this year, Google faced a similar lawsuit from Chegg, an educational tech company that’s known for textbook rentals. Like Penske Media, this lawsuit alleged that Google’s AI Overviews hurt website traffic and revenue for Chegg. However, the Penske lawsuit is the first time that Google has faced legal action from a major US publisher about its AI search capabilities.
Beyond Google’s legal troubles, other AI companies have also been facing their own court cases. In 2023, the New York Times sued OpenAI, claiming the AI company used published news articles to train its chatbots without offering compensation. More recently, Anthropic agreed to pay a $1.5 billion settlement in a class action lawsuit targeting its Claude chatbot’s use of copyrighted works.
Anthropic will pay a record-breaking $1.5 billion to settle a class action lawsuit piracy lawsuit brought by authors. The settlement is the largest-ever payout for a copyright case in the United States.
The AI company behind the Claude chatbot reached a settlement in the case last week, but terms of the agreement weren’t disclosed at the time. Now, The New York Times that the 500,000 authors involved in the case will get $3,000 per work.
The settlement is “is the first of its kind in the AI era,” Justin A. Nelson, the lawyer representing the authors, said in a statement. “This landmark settlement far surpasses any other known copyright recovery. It will provide meaningful compensation for each class work and sets a precedent requiring AI companies to pay copyright owners. This settlement sends a powerful message to AI companies and creators alike that taking copyrighted works from these pirate websites is wrong.”
The case has been closely watched as top AI companies are increasingly facing legal scrutiny over their use of copyrighted works. In June, the judge in the case ruled that Anthropic’s use of copyrighted material for training its large language model was , in a significant victory for the company. He did, however, rule that the authors and publishers could pursue piracy claims against the company since the books were downloaded illegally from sites like Library Genesis (also known as “LibGen”).
As part of the settlement, Anthropic has also agreed to delete everything that was downloaded illegally and “said that it did not use any pirated works to build A.I. technologies that were publicly released,” according to The New York Times. The company has not admitted wrongdoing.
“In June, the District Court issued a landmark ruling on AI development and copyright law, finding that Anthropic’s approach to training AI models constitutes fair use,” Anthropic’s Deputy General Counsel Aparna Sridhar said in a statement. “Today’s settlement, if approved, will resolve the plaintiffs’ remaining legacy claims. We remain committed to developing safe AI systems that help people and organizations extend their capabilities, advance scientific discovery, and solve complex problems.”
Anthropic has settled a class-action lawsuit brought by a group of authors for an undisclosed sum. The move means the company will avoid a potentially more costly ruling if the case regarding its use of copyright materials to train artificial intelligence tools had moved forward.
“This historic settlement will benefit all class members,” said Justin Nelson, a lawyer for the authors. “We look forward to announcing details of the settlement in the coming weeks.”
In June, Judge William Alsup handed down a mixed result in the case, ruling that Anthropic’s move to train LLMs on copyrighted materials constituted fair use. However the company’s illegal and unpaid acquisition of those copyrighted materials was deemed available for the authors to pursue as a piracy case. With statutory damages for piracy beginning at $750 per infringed work and a library of pirated works estimated to number about 7 million, Anthropic could have been on the hook for billions of dollars.
Litigation around AI and copyright is still shaking out, with no clear precedents emerging yet. This also isn’t Anthropic’s first foray into negotiating with creatives after using their work; it was sued by members of the music industry in 2023 and reached a partial resolution earlier this year. Plus, the details of Anthropic’s settlement also have yet to be revealed. Depending on the number of authors who make a claim and the amount Anthropic agreed to pay out, either side could wind up feeling like the winner after the dust settles.
Update, August 26, 2025: Added statement from authors’ lawyer.
If you’ve lived in California at some point in the past seven years, you’ve got a shot at a very easy payday — and it’ll probably be enough cash to get a nice meal. Claims for another class-action privacy lawsuit are due Dec. 6.On Oct. 11, a San Francisco judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement that would see Thomson Reuters cough up $27.5 million, mostly to state residents. The deal caps off a legal battle that began in 2020: Two Alameda County activists sued the media giant over its Clear product, accusing the company of compiling millions of people’s personal data and putting it up for sale on the searchable database. “Thomson Reuters sells detailed dossiers on Californians across the state, people who have no idea their personal information is being appropriated, aggregated, and sold over the internet,” a complaint from 2022 said. The company markets its Clear product — not to be confused with the airport security tool — to companies, governments and law enforcement agencies. “Easily locate subjects,” one plan offers; another “displays a list of subjects’ relatives and associates.”In August, Thomson Reuters agreed to the plaintiffs’ settlement, which forced it to create the $27.5 million fund for Californians whose data it put up for sale. The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, also agreed to limit the data it keeps on state residents and to make that data easier to delete. So how do you get your cash? It took this reporter less than a minute to file a claim. The online portal simply requires your name, address and contact information — plus, you must swear you did indeed live in California during the claim period. It offers various payment methods and also has a page allowing Californians to opt out of the settlement’s terms. Californians have until Dec. 6 to file their claims, and a hearing to officially approve the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 13 — payouts won’t arrive before then. Only people whose information was put up for sale on Clear will receive money, per the settlement agreement, but plaintiff lawyer Andre Mura told SFGATE that everyone who meets the California residency requirement will fit that bill.Mura said the size of the payouts will depend on how many people make claims. His team estimates that between 400,000 and 1 million claims will be validated and that payouts will land approximately in the $19-$48 range. He noted that each claimant will receive the same amount.The math works that way because of the attorney’s fees; class counsel, on Friday, asked for $6.88 million plus almost $671,000 in reimbursements. The two lead plaintiffs, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, are set to win $5,000 each, pending the judge’s approval.Thomson Reuters, which also owns and operates the Reuters news outlet, did not respond to SFGATE’s request for comment.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletterDo you have photos or video of an incident? If so, upload them to KCRA.com/upload. Be sure to include your name and additional details so we can give you proper credit online and on TV.
SAN FRANCISCO —
If you’ve lived in California at some point in the past seven years, you’ve got a shot at a very easy payday — and it’ll probably be enough cash to get a nice meal. Claims for another class-action privacy lawsuit are due Dec. 6.
On Oct. 11, a San Francisco judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement that would see Thomson Reuters cough up $27.5 million, mostly to state residents. The deal caps off a legal battle that began in 2020: Two Alameda County activists sued the media giant over its Clear product, accusing the company of compiling millions of people’s personal data and putting it up for sale on the searchable database.
“Thomson Reuters sells detailed dossiers on Californians across the state, people who have no idea their personal information is being appropriated, aggregated, and sold over the internet,” a complaint from 2022 said. The company markets its Clear product — not to be confused with the airport security tool — to companies, governments and law enforcement agencies. “Easily locate subjects,” one plan offers; another “displays a list of subjects’ relatives and associates.”
In August, Thomson Reuters agreed to the plaintiffs’ settlement, which forced it to create the $27.5 million fund for Californians whose data it put up for sale. The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, also agreed to limit the data it keeps on state residents and to make that data easier to delete.
So how do you get your cash? It took this reporter less than a minute to file a claim. The online portal simply requires your name, address and contact information — plus, you must swear you did indeed live in California during the claim period. It offers various payment methods and also has a page allowing Californians to opt out of the settlement’s terms.
Californians have until Dec. 6 to file their claims, and a hearing to officially approve the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 13 — payouts won’t arrive before then. Only people whose information was put up for sale on Clear will receive money, per the settlement agreement, but plaintiff lawyer Andre Mura told SFGATE that everyone who meets the California residency requirement will fit that bill.
Mura said the size of the payouts will depend on how many people make claims. His team estimates that between 400,000 and 1 million claims will be validated and that payouts will land approximately in the $19-$48 range. He noted that each claimant will receive the same amount.
The math works that way because of the attorney’s fees; class counsel, on Friday, asked for $6.88 million plus almost $671,000 in reimbursements. The two lead plaintiffs, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, are set to win $5,000 each, pending the judge’s approval.
Thomson Reuters, which also owns and operates the Reuters news outlet, did not respond to SFGATE’s request for comment.
Do you have photos or video of an incident? If so, upload them to KCRA.com/upload. Be sure to include your name and additional details so we can give you proper credit online and on TV.
Millennials: You’ll remember walking into Abercrombie & Fitch in the late ‘90s and early 2000s. Loud, thumping music, perfume so strong you could barely think straight, and posters of half-naked men were all part of the experience—and a desire to feel “cool.”
David Turner/WWD/Penske Media—Getty Images
Mike Jeffries, Abercrombie’s former CEO, was behind that vision. And on Tuesday, he and his partner Matthew Smith were arrested in Florida in connection with sex trafficking-related charges, according to a federal indictment. The duo, along with an employee of theirs, James Jacobson, allegedly ran an international sex trafficking and prostitution ring from 2008 to 2015 that allegedly involved paying for secret sex with potentially dozens of men, including 15 unnamed victims.
The official indictment has been a long time coming. Last year, BBC released a documentary about Jeffries’ shady practices. The BBC investigation revealed that Jeffries and Smith allegedly used a middleman to find men to attend and participate in the sex events. Jeffries and Smith would allegedly engage in sexual activity with about four men at these events or “direct” them to have sex with one another, several attendees from the events told BBC. Jeffries’ personal staff dressed in Abercrombie uniforms and supervised the activity, according to the allegations, and staff members gave attendees envelopes filled with thousands of dollars in cash at the end of the events.
LAURENT FIEVET/AFP/GettyImages
The middleman “made it clear that unless I let him perform oral sex on me, I would not be meeting with Abercrombie & Fitch or Mike Jeffries,” David Bradberry, who was introduced to Jacobson in 2010 when he was 23 years old, told BBC. An agent posing as a model recruiter introduced Bradberry to Jacobson, who described himself as the gatekeeper to the “owners” of Abercrombie and Fitch, according to the BBC investigation.
The federal indictment included related allegations and more.
Jeffries’ shady past with Abercrombie
According to a 2006 interview with Salon, Jeffries wanted to make the 130-year-old retailer into the hearthrob teen clothing brand of the time, which he successfully did—but not without offending swaths of people. His interview pretty much sums up his marketing approach as only making it about “cool” people.
“Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla,” Jeffries told Salon. “You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”
Brooks Canaday/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images
By 2006, Abercrombie & Fitch’s earnings had risen for 52 straight quarters, with annual profits of more than $2 billion. Plus, the company had opened hundreds of new brick-and-mortar stores and launched three new labels, including Hollister.
In the early 2010s, Abercrombie started going south financially as a result of age discrimination and hiring practice lawsuits, and Jeffries’ 2006 interview with Salon started being circulated again and went viral. In 2013, Jeffries was named as the worst CEO of the year by TheStreet’s Herb Greenberg. To boot, CNBC’s Jim Cramer named him to his “Wall of Shame.”
“Since its early trading in 1996, Abercrombie has barely beaten the S&P 500. It has dramatically trailed the index over the past one-, three- and five-year marks,” Greenberg wrote in 2013. “The past year, in particular, has been an abomination, leading activist firm Engaged Capital to demand his ouster.”
By 2014, same-store sales slumped for 11 straight quarters and two of its subsidiary brands, Ruehl No.925 and Gilly Hicks, shut down just a few years after launch. Teens were just also over Abercrombie’s style at that point, and the shopping mall era was coming to a close. And in 2016, Abercrombie was deemed the most-hated retailer by the American Customer Satisfaction Index for its hypersexualized marketing and controversies.
Abercrombie’s second wind
But as Abercrombie has distanced itself from Jeffries, the brand is making a major comeback after posting its best first-quarter earnings in company history this year. Abercrombie reported $1 billion in net sales, a 22% increase from 2023. Last year, its annual revenues were $5 billion.
YUKI IWAMURA/AFP—Getty Images
This was an epic comeback for the brand. CEO Fran Horowitz took the helm in 2017, revamping stores and inventories as well as expanding sizes and introducing clothing for a variety of lifestyles.
“We moved from a place of fitting in to creating a place of belonging,” Horowitz said in a 2022 speech at the Fordham University Gabelli School of Business’ fifth annual American Innovation Conference.
As the anonymous “Contestant 5” states in the heavily redacted complaint: “I expected to be challenged, but I didn’t think I would be treated like nothing — less than nothing.”
Possibly running into the millions in damages if certified, the September 16 filing in LA Superior Court alleges that MrBeast and the Jeff Bezos created streamer “subjected the Contestants to unreasonable, unsafe, and unlawful employment conditions.” With claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment, false advertising, and failure to pay minimum wage or overtime, those conditions saw “several contestants …hospitalized,” the 54-page jury trial demanding document alleges.
Perhaps most damaging corporately to MrBeast and Amazon is the allegation the supposedly $100 million budgeted Beast Games production played fast and loose with the rules to secure Nevada tax credits. The filing says Beast Games made “Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to enter into illegal contracts and providing false information to the State of Nevada to obtain unearned tax credits.”
In supposedly misclassifying contestants like the five initial plaintiffs as Nevada citizens and otherwise, the far from skint MrBeast and Amazon were able to snag about $2,252,523 in incentives from the Silver State.
Based on MrBeast’s already successful YouTube show, back in the spring Beast Games gave itself bragging rights “to become the biggest reality competition series ever with 1000 contestants competing for a $5 million dollar cash prize.” Drawing in around 1,000 participants, MrBeast serves as Beast Games host and executive producer with the show set to premiere exclusively later this year or in early 2025 on Prime Video domestically and internationally.
Just launching off MrBeast’s 316 million YouTube subscribers alone and Prime Video’s massive reach, the still in production Beast Games has streaming hit written all over it, right?
Sure, but with all the hoopla in which the $5million payout Beast Games competition show was announced back in March, you’d think MrBeast and Amazon would want to put their best face forward on these allegations. Even more so, being that most of what the suit asserts had been made public last month in a big New York Times feature, you’d think MrBeast and Amazon would be ready with some sort of response.
Alas no.
Neither representatives for the influencer born Jimmy Donaldson nor Amazon responded to request from Deadline for comment on the complaint. If and when they do, this post will be updated.
Instead, in echoes of the NYT article on alleged mistreatment on the Las Vegas set of the Beast Games, claims by the five unnamed contestants who filed the action detail “suffering physical and mental complications while being subjected to chronic mistreatment, degradation and, for the female contestants, hostile working conditions.”
According to the complaint, none of this was by accident as “Defendants exercised total control over the manner, means and timing of the work performed by the Contestants, by controlling essentially every aspect of their lives during the production of the show.” That control was in part fueled by the so-called “How to Succeed in MrBeast Productions” manual, which pushed mantras lies “empower the boys” and “let them be idiots.” Still, the filings proclaims that “Defendants’ management, up to and including senior management and ownership” were fully aware of the alleged “violence and sexual harassment” on Beast Games, and did nothing.
“The foregoing acts by Defendants created an environment during Beast Games that was so void of humane standards that Defendants ended up volunteering to cover the cost of the Contestants’ therapy, it was that bad,” the complaint exclaims.
Seems a bit of a distance away from the promises of last month that MrBeast’s rapidly expanding company to “hire a chief human resources officer and require company-wide sensitivity training.”
The allegations in this potential Beast Games class action don’t quite jive either with Donaldson’s hiring of pricey law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to investigate former co-host Ava Tyson, who left MrBeast in July after allegations surfaced of inappropriate sexual messages with minors. Along with that this summer, there was the NYT expose of Beast Games and MrBeast under fire for slurs he made in videos from his early years.
The deadline is approaching to register to receive a piece of Apple’s $35 million settlement with iPhone 7 or 7 Plus users who experienced audio issues with their device’s microphone. Those eligible to make a claim can be awarded $50 to $349 from the tech giant.
The settlement is restricted to United States residents who owned one of those phone models between September 16, 2016 and January 3, 2023, and reported a covered audio issue to Apple or paid the company for repairs.
The deadline to submit a claim is June 3 via the settlement website.
Those who paid for repairs can receive a maximum of $349, while people who reported the issue but didn’t pay for repairs can receive up to $125. The minimum payout for eligible claimants is $50.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2019 by plaintiffs Joseph Casillas and De’Jhontai Banks, who both purchased iPhone 7’s in 2017 and claimed they began experiencing issues the following year.
“Plaintiff Casillas noticed that his phone’s sound was distorted with audible static while attempting to play a video on his phone,” the complaint reads. “Plaintiff Banks noticed that she was unable to hear callers unless she used her iPhone’s speaker function. These are common indications of the Audio IC Defect.”
The suit describes the audio chip issue as a result of inadequate casing on the phones, further claiming that Apple has “long been aware of the Audio IC Defect” and routinely refused to repair affected phones free of charge.
In the settlement agreement, Apple denied the phones had any audio issues and said it did nothing improper or unlawful.
Some Verizon customers may be eligible to claim part of a $100 million class-action settlement, but they’ll have to act soon to cash in.
The settlement resolves a lawsuit with Verizon Wireless subscribers alleging the mobile service provider tacked on an extra “administrative charge” to customers’ monthly bills to “extract additional cash” from them.
Here’s what to know about the settlement.
Why is Verizon paying $100 million to its customers?
Verizon is shelling out the money to settle a lawsuit filed by current and former customers last year. In the complaint, lawyers for Verizon users allege the company “deceived” subscribers by unlawfully tacking on an additional “administrative charge” to their service bills “without [their] consent.”
In addition, Verizon “never adequately or honestly disclosed” the fee to its customers before they subscribed to its services, and “uniformly charged them higher monthly rates than it advertised and promised,” lawyers said in the complaint.
Verizon denies any wrongdoing, according to the settlement website. The company did not immediately respond to CBS MoneyWatch’s request for comment.
Who is eligible to get a payout?
Current and former Verizon customers who had a postpaid wireless or data service plan and were charged an “Administrative Charge and/or an Administrative and Telco Recovery charge” between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov. 8, 2023, are eligible to receive compensation under the settlement, the settlement agreement shows.
Postpaid wireless plans are those in which holders pay for services at the end of a monthly billing cycle.
How much is the payout?
For eligible Verizon customers, the initial payout will be between $15 and $100, depending on the length of time the claimant has been a customer.
How do I claim the money?
Affected Verizon customers must file a compensation request form through the claims website. Eligible customers should receive an email with a notice ID and confirmation code that will allow them to access an online portal where they can file a claim.
To file a print claim, you can download and print a form through the claims website, fill it out and mail it to the address listed on the form.
The filing deadline for claims is April 15, according to the settlement website. Claimants who file after that date will not receive compensation. In addition, they will also forfeit their right to sue Verizon over the allegations resolved by the settlement.
How do I opt out of the settlement? Why do people opt out?
You should opt out if you intend on filing a separate complaint against Verizon over any claims contained in the class-action lawsuit.
To opt out, claimants must mail a signed exclusion request to the settlement administrator by Feb. 20. Claimants should address the letter to the following address:
Elizabeth Napolitano is a freelance reporter at CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and technology news. She also writes for CoinDesk. Before joining CBS, she interned at NBC News’ BizTech Unit and worked on the Associated Press’ web scraping team.
Subscribers to Apple Music and other services may be eligible to claim part of a $25 million settlement over the company’s subscription-share program.
The settlement resolves a lawsuit over Apple’s Family Sharing perk, a free service that allows up to six users to access a handful of pay-per-month apps — including Apple News+, Music, TV+, Arcade and Apple Card — under one shared subscription.
According to the complaint, Walter Peters v. Apple Inc., Apple ran “deceptive” advertisements for Family Sharing alongside “virtually all” of the App Store’s subscription-based apps despite most of them not supporting sharing through the service. As a result, millions of customers were misled into buying subscriptions through third-party apps “that they would not otherwise have purchased,” lawyers alleged in the lawsuit.
Apple has denied any wrongdoing under the settlement and that it misled customers.
U.S. customers who had a Family Sharing plan and bought a subscription to a third-party app between June 21, 2015, and January 30, 2019, can file a claim under the settlement.
How do I claim money under the Apple settlement?
People who used Apple Family Sharing and who are eligible under the settlement can file to receive a payout through the claims website. If you have an identification number and PIN, you can file your claim through the website; if not, you must download, fill in and mail in the payment election form from the case’s website.
The filing deadline is March 1, 2024, according to the the settlement site. Claimants who file after the deadline will not receive compensation.
How much is the payout?
Under the settlement, eligible class members can expect to receive “up to $30,” according to the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the claims site.
How will I get paid?
If you are eligible for a payout, you can choose between two payment methods: an ACH transfer (electronic payment) or a check, according to the settlement site.
You must indicate your payment preference by the filing deadline or risk forfeiting your piece of the settlement.
How do I know if I’m eligible?
Eligible customers will receive an email with information about the settlement, The Verge reported. You are eligible if you purchased a subscription through a third-party app while belonging to the Family Sharing plan with at least one other person between June 21, 2015, and Jan. 30, 2019.
If you haven’t received a notice despite meeting the eligibility requirements, you can still file a claim using the form on the settlement website and mail it in.
There’s an opt-out option for class members. Who should opt out?
You may want to opt out if you plan on filing a separate lawsuit against Apple regarding any claims related to the the class-action suit. To do so, you must mail a letter including your contact information, signature and a statement detailing your decision to opt out of the settlement to the case’s administrator.
Alternatively, you can complete an opt-out request form from the settlement website, print it out and mail it.
The opt-out request must be sent to the following address: Peters v. Apple Class Action Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 301134, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134. Your request must be postmarked no later than March 1, 2024.
Elizabeth Napolitano is a freelance reporter at CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and technology news. She also writes for CoinDesk. Before joining CBS, she interned at NBC News’ BizTech Unit and worked on the Associated Press’ web scraping team.
The California Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from Disney as to whether an Anaheim wage law applies to its lowest-paid theme park workers —setting the stage for the Disneyland resort to boost wages for many of its workers.
Over the summer, the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal ordered up raises and back pay for “cast members,” as Disney calls its employees, in a class-action lawsuit filed on their behalf. The state Supreme Court’s decision to allow the appeal court’s order to stand represents a serious legal blow to the media giant.
“Disney’s at the end of the road in terms of appeals,” said Sarah Grossman-Swenson, an attorney representing Disney workers. “The appellate decision is clear that Disney is required to comply with the law. The only issue left is the amount of damages.”
The dispute between Disneyland workers and the park began in 2018 when voters passed a law prescribing a $15 minimum wage for companies in Anaheim’s resort area who enjoyed “tax rebate” agreements with the city. The measure approved by voters, known as Measure L, had been placed on the ballot thanks to petition drive, led by a coalition of Disney unions.
In the lead up to the election, Disney asked the Anaheim City Council to shred a 45-year gate tax shield and a $267-million bed-tax break for a luxury hotel project that has since been abandoned.
With those agreements canceled, Anaheim’s city attorney opined that the law wouldn’t apply to Disney.
But a class-action lawsuit representing 25,000 theme park workers filed against Disney in Dec. 2019 begged to differ.
An Orange County Superior Court judge originally sided with Disney before a three-judge panel overturned the ruling this summer, citing a provision in a 1996 Disney expansion deal passed by Anaheim in which the city agreed to repay the company if it had to cover bond payments.
Disney filed an appeal with the state’s Supreme Court in August in which it claimed the appellate court redefined what a tax rebate is in a move that would “chill” public-private partnerships such as the ’96 expansion deal that brought Disney’s California Adventure, the Downtown Disney District and Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel into existence, going forward.
It appears the legal fight ends with this week’s decision.
“We are aware of the court’s decision and will be complying with the requirements of Measure L,” said Jessica Good, a Disneyland Resort spokesperson.
Anaheim spokesman Mike Lyster said the city “will continue to monitor how the court’s ruling is implemented.”
How many workers will be affected by the law’s implementation and the sum of back pay owed are unknown at this time.
The pay scale under the law is set to rise to slightly less than $20 an hour next year after being adjusted for inflation.
Grossman-Swenson called the raises and back pay owed a “big deal” for Disney workers.
“We know that thousands of them were not paid a living wage for almost five years in compliance with the law,” she added. “This will mean that they are entitled to their money and that can make a big difference in their lives.”
One of the nation’s largest makers of machines for sleep apnea sufferers has agreed to pay at least $479 million to compensate customers who bought the devices.
Philips Respironics and Koninklijke Philips N.V., its Netherlands-based parent company, will also set aside $15 million for customers seeking to replace their continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, court documents posted Thursday show. The settlement comes more than two years after Philips recalled millions of its CPAP devices due to reports from users saying foam unexpectedly spewed from the devices and into their mouths.
The company admitted no wrongdoing in a recent blog post, adding that it already set aside $615 million earlier this year anticipating a settlement.
“The final cost of the settlement may vary based on, among other things, how many patients participate in the settlement and what the court awards for the professional fees relating to the resolutions,” the company said in its post.
Philips recalled its CPAP machines in 2021 and, since then, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it has received 105,000 complaints, including 385 reported deaths, reportedly linked to the leaking foam. The foam is purposely placed in Philips CPAP machines to help reduce noise.
In a statement to CBS MoneyWatch, Philips said it has fixed roughly 4.6 million of its devices globally since the recall, including 2.5 million in the U.S.
“Patient safety and quality are our top priorities, and we want patients to feel confident when using their Philips Respironics devices,” the company said. “We have structured this settlement to quickly deliver value to eligible patients in the U.S. and provide an additional measure of confidence in the safety and quality of Philips Respironics products.”
Some of the complaints to the FDA included reports linking the devices to cancer, respiratory problems, pneumonia, chest pain, dizziness and infections. FDA officials warned Americans about using Philips CPAP machines earlier this year, saying the products “may cause serious injuries or death.” Inhaling the foam can cause “serious injury which can be life-threatening,” Philips wrote in its recall.
Philips tried to fix some of the machines, but the repaired ones were also recalled, the FDA said. The 2021 recall was for 20 different Philips devices, including its A-Series BiPAP ventilators and the DreamStation CPAP machines.
Dozens of sleep apnea patients have filed lawsuits in recent years against Philips related to the CPAP machines, but those lawsuits were consolidated in October 2022 as one class-action case in Pennsylvania. In many of those lawsuits, Philips customers accused the company of knowing the CPAP machines were defective but selling them anyway.
Lawyers representing the CPAP users said Thursday the settlement covers only the economic losses that customers faced and they will seek damages for people with personal injury claims.
About 30 million people in the U.S. suffer from sleep apnea, a disorder in which someone’s airways become blocked during rest and interrupts breathing, according to 2022 data from the American Medical Association.
Although it’s not possible yet to make a claim, eligible Philips customers seeking compensation from the settlement will eventually be able to do so here. In the meantime, consumers can sign up for emails to get alerts about updates.
Khristopher J. Brooks is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering business, consumer and financial stories that range from economic inequality and housing issues to bankruptcies and the business of sports.
Millions of iPhone owners whose older devices slowed down after software updates may soon receive a payday.
Apple will soon be paying out between $310 million and $500 million to up to roughly 3 million users of many pre-2018 model iPhones, lawyers for Apple customers said in a statement. The payouts will go to affected users who filed claims against the tech giant in 2020 for an issue that became known as “batterygate.”
“[W]e can finally provide immediate cash payments to impacted Apple customers,” said Mark C. Molumphy, a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, one of the firms handling the suit on behalf of Apple customers.
The settlement comes after a judge dismissed Apple’s appeal to challenge a class-action lawsuit filed against the tech giant in 2017, clearing the path for “consumers impacted by software throttling” to receive settlement payments, the claimants’ lawyers said.
“Software throttling” refers to software updates provided by Apple for its earlier iPhone models which had low-capacity batteries that wore out over time. The iOS updates purposefully slowed down the overall performance of users’ iPhones when an aging battery was detected in order to prevent the devices from shutting down completely during “peak current demands.”
Unbeknownst to iPhone users at the time, software updates provided by Apple for its earlier iPhone models purposefully slowed down the devices’ performance to prevent shutdowns caused by aging batteries.
Mairo Cinquetti/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
Apple said its reason for reducing, or throttling, performance, was not to deceive customers into unnecessarily upgrading their iPhone — which only required a new battery — but to prolong the lifespan of the devices, the company told the Verge in 2017. The iPhones would return to their normal speeds once the deteriorated battery was replaced.
The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by Apple, according to the claim website.
Here’s what you need to know about the settlement:
How much will eligible iPhone users get paid?
If you filed a claim, you can expect to receive roughly $65 from Apple, Tyson Redenbarger, a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, told the Mercury News.
Redenbarger and other attorneys at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy didn’t immediately return requests for comment.
However, the exact sum of that payout will ultimately depend on the number of approved claims. Fewer complaint submissions generally means bigger payouts for each individual claimant.
According to a legal document, about 3.3 million iPhone users submitted claims prior to the deadline, which means they could each receive $128, less any court-ordered deduction for attorney’s fees and other costs.
Owners of iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus and SE models running iOS 10.2.1 or later and iPhone 7 and 7 Plus running iOS 11.2 or later before Dec. 21, 2017 may be eligible to receive payments, the settlement website shows.
However, only affected users who filed claims before the Oct. 6, 2020 deadline are potentially eligible to receive a check.
When will people get the settlement money?
It’s unclear when exactly eligible users will receive their settlement checks.
Neither Apple nor lawyers for Apple customers immediately responded to CBS MoneyWatch’s requests for comment.
Why has it taken so long for people to get their money?
In general, most class actions take between two and three years to resolve, though some may take longer, particularly if a court ruling is appealed, according to class-action consumer resource, ClassAction.org.
Court procedures and the appeals process have dragged out the batterygate class-action lawsuit, prolonging the amount of time until claimants get their money.
Over the last six months, CBS News has spoken with multiple veterans who were kicked out of the military and denied honorable discharges because of their sexual orientation. After trying, with little success, to get the Pentagon to address this, the vets have now filed a class action lawsuit. CBS News chief investigative correspondent Jim Axelrod spoke to one of the plaintiffs.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
A Delta passenger is suing the airline over its claim that it is “carbon-neutral,” saying the three-year-old pledge is greenwashing, relying on dubious carbon offsets that have no environmental benefit.
The suit, filed Tuesday in federal court in California, alleges that Delta’s claim to be “the world’s first carbon-neutral airline” is a sham. Greenwashing refers to a marketing spin that makes it appear that a company or product is environmentally friendly, when it may not be.
Rather than undertaking the hard work of reducing its carbon emissions, the complaint alleges, Delta is buying largely fabricated carbon offsets, while continuing to charge a premium price from travelers who believe they’re paying for environmentally friendly travel.
The suit, which is seeking class-action status, is the first to challenge a U.S. airline’s climate claims, according to Jonathan Haderlein, the plaintiff’s attorney.
“The climate crisis is, in a lot of ways, a consumption crisis— it’s the corporate supply chain and decisions that everyone makes, everyone participates in,” he told CBS MoneyWatch. “As public consciousness is raised, consumers are trying to make informed decisions that are trying to mitigate their own impact. Companies are trying to capitalize on that by saying they’re a green choice.”
He added, “If you think you’re flying the world’s most green airline, and you’re not, why wouldn’t that be actionable?”
Flying is a major contributor to carbon pollution, accounting for more than 2% of all greenhouse-gas emissions, according to the International Energy Agency.
Delta, which did not immediately reply to a request for comment from CBS MoneyWatch, told the Associated Press the suit was “without legal merit.”
“Since March 31, 2022, (Delta) has fully transitioned its focus away from carbon offsets toward decarbonization of our operations, focusing our efforts on investing in sustainable aviation fuel,” Delta spokesperson Grant Myatt told the AP.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Glendale, California resident Mayanna Berrin, who works for Nickelodeon and is about to turn 30, according to the AP. (Paramount Global, the owner of CBS News, also owns Nickelodeon.)
Berrin told the outlet that climate change gives her and her generation great anxiety, and that she was frustrated to learn Delta’s climate claims, which made her comfortable paying more for a flight, may be lies.
“They can’t just claim neutrality if that’s not factually accurate,” she told the AP.
The suit claims that “thousands” of travelers potentially paid more for Delta’s flights because of the company’s climate stance.
Pollute now, offset later
Carbon offsets, which rely on paying for a climate-beneficial activity like reforestation to counteract the carbon pollution a company creates, have emerged as a major part of many corporate climate pledges. But a growing body of research has shown that offsets are dubious at best.
For instance, Delta’s forestry and agriculture offsets for 2021 were certified by the carbon-offset vendor Verra, according to the complaint. However, an investigation by The Guardian earlier this year concluded that more than 90% of Verra’s rainforest offsets had no climate benefit.
Most of Delta’s offsets paid for projects that would have happened anyway, without the airline’s investment, the suit contends — meaning they shouldn’t count as truly counterbalancing the airline’s carbon emissions. A Bloomberg investigation last year found that dozens of large companies — including Delta — relied on “junk” credits to make carbon-neutrality claims.
Even when a carbon-offset project is real, there’s no guarantee that its carbon savings are permanent: for instance, that there’s no assurance that a tree planted in 2021 won’t burn down in a forest fire two years later, releasing all its carbon.
Because of these concerns, the suit claims, companies including JetBlue and Lyft have stopped using carbon credits and have moved toward reducing their emissions in other ways.
“The reality is, a lot of companies knew these offsets were questionable and they didn’t buy them, and they didn’t advertise on it,” said Haderlein. “This case isn’t just about climate change, it’s about fairness to consumers and it’s also about fairness generally in the marketplace.”
A handful of lawsuits over the past two years have taken aim at companies’ environmental claims with the Dutch airline KLM, French energy giant TotalEnergies and food company Danone being sued over claims of being “carbon-neutral.”
U.S. regulators are also looking to rein in greenwashing, with the Federal Trade Commission in the midst of updating its “Green Guides” which dictate the types of environmental marketing that companies can engage in.
After months of evasion, basketball star Shaquille O’Neal has been served in a case involving collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX. The legal documents, served Tuesday, were delivered to the former athlete and current “Inside the NBA” analyst during the broadcast of a Miami Heat-Boston Celtics playoff game in Miami, plaintiffs’ attorney Adam Moskowitz said.
The complaint is part of a class-action lawsuit alleging O’Neal and other celebrities defrauded FTX investors by appearing in advertisements for the crypto-trading platform. O’Neal “hid” from process servers for months before being tracked down at the Kaseya Center, formerly called the FTX Arena, Moskowitz told CBS MoneyWatch.
A process server filmed the event to make sure there wouldn’t be “any problem” moving the case forward, Moskowitz said. Shaq ordered the process server to be ejected from the arena after the service, he added.
“They gave video of most of the service —not all, so we would be shocked if they raise any problems,” Moskowitz said. “We also now served a copy on his lawyer Bobby Martinez, so there can be no doubt he is served!”
Shaquille O’Neal looks on during the third quarter in game four of the Eastern Conference Finals between the Boston Celtics and the Miami Heat at Kaseya Center on May 23, 2023 in Miami, Florida.
Megan Briggs / Getty Images
Process servers thought they had successfully served the Hall of Famer in April. However, O’Neal earlier this month filed a request to dismiss the lawsuit, alleging that he had never actually received the legal papers.
“This purported ‘service’ is inadequate,” O’Neal’s attorneys said in a court filing. “It should be quashed, and the claims against Mr. O’Neal dismissed.”
According to federal law, a complaint must be served in person or through mail. If the individual being served does not receive the papers, the case can be delayed or dismissed.
In March, Forbes reported that Moskowitz’s firm had enlisted four different companies to hand O’Neal the complaint after months of failed attempts to serve the former athlete.
During the Tuesday night game, O’Neal was also served a second complaint alleging he and his son promoted an NFT project called ASTRALS before abandoning it, according to Moskowitz.
O’Neal’s lawyer, Roberto Martinez, did not immediately reply to CBS MoneyWatch’s request for comment.
“The irony here is that Shaq claimed no experience in crypto but this new class case for the NFT Astrals proves the opposition — he, his son and his business partner, all planned to make many millions odd dollars based solely on his involvement,” Moskowitz said.
A Florida court has ordered a Burger King franchise to pay nearly $8 million to a customer who allegedly slipped and injured his back at the restaurant.
Richard Tulecki, 48, suffered “serious injuries” in 2019 after he slipped on a “wet foreign substance” and fell inside the bathroom at a Burger King in Hollywood, Florida, court documents show. Those injuries required surgery, which left Tulecki with a post-operative perforated colon, Ginnis & Krathen, the law firm that represents Tulecki, said in a statement.
A jury sided with Tulecki earlier this month, awarding him $7.81 million in damages, including $3.35 million for lost earnings and $700,000 for medical expenses. The court later reduced the amount to $7.68 million to account for medical expenses Tulecki’s insurance had already covered.
As a result of the injuries, Tulecki was forced to stop working, hurting him financially and emotionally. Working was “a major part of his identity,” his attorney’s told CBS MoneyWatch.
The settlement will help pay the medical bills for treating Tulecki’s back injuries, they added.
Attorneys H Ross Zelnick (left) and Miguel A. Amador (left) of Ginnis & Krathen, P.A. flank Richard Tulecki and his wife.
Ginnis & Krathen, P.A.
Seven Restaurants, the franchise’s operator, filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that Tulecki’s lawyers presented “virtually no evidence” that the restaurant’s management had been apprised of the bathroom floor’s slippery conditions. Neither Seven Restaurants nor Burger King was immediately available for comment.
A family successfully sued McDonald’s earlier this month, alleging a scalding hot chicken nugget from the restaurant gave their 4-year-old daughter second-degree burns.
Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.
Create your free account or log in for more features.
Goldman Sachs agreed to pay $215 million to settle a long-standing class-action lawsuit that alleges the finance giant systematically underpays and undervalues women.
The settlement, announced Monday, covers roughly 2,800 female associates and vice presidents employed in various divisions at Goldman, where men continue to outnumber women and predominate in senior roles. As part of the settlement, the firm will hire an “independent expert” to analyze its promotion and performance evaluation processes for the next three years, the company said in a statement. The agreement also requires Goldman to investigate and address gender pay gaps in its ranks and have an independent expert conduct additional pay equity studies.
“After more than a decade of vigorous litigation, both parties have agreed to resolve this matter,” Jacqueline Arthur, Goldman Sachs global head of human capital management, said in a statement. “We will continue to focus on our people, our clients and our business.”
The lawsuit was brought in 2010, when three former female Goldman employees alleged the storied firm violated federal and New York City laws by engaging in a systematic “pattern and practice” of discrimination against its female employees. The suit cited 2009 company figures which showed women workers represented 29% of Goldman’s vice presidents and 17% of its managing directors, and figures from 2008 in which women represented only 14% of the firm’s partners, according to the complaint. Goldman did not dispute the numbers.
In a similar lawsuit in 2007, a federal judge approved a $46 million settlement of a class-action suit against Morgan Stanley, brought by a group of six women alleging gender discrimination by the firm. The suit was later expanded to cover a class of around 3,000 women who worked at the company between August 2003 and June 2007.
Settlements are a go-to means of protecting Wall Street firms from bad publicity. Merrill Lynch in 2013 paid $160 million to Black financial advisers to settle a racial bias suit. In 2017, Wells Fargo & Co. settled a class action accusing the firm of racial discrimination for $35.5 million.
This settlement is much larger than previous settlements, however. It’s nearly four times as large as the $54 million payout that ended a sex discrimination lawsuit against Wall Street brokerage Morgan Stanley back in 2004.
In the absence of a settlement, the case would have gone to trial next month, laying bare for the public a rare look into the gender dynamics that underpin high-profile Wall Street firms’ operations.
Slow to evolve
Goldman and other finance titans have publicly signaled their commitment to making their ranks more diverse and inclusive, but the process is still slow going.
Women comprised just 29% of Goldman’s 2022 partner class, the firm’s most inclusive group of promotions to date.
Women are also less likely to be found in the C-suite. Although roughly 46% of employees in the finance sector are women, just 15% occupy executive roles, data from the World Economic Forum’s 2017 Global Gender Gap Report shows.
“I wanted you to know the good news that we just served personally Shaquille O’Neal outside his house in Atlanta,” Adam M. Moskowitz, the attorney leading the lawsuit, said in a statement. “The good news is his home video cameras recorded our service and we have made it very clear, he is not to destroy and/or erase any of these security tapes, because they must be preserved for our lawsuit.”
Moskowitz and his law firm had been given a deadline of Monday to serve O’Neal, who Moskowitz said had “been hiding and driving away from our process servers for the past 3 months.”
O’Neal, who currently serves as an analyst for “Inside the NBA,” was the final defendant in the lawsuit to be served, according to the motion asking to serve him electronically.
The motion claimed that a process server had attempted to serve O’Neal dozens of times at his Texas and Georgia residences, and via mail to both the residences and his offices in Atlanta, where “Inside the NBA” is broadcast from.
Attorneys alleged in the motion that after an attempt to serve O’Neal in Texas, the process server “was sent an ominous and threatening text message by O’Neal or someone acting on his behalf.” The text message also claimed O’Neal lives in the Bahamas, which the law firm then determined to be untrue, the motion states.
The lawsuit accuses Bankman-Fried, O’Neal and other celebrity spokespeople, including Tom Brady and Larry David, of defrauding FTX investors.
“Mr. O’Neal will now be required to appear in federal court and explain to his millions of followers his ‘FTX: I Am All In’ false advertising campaign,” Moskowitz said Sunday night.
The four-time NBA champion has denied being involved in FTX beyond his sponsorship deal.
“A lot of people think I’m involved, but I was just a paid spokesperson for a commercial,” he said in an interview on CNBC after the lawsuit was filed.
FTX, which collapsed late last year, shuffled customer money between affiliated entities, using new investor funds and loans to pay interest on old ones in an attempt “to maintain the appearance of liquidity,” Moskowitz told CBS News in an email.
“FTX were geniuses at public relations and marketing, and knew that such a massive Ponzi scheme — larger than the Madoff scheme — could only be successful with the help and promotion of the most famous, respected, and beloved celebrities and influencers in the world,” he said.
