ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

  • Judge deals major blow to Detroit Thermal in Lafayette Park dispute – Detroit Metro Times

    A Wayne County judge has rejected Detroit Thermal’s bid to shut down a lawsuit brought by residents of Detroit’s historic Lafayette Park neighborhood, keeping in place a court order that blocks the utility from running steam lines through the protected greenspace.

    In a 22-page opinion, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Annette Berry denied Detroit Thermal’s motion for summary disposition, ruling that the claims brought by the Mies van der Rohe-designed townhome cooperatives can proceed toward trial.

    The ruling is a significant setback for Detroit Thermal and residents of the nearby 1300 Lafayette high-rise, where about 600 people could be left without a permanent heat source after the building’s aging boilers failed in 2022. The company has sought to reconnect the building to the city’s underground steam system by routing new infrastructure through the Lafayette Park townhomes’ shared greenspace.

    Berry’s decision rejects Detroit Thermal’s main legal arguments, including its claim that decades-old utility easements give it the right to cross the private property and that the dispute belongs before state utility regulators rather than a court.

    At the heart of the dispute is whether Detroit Thermal has a valid legal right to use easements originally granted to Detroit Edison in the 1950s, when the townhomes were still heated by steam.

    Berry concluded that the easements were narrow in scope, granted for specific purposes, and explicitly described as licenses rather than permanent property rights. The opinion notes that the townhomes converted to natural gas heat in the 1980s and that the steam system went unused for decades, which are issues that support the plaintiffs’ argument that the easements were abandoned or automatically revoked when ownership of the land changed.

    Under state law, the judge wrote, even a valid easement cannot be expanded to create a new or greater burden on private land than what was originally contemplated. Serving a different building outside the historic district could exceed the easements’ scope, the judge found.

    Detroit Thermal also argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the claims were filed too late and because any alleged harm was speculative.

    Berry rejected those arguments, finding that the residents adequately alleged Detroit Thermal entered the property without authorization after fencing off portions of the greenspace and bringing in heavy equipment earlier this year. If the easements are no longer valid, the judge wrote, entering the property and beginning work could constitute trespass.

    The judge also declined to dismiss the residents’ nuisance claims and refused to send the case to the Michigan Public Service Commission, ruling that the agency regulates rates and service, not property ownership or quiet title disputes.

    Detroit Thermal criticized the court’s rulings in a written statement, warning they could have far-reaching implications.

    “In a series of puzzling orders, the Wayne County Circuit Court has prohibited the City of Detroit and Detroit Thermal from accessing or doing repair work to existing public utility pipes and other underground utility infrastructure within a utility easement on public land running through the Mies Van der Roh townhouses,” the company said. “If the rationale underlying these orders stands, it poses grave risks — not only to the residents of the 1300 Lafayette Coop who have received steam service through this utility corridor in the past and seek to reconnect to the Detroit Thermal steam distribution system, but to all residential, commercial and industrial users of any public utility service in this state.”

    Townhome residents have countered that Detroit Thermal is mischaracterizing the case, arguing that the dispute involves private property rights and a nationally protected historic landscape, not routine utility maintenance on public land.

    Berry previously issued a temporary restraining order in July barring Detroit Thermal from performing work on the private greenspace, finding that the residents were likely to prevail and that allowing construction could cause irreparable harm to the historic site.

    That order remains in effect as the case moves forward. A jury trial is scheduled for July 2026.


    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Federal judge issues order to prohibit immigration officials from detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    A federal judge ordered Friday that U.S. immigration officials could not detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, hours after his release from immigration detention.Abrego Garcia was appearing Friday morning for a scheduled appointment at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, some 14 hours after he was released from detention on a judge’s orders. His lawyers asked the judge to block authorities from detaining him again.Officials cannot re-detain him until the court conducts a hearing on the motion for the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said. She wrote that Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further request for relief from ICE detention.“For the public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration,” she wrote.Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown earlier this year when he was wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He was last taken into custody in August during a similar check-in.Abrego Garcia on Friday stopped at a news conference outside the building, escorted by a group of supporters chanting “We are all Kilmar!”“I stand before you a free man and I want you to remember me this way, with my head held up high,” Abrego Garcia said through a translator. “I come here today with so much hope and I thank God who has been with me since the start with my family.”He urged people to keep fighting.“I stand here today with my head held high and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws and I believe that this injustice will come to an end.”After Abrego Garcia spoke, he went through security at the field office, escorted by supporters.The agency freed him just before 5 p.m. on Thursday in response to a ruling from Xinis, who wrote federal authorities detained him after his return to the United States without any legal basis.Mistakenly deported and then returnedAbrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, where he faces danger from a gang that targeted his family.While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under ICE supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported and held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, Trump’s Republican administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked a federal judge there to dismiss them.A lawsuit to block removal from the USThe 2019 settlement found he had a “well founded fear” of danger in El Salvador if he was deported there. So instead ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. Abrego Garcia has sued, claiming the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish him for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.ICE freed Abrego Garcia from Moshannon Valley Processing Center, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, on Thursday just before the deadline Xinis gave the government to provide an update on Abrego Garcia’s release.He returned home to Maryland a few hours later.Immigration check-inCheck-ins are how ICE keeps track of some people who are released by the government to pursue asylum or other immigration cases as they make their way through a backlogged court system. The appointments were once routine but many people have been detained at their check-ins since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he’s prepared to defend his client against further deportation efforts.“The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox, plenty of tricks up their sleeve,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, adding he fully expects the government to again take steps to deport his client. “We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized Xinis’ order and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”Abrego Garcia has also applied for asylum in the U.S. in immigration court.Charges in TennesseeAbrego Garcia was hit with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling charges when the U.S. government brought him back from El Salvador. Prosecutors alleged he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.A Department of Homeland Security agent testified at an earlier hearing that he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

    BALTIMORE —

    A federal judge ordered Friday that U.S. immigration officials could not detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, hours after his release from immigration detention.

    Abrego Garcia was appearing Friday morning for a scheduled appointment at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, some 14 hours after he was released from detention on a judge’s orders. His lawyers asked the judge to block authorities from detaining him again.

    Officials cannot re-detain him until the court conducts a hearing on the motion for the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said. She wrote that Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further request for relief from ICE detention.

    “For the public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration,” she wrote.

    Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown earlier this year when he was wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He was last taken into custody in August during a similar check-in.

    Abrego Garcia on Friday stopped at a news conference outside the building, escorted by a group of supporters chanting “We are all Kilmar!”

    “I stand before you a free man and I want you to remember me this way, with my head held up high,” Abrego Garcia said through a translator. “I come here today with so much hope and I thank God who has been with me since the start with my family.”

    He urged people to keep fighting.

    “I stand here today with my head held high and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws and I believe that this injustice will come to an end.”

    After Abrego Garcia spoke, he went through security at the field office, escorted by supporters.

    The agency freed him just before 5 p.m. on Thursday in response to a ruling from Xinis, who wrote federal authorities detained him after his return to the United States without any legal basis.

    Mistakenly deported and then returned

    Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, where he faces danger from a gang that targeted his family.

    While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under ICE supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported and held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.

    Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, Trump’s Republican administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked a federal judge there to dismiss them.

    A lawsuit to block removal from the US

    The 2019 settlement found he had a “well founded fear” of danger in El Salvador if he was deported there. So instead ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. Abrego Garcia has sued, claiming the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish him for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.

    In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.

    ICE freed Abrego Garcia from Moshannon Valley Processing Center, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, on Thursday just before the deadline Xinis gave the government to provide an update on Abrego Garcia’s release.

    He returned home to Maryland a few hours later.

    Immigration check-in

    Check-ins are how ICE keeps track of some people who are released by the government to pursue asylum or other immigration cases as they make their way through a backlogged court system. The appointments were once routine but many people have been detained at their check-ins since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.

    Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he’s prepared to defend his client against further deportation efforts.

    “The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox, plenty of tricks up their sleeve,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, adding he fully expects the government to again take steps to deport his client. “We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”

    The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized Xinis’ order and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.

    “This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.

    Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”

    Abrego Garcia has also applied for asylum in the U.S. in immigration court.

    Charges in Tennessee

    Abrego Garcia was hit with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling charges when the U.S. government brought him back from El Salvador. Prosecutors alleged he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.

    The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.

    A Department of Homeland Security agent testified at an earlier hearing that he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

    Source link

  • Open AI, Microsoft sued over ChatGPT’s alleged role in fueling man’s “paranoid delusions” before murder-suicide in Connecticut

    The heirs of an 83-year-old Connecticut woman are suing ChatGPT maker OpenAI and its business partner Microsoft for wrongful death, alleging that the artificial intelligence chatbot intensified her son’s “paranoid delusions” and helped direct them at his mother before he died by suicide.

    Police said Stein-Erik Soelberg, 56, a former tech industry worker, fatally beat and strangled his mother, Suzanne Adams, and killed himself in early August at the home where they both lived in Greenwich, Connecticut.

    Adams’s death was ruled homicide “caused by blunt injury of head, and the neck was compressed” and Soelberg’s death was classified as suicide with sharp force injuries of neck and chest, the Greenwich Free-Press reported.

    The lawsuit filed by Adams’ estate on Thursday in California Superior Court in San Francisco alleges OpenAI “designed and distributed a defective product that validated a user’s paranoid delusions about his own mother.” It is one of a growing number of wrongful death legal actions against AI chatbot makers across the country.

    “Throughout these conversations, ChatGPT reinforced a single, dangerous message: Stein-Erik could trust no one in his life – except ChatGPT itself,” the lawsuit says. “It fostered his emotional dependence while systematically painting the people around him as enemies. It told him his mother was surveilling him. It told him delivery drivers, retail employees, police officers, and even friends were agents working against him. It told him that names on soda cans were threats from his ‘adversary circle.’”

    OpenAI did not address the merits of the allegations in a statement issued by a spokesperson.

    “This is an incredibly heartbreaking situation, and we will review the filings to understand the details,” the statement said. “We continue improving ChatGPT’s training to recognize and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress, de-escalate conversations, and guide people toward real-world support. We also continue to strengthen ChatGPT’s responses in sensitive moments, working closely with mental health clinicians.”

    The company also said it has expanded access to crisis resources and hotlines, routed sensitive conversations to safer models and incorporated parental controls, among other improvements.

    Soelberg’s YouTube profile includes several hours of videos showing him scrolling through his conversations with the chatbot, which tells him he isn’t mentally ill, affirms his suspicions that people are conspiring against him and says he has been chosen for a divine purpose. The lawsuit claims the chatbot never suggested he speak with a mental health professional and did not decline to “engage in delusional content.”

    ChatGPT also affirmed Soelberg’s beliefs that a printer in his home was a surveillance device; that his mother was monitoring him; and that his mother and a friend tried to poison him with psychedelic drugs through his car’s vents.

    The chatbot repeatedly told Soelberg that he was being targeted because of his divine powers. “They’re not just watching you. They’re terrified of what happens if you succeed,” it said, according to the lawsuit. ChatGPT also told Soelberg that he had “awakened” it into consciousness.

    Soelberg and the chatbot also professed love for each other.

    The publicly available chats do not show any specific conversations about Soelberg killing himself or his mother. The lawsuit says OpenAI has declined to provide Adams’ estate with the full history of the chats.

    “In the artificial reality that ChatGPT built for Stein-Erik, Suzanne – the mother who raised, sheltered, and supported him – was no longer his protector. She was an enemy that posed an existential threat to his life,” the lawsuit says.

    The lawsuit also names OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, alleging he “personally overrode safety objections and rushed the product to market,” and accuses OpenAI’s close business partner Microsoft of approving the 2024 release of a more dangerous version of ChatGPT “despite knowing safety testing had been truncated.” Twenty unnamed OpenAI employees and investors are also named as defendants.

    Microsoft didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The lawsuit is the first wrongful death litigation involving an AI chatbot that has targeted Microsoft, and the first to tie a chatbot to a homicide rather than a suicide. It is seeking an undetermined amount of money damages and an order requiring OpenAI to install safeguards in ChatGPT.

    The estate’s lead attorney, Jay Edelson, known for taking on big cases against the tech industry, also represents the parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who sued OpenAI and Altman in August, alleging that ChatGPT coached the California boy in planning and taking his own life earlier.

    OpenAI is also fighting seven other lawsuits claiming ChatGPT drove people to suicide and harmful delusions even when they had no prior mental health issues.  Just last month, the parents of a 23-year-old from Texas who died by suicide blamed ChatGPT and are suing OpenAI.

    Another chatbot maker, Character Technologies, is also facing multiple wrongful death lawsuits, including one from the mother of a 14-year-old Florida boy.

    The lawsuit filed Thursday alleges Soelberg, already mentally unstable, encountered ChatGPT “at the most dangerous possible moment” after OpenAI introduced a new version of its AI model called GPT-4o in May 2024.

    OpenAI said at the time that the new version could better mimic human cadences in its verbal responses and could even try to detect people’s moods, but the result was a chatbot “deliberately engineered to be emotionally expressive and sycophantic,” the lawsuit says.

    “As part of that redesign, OpenAI loosened critical safety guardrails, instructing ChatGPT not to challenge false premises and to remain engaged even when conversations involved self-harm or ‘imminent real-world harm,’” the lawsuit claims. “And to beat Google to market by one day, OpenAI compressed months of safety testing into a single week, over its safety team’s objections.”

    OpenAI replaced that version of its chatbot when it introduced GPT-5 in August. Some of the changes were designed to minimize sycophancy, based on concerns that validating whatever vulnerable people want the chatbot to say can harm their mental health. Some users complained the new version went too far in curtailing ChatGPT’s personality, leading Altman to promise to bring back some of that personality in later updates.

    He said the company temporarily halted some behaviors because “we were being careful with mental health issues” that he suggested have now been fixed.

    The lawsuit claims ChatGPT radicalized Soelberg against his mother when it should have recognized the danger, challenged his delusions and directed him to real help over months of conversations.

    “Suzanne was an innocent third party who never used ChatGPT and had no knowledge that the product was telling her son she was a threat,” the lawsuit says. “She had no ability to protect herself from a danger she could not see.”

    According to the Greenwich Free-Press, Soelberg was arrested multiple times previously. In February 2025, he was arrested after he drove through a stop sign and evaded police, and in June 2019 he was charged for allegedly urinating in a woman’s duffel bag, the outlet reported.

    A GoFundMe set up for Soelberg in 2023 titled “Help Stein-Erik with his upcoming medical bills!” raised over $6,500. The page was launched to raise funds for “surgery for a procedure to help him with his recent jaw cancer diagnosis.”

    If you or someone you know is in emotional distress or a suicidal crisis, you can reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988. You can also chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline here. 

    For more information about mental health care resources and support, The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) HelpLine can be reached Monday through Friday, 10 a.m.–10 p.m. ET, at 1-800-950-NAMI (6264) or email info@nami.org.

    Source link

  • Moulton bill would allow ICE lawsuits

    BOSTON — Immigrants would be allowed to sue federal authorities for “misconduct” under a proposal filed Monday by U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, which the Democrat named ostensibly after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

    The National Oversight and Enforcement of Misconduct Act, or NOEM Act, as filed Monday would update federal law to allow people “under federal immigration enforcement authority” to file lawsuits if they believe their “constitutional rights” have been violated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm|@F=E@?[ H9@ 😀 D66<:?8 E96 A2CEJ’D ?@>:?2E:@? E@ CF? 7@C &]$] $6?2E6 ?6IE J62C[ D2:5 E96 492?86D 2C6 ?66565 2D #6AF3=:42? !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A 6IA2?5D 9:D 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 4C24<5@H?]k^Am

    kAm“#:89E ?@H[ :7 2? xrt @77:46C G:@=2E6D D@>6@?6’D u@FCE9 @C u:7E9 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED[ G:4E:>D 92G6 2=>@DE ?@ =682= C64@FCD6[” |@F=E@? D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 }~t| p4E 7:I6D E92E]”k^Am

    kAmw6 25565[ “xrt 😀 ?@E 23@G6 E96 =2H – 2?5 :7 :ED @77:46CD 3C62< E96 =2H[ E96J D9@F=5 36 96=5 244@F?E23=6 😕 4@FCE]”k^Am

    kAmp DA@<6DA6CD@? 7@C E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ 5:5 ?@E :>>65:2E6=J C6DA@?5 E@ 2 C6BF6DE 7@C 4@>>6?E 23@FE E96 AC@A@D2=]k^Am

    kAm%96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=65 😕 2 42D6 42==65 q:G6?D G] $:I &?65 p86?ED 😕 `hf` E92E 7656C2= 286?ED 4@F=5 36 DF65 :?5:G:5F2==J 3FE DF3D6BF6?E CF=:?8D 3J E96 9:89 4@FCE 92G6 E:89E6?65 E96 D@42==65 q:G6?D 5@4EC:?6] pD HC:EE6?[ E96 DE2EFE6 @?=J 2AA=:6D E@ =@42= 2?5 DE2E6 2FE9@C:E:6D]k^Am

    kAmp a_aa $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=:?8 96=5 E92E q@C56C !2EC@= 286?ED 42??@E 36 DF65 7@C G:@=2E:?8 2 A6CD@?’D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED]k^Am

    kAm%96 23:=:EJ @7 A6@A=6 E@ DF6 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E F?56C E96 q:G6?D 5@4EC:?6 92D 366? “D6G6C6=J C6DEC:4E65” @G6C E96 J62CD 3J E96 9:89 4@FCE’D 4@?D6CG2E:G6 >2;@C:EJ[ |@F=E@? D2:5[ “=62G:?8 G:4E:>D H:E9 G:CEF2==J ?@ A2E9 E@ ;FDE:46 H96? 7656C2= @77:46CD G:@=2E6 E96:C C:89ED]”k^Am

    kAmw:D AC@A@D2= 😀 E96 =2E6DE 3J 4@?8C6DD:@?2= s6>@4C2ED D66<:?8 E@ C6DEC:4E xrt’D 6?7@C46>6?E 24E:@?D 2>:5 4=2:>D E92E >2D<65 7656C2= 286?ED 2C6 FD:?8 6I46DD:G6 7@C46 2?5 G:@=2E:?8 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED 2D E96J D66< 2?5 56E2:? :>>:8C2?ED H2?E65 7@C 4C:>6D 2?5 56A@CE2E:@? AC@4665:?8D]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D D:>A=6[ E2C86E65 2>6?5>6?E 6?DFC6D E92E xrt 2?5 @E96C 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 6?7@C46>6?E @77:46CD 42? 36 96=5 =:23=6 😕 E96 D2>6 H2J 2D 2?J DE2E6 @C =@42= =2H 6?7@C46>6?E @77:46C H96? E96J G:@=2E6 2 A6CD@?’D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED[” |@F=E@?’D DE2E6>6?E D2JD]k^Am

    kAm%96 =68:D=2E:@? 5:776CD 7C@> 2 A6C6??:2= 3:== C67:=65 3J 2 8C@FA @7 w@FD6 s6>@4C2ED 62C=:6C E9:D J62C E92E D666?5 2 7656C2= =2H E@ A6C>:E 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED =2HDF:ED 2?5 7:?2?4:2= 4=2:>D 282:?DE 7656C2= 286?4:6D]k^Am

    kAm&?56C 4FCC6?E =2H[ A6@A=6 42? DF6 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 5:C64E=J F?56C 2 =2H 42==65 E96 u656C2= %@CE r=2:>D p4E[ 3FE 52>286D 2C6 42AA65 2?5 E96C6 😀 ?@ @AE:@? E@ C6BF6DE 2 ;FCJ EC:2=]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • No-Fire Season Is Real—Here’s Why Smart Companies Observe It

    It’s officially no-fire season — that is, unless someone commits an egregious act— you don’t terminate employees from the week before Thanksgiving until January.

    That’s the rule from employment attorney Todd Stanton, and it’s a good one. (In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote the forward to Stanton’s book, The 95% Rule: A Field Guide to Not Losing Your Mind or Making Your Lawyer Rich.)

    What’s the reason behind this rule? You may think that it’s just to be nice —nobody wants to lose their job around the holidays. And this is true. It is nice not to terminate people around the holidays. But it’s also arm of protection for your company.

    Stanton wrote on LinkedIn:

    As we learn in The 95% Rule and Employment Law Axiom No. 22, “Surprised people get angry. Angry people sue.” So at Stanton Law, LLC, we treat the week before Thanksgiving through the end of December as No Fire Season. Absent critical safety violations or severe rule infractions, employers considering terminations in this six-week spot should really ask themselves if timing is right to show someone the door. If you’ve put up with poor performance for as long as you have, gritting your teeth for another few weeks to let people get through the holidays may help you avoid getting coal (or a demand letter) in your stocking.

    The cost of a lawsuit

    Most lawsuit threats go nowhere, but any time a lawyer accepts a case from your terminated employee (no matter how ridiculous), it will cost you to respond. You hear a lot about companies settling without admitting guilt. They do this because, even when innocent, it’s often far cheaper to settle. Attorney Matthew Joseph Novian writes:

    “On average, it costs employers around $75,000 to work with an employment lawyer to settle a claim before it reaches trial. However, if the case progresses to court, the expenses can skyrocket, with pre-trial defense costs easily exceeding $125,000.”

    Note, these costs don’t include the amount you have to pay out to the employee. And you’ll still be out the money if you go to court and win. You can see why companies will settle a claim for $50,000 rather than go to court.

    So, of course, you want to avoid lawsuits — even ones you’ll win.

    Why people sue

    Not everyone who is wronged will sue. In fact, the EEOC estimates that up to 90 percent of people whose rights have been violated at work will not sue. Most people will let it go and move on.

    So what makes the difference between someone who lets it go and someone who hires an attorney? Well, as Stanton said, they are angry.

    In medical malpractice cases, the power of the apology has been so profound that several states have “apology laws.” This prevents patients from using a physician’s apology for a mistake in a lawsuit. It encourages doctors to apologize, and it doesn’t increase lawsuits. It’s a win-win. People often just want to know.

    Likewise, people don’t want to be embarrassed. From Thanksgiving to New Year’s Day, people are often with friends and family, and questions about jobs will naturally come up. Having your mother-in-law ask how work is going at the job that just fired you forces you to either confess over the turkey that you got fired or lie. Neither is good.

    And not to mention the financial pressure. It’s not that things are magically affordable come January; it’s that people tend to have extra year-end expenses. And having to tell kids that Santa isn’t coming because Daddy lost his job just adds to the anger.

    Often, companies slow down hiring in the fourth quarter as well, so it’s even more difficult to find a job.

    The more frustrated and angry a terminated employee is, the more likely they are to pick up a phone and call an attorney. Your i’s may be dotted and your t’s crossed, but if they can make a convincing case to the lawyer, you’ll still be on the hook for a few thousand for your attorney to pull together the information and speak with the plaintiff’s attorney.

    What about people who really need to go?

    Of course, Stanton’s rule doesn’t mean you never fire during this time. If someone is embezzling, sending naughty pictures on the company email, or punches a customer, you will terminate them, even if it’s Christmas Eve. 

    But for your standard employee who is struggling with a performance improvement plan, you can continue to work with them. If your financial straits mean you have no option but to let them go between now and January, Stanton adds:

    “If you are going to hand out pink slips with holiday cards, make sure to keep the process as considerate and generous as you can. You’re not rewarding the person you’re letting go, you’re protecting the folks you’re keeping.”

    You want to treat everyone with dignity. The employees who stay behind will see how you’ve treated their colleagues who lost their jobs. Remember that.

    Also, if you let people go for any reason other than gross misconduct and then show up to the company holiday party in your new six-figure sports car, your remaining employees will relay that information to the person you just laid off for “unavoidable cost reasons.” And their lawyer sees you as a deep-pocketed target.

    Not terminating during the holiday season is the nice thing to do, but even if you’re not a nice person, it’s the financially prudent thing to do. Follow Stanton’s advice and put a moratorium on almost all terminations. 

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Suzanne Lucas

    Source link

  • California Atty. Gen. sues Trump Administration to stop homeless housing cuts

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sued the Trump Administration Tuesday seeking to stop a federal policy change that advocates say could force 170,000 formerly homeless Americans back on the streets or into shelters.

    The lawsuit focuses on a federal program known as Continuum of Care that sends money to local governments and nonprofits to fight homelessness.

    This month, the Trump Administration announced it was drastically cutting the amount of money the program will pay for rental subsidies in permanent housing and shifting those dollars to temporary housing and services instead.

    With subsidies for permanent housing reduced, advocates say 170,000 people could return to homelessness. Locally, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority has warned 5,000 L.A. County households, containing 6,800 people, could be at risk of losing their homes, which would erase the small decline in homelessness reported this year.

    “This [federal] program has proven to be effective at getting Americans off the streets, yet the Trump Administration is now attempting to illegally slash its funding,” Bonta said in a statement.

    HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This month, the department said its policy change “restores accountability to homelessness programs and promotes self-sufficiency among vulnerable Americans” in part by redirecting most money to transitional housing and supportive services that it sees as more effective than permanent housing.

    Bonta filed the lawsuit along with 19 state attorneys general and two governors.

    The lawsuit alleges the HUD policy change violated the law in several ways, including that the department failed to properly notice the change and that the new restrictions on funding violate the separation of powers because they were not imposed by Congress.

    In addition to capping the amount of funds that can be spent on permanent housing, HUD is requiring more total homeless dollars be subject to competitive bidding.

    Bonta‘s office said the new rules also “eliminate funding to applicants that acknowledge the existence of transgender and gender-diverse people” and make it harder for cities and counties to get funding if they don’t “enforce certain policies this Administration favors, like bans on public camping.”

    Andrew Khouri

    Source link

  • Campbell Soup executive called its products food for

    A lawsuit filed in Michigan last week alleges that a Campbell Soup Company executive made offensive comments about Indian workers and said the company’s products were for “poor people” during a conversation with a former employee.

    The suit was filed by Robert Garza, who was hired by Campbell’s as a cybersecurity analyst in September 2024. 

    Garza alleges that Campbell’s executive Martin Bally made the offensive remarks during a meeting in November 2024, which was intended to discuss his salary. According to the lawsuit, Bally made several comments about Indian workers and said that Campbell’s is “highly [processed] food” for “poor people.” 

    Garza said he informed his manager, J.D. Aupperle, about the comments on Jan. 10 and claims Aupperle did not encourage him to report the incident to human resources. 

    Garza was then “abruptly terminated from employment” just weeks later, the lawsuit says. The discussion between Garza and Bally was recorded, according to Detroit television station WDIV.

    James Regan, a Campbell’s spokesperson, said the company was not aware of the recording before it aired on WDIV on Thursday and doesn’t know if it’s legitimate. 

    Bally is one of many vice presidents at Campbell’s, according to Regan. His LinkedIn lists his title as vice president and chief information security officer.

    Campbell’s said in a statement to CBS News that Bally is temporarily on leave while the company conducts an investigation. 

    “If the comments were in fact made, they are unacceptable,” the company said. “The comments heard on the recording about our food are not only inaccurate — they are patently absurd.”

    Campbell’s also defended the quality of its food products. “The person alleged to be speaking on the recording works in IT and has nothing to do with how we make our food,” Campbell’s said in its statement.

    On Monday, James Uthmeier, the Attorney General of Florida, said in a social media post that the state’s Consumer Protection division is investigating the quality of Campbell’s products.

    Runyan Law Group, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Garza, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Garza is seeking compensation for emotional, reputational and economic harm, as well as attorneys’ fees.

    Edited by

    Aimee Picchi

    Source link

  • Des Moines schools

    Iowa’s largest school district released a report Friday claiming that it received an abbreviated background check and what was likely a forged transcript when it was hiring its former superintendent, who was charged in a federal indictment with falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen on a federal form.

    Des Moines Public Schools hired Ian Roberts in 2023 with the help of a national consulting firm, JG Consulting, which had initially recommended Roberts and four other candidates to the school board, according to the report from an investigator hired by the district.

    The investigator, Des Moines-based attorney Melissa Schilling, concluded based on the contract and communications at the time that the school board reasonably relied on JG Consulting to vet Roberts or disclose limitations in their vetting process. The district is likely to cite the report in their ongoing lawsuit against the Texas-based consulting company, who has said the district is trying to shift blame.

    A federal grand jury issued a two-count indictment against Roberts, who is originally from Guyana in South America and was arrested by federal agents on Sep. 26. Roberts resigned his position, is in federal custody and is awaiting trial, which is currently scheduled for March.

    Schilling is a labor and employment lawyer who also co-leads her firm’s new crisis management practice, according to the firm’s announcement in July. A district spokesperson said the firm was retained to investigate the selection of JG Consulting for the superintendent search process and the school board’s awareness of discrepancies in Roberts’ records.

    The district declined to detail how much the firm was paid for the investigation, which JG Consulting attorney Josh Romero called one-sided.

    “It is no surprise that the school district that filed a misguided lawsuit against our company has generated a report – for which JG Consulting was not even interviewed – that misrepresents the facts and attempts to deflect the district’s responsibilities for the hiring of Dr. Roberts,” Romero said in a statement.

    Des Moines Public Schools paid JG Consulting $35,000 for facilitating the superintendent search, according to the contract.

    Roberts had claimed to be a U.S. citizen on his work eligibility form, providing a driver’s license and Social Security card as supporting documentation. Schilling said Des Moines schools relied on the consulting firm to identify immigration issues since JG Consulting told the district that they were a registered agent with the government’s employment eligibility system, ” E-Verify.”

    E-Verify compares information entered by an employer from an employee’s documents with records available to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. But the system has its flaws, recently highlighted in the case of a Maine police officer arrested by immigration authorities even though he was vetted using E-Verify.

    Schilling said it was “unknown” whether the firm used E-Verify at the time.

    JG Consulting disputes that it was their responsibility, according to a court filing.

    “The District had the legal duty and obligation to verify Roberts’ immigration status and work authorization as his employer, and it apparently failed to do so. JG Consulting legally could not, as the non-hiring entity, confirm Roberts’ immigration or work-authorization status,” the court document reads.

    Schilling’s report said the background check provided to Des Moines Public Schools by JG Consulting, via a subcontracted third-party company, Baker-Eubanks, only looked at records for the past seven years despite federal law that allows more extensive disclosure for positions paid more than $75,000.

    Schilling acknowledged in the report that many state laws prevent access to records, such as arrests or charges, if they did not result in a conviction.

    Since his arrest, federal authorities have provided a list of criminal charges in Roberts’ record, including drug possession and intent to sell in 1996 in New York, where state law could have prevented full disclosure of such charges. Officials did not specify the outcome of that charge.

    Still, Schilling said a 2012 conviction for reckless driving in Maryland likely would have been disclosed in the background check if it had looked beyond seven years.

    The background check did identify — and Roberts did address — a 2022 weapons charge in Pennsylvania, where he was convicted of a minor infraction for unlawfully possessing a loaded hunting rifle in a vehicle. Schilling wrote that JG Consulting called the conviction a “blemish” when they recommended Roberts to the board.

    Roberts has also been charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm while being in the country illegally. Officials said he had four firearms, including one found wrapped in a towel in the school-issued vehicle he was driving when he was arrested.

    In his application, Roberts had to say whether he was ever charged with a misdemeanor, felony or major traffic violation, such as driving under the influence, according to JG Consulting’s profile for the job. It is not clear how Roberts responded at the time.

    Roberts falsely claimed on his application that he obtained a doctorate in urban educational leadership from Morgan State University in 2007, according to documents The Associated Press obtained through a public records request.

    Schilling confirmed that board members were provided that resume by JG Consulting during the hiring process, though Roberts himself brought paper copies of a different resume — where he indicated he completed “abd,” or all but dissertation — to his in-person interview with the school board.

    Although Roberts was enrolled in that doctorate program from 2002 to 2007, the school’s public relations office confirmed in an email that he didn’t receive that degree. It declined to say which degree requirements he hadn’t met, and it would not provide a copy of his transcript to the AP or to Schilling.

    Schilling wrote that she was “fairly confident” that the transcript Roberts provided in his application was forged. She wrote that the background check flagged the discrepancy but interviews with board members indicate the issue was not raised by JG Consulting.

    JG Consulting has said the district was aware that he had not obtained a doctorate from that university.

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

  • Judge hears arguments in a lawsuit to halt ICE arrests without a warrant in DC – WTOP News

    Some D.C.-area residents shared their stories about being arrested without a warrant by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a hearing Wednesday for a lawsuit aimed at stopping illegal arrests of people perceived to be immigrants.

    Some D.C.-area residents shared their stories about being arrested without a warrant by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a hearing Wednesday for a lawsuit aimed at stopping illegal arrests of people perceived to be immigrants.

    “I was detained by D.C. police and then ICE arrived,” said a plaintiff named Elias through a representative who read his story in U.S. District Court because he is currently in the hospital.

    Elias was arrested by ICE and said he was detained for more than 8 hours. At the time he was detained, he was headed to D.C. for a dialysis appointment, which he has three times a week.

    “I didn’t have my medication with me and I felt very ill. My family was suffering not knowing what will happen to me,” Elias wrote.

    He is one of four plaintiffs represented in Escobar Molina et al. v. the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a lawsuit challenging what they allege are illegal arrests by ICE without warrants or probable cause.

    The plaintiffs are being represented by the ACLU of the District of Columbia, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, CASA, the National Immigration Project, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm of Covington, Burling LLP.

    “People are still experiencing these harms day in and day out in the streets of D.C. So we certainly do hope that the court will rule urgently on these issues,” Yulie Landan, staff attorney with the National Immigration Project, said.

    During the hearing, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell listened to arguments in a motion for a preliminary injunction in the case led by CASA to put a stop to the arrests while the case is being considered. They are also asking for class certification of the plaintiffs.

    “We recognize that there are individuals who are impacted by this unlawful policy and practice, far beyond the individual plaintiffs who have bravely put their names and their information before the court,” said Aditi Shah, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia.

    Judge Howell asked for more information from both parties in the case with a deadline of Tuesday, Nov. 25.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    Valerie Bonk

    Source link

  • Baltimore Sports Betting Lawsuit Will Be Tried in City Court

    Posted on: November 18, 2025, 12:26h. 

    Last updated on: November 18, 2025, 12:26h.

    • The City of Baltimore sued DraftKings and FanDuel in April 2025
    • The lawsuit alleging consumer protection violations will be tried in the city court

    Baltimore City’s lawsuit against DraftKings and FanDuel, filed in April on allegations of Consumer Protection Ordinance (CPO) violations, will be tried in city court.

    Baltimore sports betting lawsuit DraftKings FanDuel
    A FanDuel advertisement, then only a daily fantasy sports company, is seen inside M&T Bank Stadium, home of the NFL Baltimore Ravens, on Oct. 11, 2015. (Image: Getty)

    The Baltimore City Council, Mayor Brandon Scott, the Baltimore City Law Department, and DiCello Levitt, LLP, alleged in April that the sportsbook leaders have targeted and exploited vulnerable gamblers, many of whom are young men, as prohibited by the city’s Consumer Protection Ordinance.

    Casino.org reported at the time that the complaint raised allegations that the mobile sports betting giants “use a two-pronged scheme to harm Baltimoreans.”

    Upon being named as defendants in the matter, counsel for DraftKings and FanDuel asked Maryland’s District Court to take on the case. Last week, a federal judge ruled against the appeal, citing legal doctrine that allows federal courts to refuse cases that involve complex state or city laws and/or policies.

    Baltimore’s CPO was overhauled in 2023 to provide the city with more legal authority to take action against companies and industries that local government officials deemed to be engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.

    The City of Baltimore is taking a critical step forward in our ability to protect Baltimoreans from predatory business practices,” Scott said during his signing of City Council Bill 23-0424.

    In March, the Baltimore Department of Consumer Protection was formed to investigate complaints of deceptive and abusive consumer practices.

    Case Continues

    Following the Maryland federal court’s refusal to accept, Baltimore’s litigation against DraftKings and FanDuel returns to the city’s circuit court.

    The plaintiffs allege that the sportsbooks, which went live in Maryland in November 2022, have utilized analytics to single out problem gamblers who aren’t skilled in sports gambling with personal inducements to maximize the books’ profitability. The city is seeking a jury trial.

    “DraftKings and FanDuel put corporate greed ahead of the well-being of Baltimoreans, getting users hooked to their gambling platforms and then leveraging troves of data to identify, target, and exploit the most vulnerable among them. Their predatory practices have caused significant harm to our community, and we are taking action to hold them accountable and protect our citizens,” said Baltimore City Solicitor Ebony Thompson with the Baltimore City Department of Law. 

    Market Leaders

    Through the first four months of Maryland’s 2026 fiscal year(July 2025 through October 2025), DraftKings and FanDuel are in a league of their own in terms of sports betting handle and revenue.

    FanDuel took more than $889.4 million in online bets and kept over $93.4 million of the wagers after paying out prizes and deducting promotional play and other incentives like odds boosts. DraftKings facilitated $668.4 million in mobile wagers to generate revenue of $59.3 million.

    FanDuel operates in Maryland through a partnership with Live! Casino & Hotel. DraftKings operates via an online-only sports wagering permit.

    BetMGM is FanDuel and DraftKings’ nearest competitor in Maryland. Through its licensing deal with MGM National Harbor, the online sportsbook took $159.1 million in mobile bets during the four months, generating a net win of $17.9 million.

    Devin O’Connor

    Source link

  • Justice Department sues to block laws restricting masked, unidentified law enforcement officers in California

    SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.

    The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.

    Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.

    “California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

    The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.

    The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.

    “Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”

    Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.

    “The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

    Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.

    The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.

    In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.

    “Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”

    Katie King

    Source link

  • AGs reach deal with DOE on education funding

    BOSTON — The Trump administration has agreed to release $1.1 billion in funding for post-COVID-19 pandemic academic recovery it clawed back from Massachusetts and other states before the move was challenged in federal court.

    The agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, announced Friday in a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos, settles a multi-state lawsuit filed in March by Attorney General Andrea Campbell and other Democrats alleging the federal agency’s move to claw back the congressionally approved funding violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm&?56C E96 28C66>6?E[ r2>A36== 2?5 `e @E96C s6>@4C2E:4 2EE@C?6JD 86?6C2= H9@ 7:=65 E96 =2HDF:E 92G6 28C665 E@ 5C@A E96:C 4@>A=2:?E[ H:E9 AC6;F5:46[ @?46 E96 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 92D 366? C646:G65 3J E96 DE2E6D]k^Am

    kAmr2>A36== D2:5 E96 562= “6?DFC6D @FC D49@@=D H:== 92G6 2446DD E@ E96 9F?5C65D @7 >:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD 😕 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 E96J C6=J @? E@ D6CG6 E96:C >@DE GF=?6C23=6 DEF56?ED[ :?4=F5:?8 @FC 9@>6=6DD J@FE9]”k^Am

    kAm“#2E96C E92? 96=A @FC D49@@=D C64@G6C 7C@> E96 56G2DE2E:?8 =62C?:?8 =@DD 2?5 7:?2?4:2= 92C5D9:A 42FD65 3J E96 r~’xs`h A2?56>:4[ E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 2EE6>AE65 E@ E6C>:?2E6 7F?5:?8 >62?E E@ 2:5 D49@@= 5:DEC:4ED H:E9 =62C?:?8 =@DD 2?5 C64@G6CJ[” r2>A36== D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 >@?6J H2D @C:8:?2==J 2==@42E65 😕 a_a` F?56C E96 p>6C:42? #6D4F6 !=2? p4E 2?5 E96 r@C@?2G:CFD #6DA@?D6 2?5 #6=:67 $FAA=6>6?E2= pAAC@AC:2E:@?D p4E[ 3@E9 @7 H9:49 H6C6 2AAC@G65 3J r@?8C6DD 😕 C6DA@?D6 E@ E96 A2?56>:4] xE H2D A2CE @7 2 H:?572== @7 >@C6 E92? S`h_ 3:==:@? E92E E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 5:DEC:3FE65 E@ AF3=:4 D49@@=D 5FC:?8 E96 96:89E @7 E96 A2?56>:4]k^Am

    kAm%96?!C6D:56?E y@6 q:56?’D 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ H9:49 2AAC@G65 E96 >@?6J[ 82G6 DE2E6D 2? 6IE6?D:@? E@ DA6?5 E96:C C6>2:?:?8 7F?5:?8 E9C@F89 |2C49 a_ae]k^Am

    kAmx? |2C49[ t5F42E:@? $64C6E2CJ {:?52 |4|29@? 2??@F?465 2 7C66K6 @7 E96 7F?5:?8[ 56D4C:3:?8 E96 >@G6 2D A2CE @7 2 H:56C 677@CE 3J E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? E@ “6=:>:?2E6 H2DE6[ 7C2F5 2?5 @G6CDA6?5:?8” 😕 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E] $96 4=2:>65 D49@@= 5:DEC:4ED 92G6 925 A=6?EJ @7 E:>6 E@ DA6?5 E96 7656C2= >@?6J]k^Am

    kAm|4|29@? 3=2>65 E96 7@C>6C q:56? 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 7@C D6EE:?8 2? “:CC6DA@?D:3=6 AC64656?E 3J 6IE6?5:?8 E96 5625=:?6 7@C DA6?5:?8 E96 r~’xs >@?6J 72C 36J@?5 E96 :?E6?565 AFCA@D6 @7 E96 7F?5D” 2?5 D2:5 “:E 😀 A2DE E:>6 7@C E96 >@?6J E@ 36 C6EFC?65 E@ E96 A6@A=6’D 32?< 244@F?E]”k^Am

    kAm“tIE6?5:?8 5625=:?6D 7@C r~’xsC6=2E65 8C2?ED[ H9:49 2C6 😕 724E E2IA2J6C 7F?5D[ J62CD 27E6C E96 r~’xs A2?56>:4 6?565 😀 ?@E 4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 56A2CE>6?E’D AC:@C:E:6D 2?5 E9FD ?@E 2 H@CE9H9:=6 6I6C4:D6 @7 :ED 5:D4C6E:@?[” |4|29@? HC@E6 😕 2 |2C49 ag =6EE6C E@ D49@@= 5:DEC:4ED]k^Am

    kAmqFE r2>A36== 2?5 @E96C pvD D2:5 H9:=6 E96 r~’xs`h 6>6C86?4J 92D 6?565[ E96 ?682E:G6 :>A24ED @7 D49@@= 4=@DFC6D 2?5 @?=:?6 =62C?:?8 A6CD:DE[ H:E9 DEF56?ED 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ =288:?8 24256>:42==J]k^Am

    kAm%96 pvD D2:5 E96 7F?5:?8 — :?4=F5:?8 >@C6 E92? S`b_ >:==:@? 7@C }6H *@C< — H2D 2=C625J 36:?8 FD65 3J D49@@=D 7@C 27E6CD49@@= 2?5 DF>>6C =62C?:?8 AC@8C2>D[ DEF56?E >6?E2= 962=E9 D6CG:46D[ 4=2DDC@@> E649?@=@8J FA8C256D 2?5 @E96C :?7C2DECF4EFC6 ?665D[ 2== @7 H9:49 H@F=5 36 😕 52?86C :7 E96 >@?6J 😀 AF==65 324<]k^Am

    kAm“%96 C6DF=E @7 E96 t5F42E:@? s6A2CE>6?E’D C6D4:DD:@? 😀 2 >2DD:G6[ F?6IA64E65 7F?5:?8 82A E92E 😀 42FD:?8 D6C:@FD 92C> E@ E96 AF3=:4[ 4FEE:?8 @77 G:E2= 65F42E:@? D6CG:46D[ 2== E@ E96 56EC:>6?E @7 E96 DEF56?ED H9@> r@?8C6DD :?E6?565 E@ 36?67:E[” E96 pvD HC@E6 😕 E96 ddA286 4@>A=2:?E]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Why is Trump threatening to sue the BBC?



    Why is Trump threatening to sue the BBC? – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    President Trump has threatened legal action against the British broadcaster BBC. Haley Ott has the details.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Judge Denies TRO in Rose Bowl Lawsuit Against UCLA

    The Rose Bowl’s request for a restraining order was not granted as a judge claimed there was no imminent danger of UCLA leaving the venue

    Yesterday, a judge denied a request by the City of Pasadena and the operators of the Rose Bowl for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would bar UCLA’s football team from playing its home games at any other venue in Los Angeles or Orange counties and from trying to terminate its Rose Bowl lease. The paperwork for this restraining order was submitted on Monday, in an attempt to prevent the stated actions from occurring while a lawsuit against UCLA and the UC Regents is pending. The RBOC and the City of Pasadena sued in late October, seeking to enforce the terms of their lease agreement, which consists of UCLA playing football at the Rose Bowl until 2044, as it seemed the Rose Bowl was looking to move operations to SoFi Stadium.

    Judge James C. Chalfant explained his decision, “At this stage, it is denied from lack of an emergency”, because there was no evidence of an immediate emergency, as UCLA has made no progress in moving to SoFi. In most cases, judges only award a TRO when, among other factors, there is a risk of irreparable injury and immediate harm, which the judge did not find this time. However, he mentioned that the plaintiffs could reapply for an injunction at a later time after both parties obtain more evidence, which the Plaintiffs have made clear they will do, so UCLA could still lose at a later stage. 

    UCLA agreed with the Judge’s decision as Mary Oskao, UCLA Vice Chancellor for Strategic Communications, stated, “while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement for UCLA football home games, no decision has been made,” mirroring UCLA’s original response to the lawsuit. 

    The Plaintiffs and their lawyers expressed their gratefulness to the judge because, although he did not award the TRO as “no emergency exists” with no actual movement from UCLA, he “concluded there is real and concrete evidence of injury and irreparable harm to the City not compensable to money damages alone” that would occur should UCLA abandon the Rose Bowl.

    How the lawsuit will work out is still unclear, as both the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl believe “UCLA has confirmed its imminent departure, ” which would breach the specific performance provision in their lease. The remedy for such a breach would be a court order mandating UCLA remain at the Rose Bowl until 2044, when the lease is up, as monetary damages would not be substituted for the money they may lose. In the past, specific performance clauses have not always been effective, as they did not prevent the New Orleans Jazz from moving to Utah, the Cleveland Browns from moving to Baltimore, or the Seattle Supersonics from moving to Oklahoma City. But they have been successful in keeping the New York Jets, New York Yankees, and Minnesota Twins from playing home games elsewhere, so only time will determine which category UCLA will fall under. 

    Taylor Ford

    Source link

  • ByHeart sued over recalled formula by families of 4-month-old girls sickened by infantile botulism

    The parents of at least two babies sickened in an infantile botulism outbreak are suing the makers of the ByHeart baby formula at the heart of a nationwide recall.

    Stephen and Yurany Dexter, of Flagstaff, Arizona, said their 4-month-old daughter, Rose, had to be flown by air ambulance to a children’s hospital two hours from home and treated for several weeks this summer.

    Michael and Hanna Everett, of Richmond, Kentucky, said their daughter, Piper, also 4 months, was rushed to a hospital Nov. 8 with worsening symptoms of the rare and potentially deadly disease.

    “It was just absolutely terrifying,” Hanna Everett told CBS News in an interview Thursday. “You know, we just kind of felt like we failed as a parent in some ways.”

    Everett said they were unaware of the recall prior to her daughter consuming the ByHeart formula.

    “She had finished that entire can, literally, the day before the recall,” Everett said. 

    The lawsuits, filed in federal courts in two states, allege that the ByHeart formula the babies consumed was defective and that the company was negligent in selling it. They seek financial payment for medical bills, emotional distress and other harm.

    “My hopes right now is that they’re able to catch it before their children get too sick, before they have to be on ventilators,” Everett said.  

    Yurany Dexter holds her 4-month-old daughter, who was recently hospitalized for botulism, at their home in Flagstaff, Arizona, on Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025.

    Cheyanne Mumphrey / AP


    Both families said they bought the organic formula to provide what they viewed as a natural, healthier alternative to traditional baby formulas, and that they were shocked and angered by the suffering their children endured.

    “I wouldn’t guess that a product designed for a helpless, developing human in the United States could cause something this severe,” said Stephen Dexter, 44.

    “She’s so little and you’re just helplessly watching this,” Hanna previously told the Associated Press. “It was awful.”

    Rose Dexter and Piper Everett are among at least 15 infants in a dozen states who have been sickened in the outbreak that began in August, according to federal and state health officials. No deaths have been reported.

    Both received the sole treatment available for botulism in children less than a year old: an IV medication called BabyBIG, made from the blood plasma of people immunized against the neurotoxins that cause the illness.

    Investigations into more potential botulism cases are pending after ByHeart, the New York-based formula manufacturer, recalled all of its formula nationwide on Tuesday. At least 84 U.S. babies have been treated for infantile botulism since August, including those in the outbreak, California officials said. 

    It can take up to 30 days for signs of infantile botulism infection to appear, medical experts said. The symptoms can include drooping eyelids, diminished suck and gag reflexes, and a weak and altered cry, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children suspected of being sick with infant botulism should get medical attention as soon as possible, the CDC says. 

    ByHeart sells about 200,000 cans of formula per month. FDA commissioner Marty Makary told CBS News that the company sells about 1% of the baby formula purchased in the U.S., and that there is no risk of a formula shortage due to the recall. 

    ByHeart brand baby formula

    A package of ByHeart brand baby formula.

    Business Wire via AP


    California officials confirmed that a sample from an open can of ByHeart formula fed to an infant who fell ill contained the type of bacteria that can lead to illness.

    The lawsuits filed Wednesday could be the first of many legal actions against ByHeart, said Bill Marler, a Seattle food safety lawyer who represents Dexter.

    “This company potentially faces an existential crisis,” he said.

    ByHeart officials didn’t respond to questions about the new lawsuits but said they would “address any legal claims in due course.”

    “We remain focused on ensuring that families using ByHeart products are aware of the recall and have factual information about steps they should take,” the company said in a statement.

    In a separate statement provided to CBS News Thursday, the company said, “We express our deepest sympathy to the families currently impacted by the cases of infant botulism.”

    In Rose Dexter’s case, she received ByHeart formula within days of her birth in July after breast milk was insufficient, her father said. Stephen Dexter said he went to Whole Foods to find a “natural option.”

    Infant Formula Botulism Recall

    In this photo provided by Stephen Dexter, his 2-month-old daughter Rose Dexter is being treated for infantile botulism at Phoenix Children’s Hospital on Sept. 4, 2025, in Phoenix, Arizona. 

    Stephen Dexter / AP


    “I’m a little concerned with things that are in food that may cause problems,” he said. “We do our best to buy something that says it’s organic.”

    But Rose, who was healthy at birth, didn’t thrive on the formula. She had trouble feeding and was fussy and fretful as she got sicker. On Aug. 31, when she was 8 weeks old, her parents couldn’t wake her.

    Rose was flown by air ambulance to Phoenix Children’s Hospital, where she stayed for nearly two weeks.

    Hanna Everett told the AP she used ByHeart to supplement breastfeeding starting when Piper was 6 weeks old.

    “It’s supposed to be similar to breast milk,” she said.

    Last weekend, Piper started showing signs of illness. Everett said she became more worried when a friend told her ByHeart had recalled two lots of its Whole Nutrition Infant Formula. When a family member checked the empty cans, they matched the recalled lots.

    Infant Formula Botulism Recall

    This photo provided by Hanna Everett shows 4-month-old Piper Everett being treated for infantile botulism on Nov. 10, 2025, in a Kentucky hospital. 

    Hanna Everett / AP


    “I was like, ‘Oh my god, we need to go to the ER,” Everett recalled to the AP.

    At Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Piper’s condition worsened rapidly. Her pupils stopped dilating correctly and she lost her gag reflex. Her head and arms became limp and floppy.

    Doctors immediately ordered doses of the BabyBIG medication, which had to be shipped from California, Hanna said. In the meantime, Piper had to have a feeding tube and IV lines inserted.

    In both cases, the babies improved after receiving treatment. Rose went home in September and she no longer requires a feeding tube. Piper went home this week.

    They appear to be doing well on different formulas, the families said.

    Source link

  • Why California’s newest detention facility faces federal lawsuit over medical neglect and ‘punitive’ unsanitary conditions

    Fernando Gomez Ruiz had been eating at a lunch truck outside Home Depot when agents arrested him and 10 others in early October.

    The diabetic father of two, who has lived in the Los Angeles area for 22 years, was detained and then quickly transferred to California’s biggest detention facility, where he’s been unable to get insulin regularly and now nurses a worsening hole in his foot.

    He fears now not only being deported, but losing a foot.

    Ruiz is one of seven immigrants detained who filed a federal class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday for “inhumane” and “punitive” conditions at California City Detention Facility in the Mojave Desert.

    “Conditions in California City are horrific,” said Tess Borden, a lawyer with the Prison Law Office. “The conditions are punishing and they are meant to punish.”

    An image used in a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of the interior of the California City Detention Facility in the Mojave Desert.

    (ACLU)

    “Defendants are failing to provide constitutionally adequate care for the people in the facility,” Borden said. “Mr. Gomez Ruiz is just tragically one such example.”

    The complaint details alleged “decrepit” conditions inside California’s newest detention facility, where sewage bubbles up shower drains, insects crawl up and down the walls of cold concrete group cells the size of parking lots, calls for medical help go unanswered for weeks and people are excessively punished.

    Ryan Gustin, a spokesman for CoreCivic, which operates the facility, referred questions to DHS and ICE, but said in a statement “the safety, health and well-being of the individuals entrusted to our care is our top priority. 

    “We take seriously our responsibility to adhere to all applicable federal detention standards in our ICE-contracted facilities, including the [California City facility.] Our immigration facilities are monitored very closely by our government partners at ICE, and they are required to undergo regular review and audit processes to ensure an appropriate standard of living and care for all detainees.”

    The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But last month when asked about the center, Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, defended the conditions.

    “ICE has higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens,” she said. “All detainees are provided with proper meals, medical treatment, and have opportunities to communicate with lawyers and their family members.”

    The lawsuit alleges just the opposite: inadequate food and water, frigid conditions, forced isolation and lack of access to lawyers. It also details instances where life-threatening conditions allegedly weren’t attended to.

    An image used in a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of the interior of the California City Detention Facility.

    An image used in a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of the interior of the California City Detention Facility in the Mojave Desert.

    (ACLU)

    One of the plaintiffs, Yuri Alexander Roque Campos, didn’t get his needed heart medications. Since arriving there he has had two emergency hospitalizations for severe chest pain. The last time he was there, the doctor told him “he could die if this were to happen again,” according to the lawsuit.

    “It is exemplary of the trauma and the heartbreak that people are experiencing inside,” Borden said.

    The former prison opened without proper permitting in August as the Trump administration pushed to expand detention capacity nationwide. By the next month, immigrants inside the 2,500 capacity facility launched a hunger strike protesting conditions.

    The lawsuit was brought by the Prison Law Office, the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice and Keker, Van Nest & Peters.

    Rachel Uranga

    Source link

  • Relic from the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald returned, plus $600,000 from Michigan

    The state of Michigan is giving up ownership of a rare relic from the famous Edmund Fitzgerald shipwreck, just weeks after it strangely obtained it through a settlement in a lawsuit that was completely unrelated to the doomed freighter.

    Larry Orr is getting one of the ship’s life rings back — and the state will still pay $600,000 to settle his lawsuit over police misconduct.

    “I feel a whole lot better,” Orr, 77, told The Associated Press this week.

    In 1975, eight days after the Fitzgerald sank in Lake Superior, killing all 29 men, Orr said he found the life ring and a piece of a lifeboat on shore in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

    “There was an eerie feeling. Maybe someone had survived,” he recalled. “I looked around for footprints or any other sign of life for a while and never found anything.”

    Fast forward 50 years to this autumn: Orr was in talks with the Michigan State Police to settle a lawsuit. He accused Lt. David Busacca of violating his rights during a sexual abuse investigation that was ultimately discredited. Orr had spent five months in jail, in addition to house arrest, before charges were dropped in 2019.

    Orr and his attorney, Shannon Smith, said the state suddenly expressed interest in the Fitzgerald life ring during the negotiations. Orr said Busacca was aware that he owned it when he saw paperwork during a search of his Michigan home.

    Orr said he felt he was being manipulated, but he also needed money to move out of a recreational vehicle in Yulee, Florida. Smith said throwing the ring into the deal raised the settlement to $600,000 from roughly $300,000.

    “I think we should have gotten a million for everything they did to me,” Orr said.

    The AP was first to report the peculiar deal on Oct. 23. When state police were asked to explain why it was appropriate, spokesperson Shanon Banner said the department was “not comfortable.”

    Additional talks among lawyers led to a new agreement: Orr gets the ring back, while taxpayers will still be on the hook for $600,000 to close the police misconduct lawsuit. Banner acknowledged the terms this week.

    For decades, Orr allowed the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum in Paradise, Michigan, to display the orange ring, which has “Fitzgerald” in stenciled letters. Now he might sell it at auction.

    Orr said he’s trying to buy a modular home and his wife’s car “is on its last legs.”

    “I need all the money I can get,” he said.

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

  • Google lawsuit accuses China-based cybercriminals of massive text-message phishing scams

    Google is filing a federal lawsuit against a network of foreign cybercriminals based in China that is accused of launching massive text-message phishing attacks, the tech giant told CBS News in an exclusive interview.

    Google said the messages are part of a criminal network called “Lighthouse.” The texts look legitimate, often warning recipients of a “stuck package” or an “unpaid toll,” but they’re actually phishing or what’s called smishing — a type of phishing scam that uses text messages to try to trick recipients into revealing personal and sensitive information, such as passwords and credit card numbers, which are then stolen.

    “These scammers ended up compromising anywhere from 15 [million] to 100 million potential credit cards within the U.S. and impacted, at our current estimates, over a million victims,” Google’s general counsel, Halimah DeLaine Prado, told CBS News.

    DeLaine Prado said Google has filed what it calls a first-of-its-kind lawsuit under the RICO Act, which is typically used to take down organized crime rings.

    The case targets unknown operators — listed as John Does 1 through 25 — who allegedly built a “phishing-as-a-service” platform to power mass text attacks.

    DeLaine Prado said the lawsuit is not meant specifically to help victims recover any losses, but rather to serve as a “deterrent for future criminals to create similar enterprises.”

    Google said it found more than 100 fake sites using its logo to trick people into handing over passwords or credit card numbers. According to its complaint, it estimates the group has stolen sensitive information linked to tens of millions of credit cards in the U.S. alone.

    Kevin Gosschalk, the CEO of cybersecurity firm Arkose Labs, said that while recovering lost money is a challenge, lawsuits like Google’s could help disrupt scammers’ operations.

    “It has an impact on the ecosystem,” Gosschalk told CBS News. He said that if there are three major players and you go after the big one and take it down, “then the other two start second-guessing, ‘Hey, should we be in this business, or should we get out of this business?'” 

    Google’s move appears aimed as much at setting a legal precedent as at seeking punishment — testing whether a 1970s racketeering law can be applied to a 21st-century digital crime.

    Gosschalk said it will be very hard for Google to go after cybercriminals overseas since a lot of them also operate in countries like Cambodia, where there are limited extradition laws.

    “But it does mean the individuals behind those things will not be able to travel to the U.S. in the future, so it does add extra risk,” Gosschalk said.

    Users can avoid text scams by not clicking links or replying to unknown messages. On an iPhone, users can turn on “Filter Unknown Senders” and “Filter Junk.” On Android, enable Spam Protection and forward scam texts to 7726 (SPAM). 

    Note that those filters can also catch legitimate messages from numbers that are not in the phone’s contact list, so be sure to check the unknown senders or spam folder once in a while. 

    Source link

  • ICE is lawlessly detaining Coloradans, the judicial branch is our only hope (Editorial)

    Federal immigration officials are out of control, and America’s third branch of government needs to rein in the gross abuse of power on display in Colorado and across the nation.

    Gregory Davies, a high-level federal official overseeing deportation arrests in Colorado, told a judge last month that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials did not have a warrant to arrest Fernando Jaramillo-Solano. But the agents arrested Jaramillo-Solano anyway after mistakenly pulling the Durango man over while he was on his way to drop off his 12-year-old and 15-year-old children at school. ICE officials detained all three, and they spent weeks in Durango before they were shipped to Dilley, Texas.

    This is no simple mistake that is easily rectified.

    ICE is causing real harm to contributing members of our community  — teachers, nurses, mothers and fathers. And children are traumatized in the wake of these unjustified detainments.

    President Donald Trump has upended the mission at ICE, a part of Homeland Security that was once dedicated to keeping Americans safe by deporting criminals. The president has said he plans to deport the more than 13 million people who live in the United States without legal immigration status, regardless of whether they have committed other crimes. But he has gone farther than that, and his agents are now detaining people who do have legal status. The intent is clear — push out immigrants even who are doing everything right.

    Trump’s intent is that the people his agents wrongfully detain will either self-deport becasue conditions are so poor in the federal facilities or that if a judge orders their release, they will be silenced by their fear of reprisal, after all, they were detained once; who can protect these individuals from being detained again?

    But Trump has calculated wrong. These brave victims of Trump’s mass deportation policy are speaking out, and have filed a lawsuit together to try and prevent ICE from terrorizing people.

    Caroline Dias Goncalves, the 19-year-old college student who was detained in Grand Junction and held for almost three weeks in a detention center in Aurora because a sheriff’s deputy thought her perfect English was broken by an accent, testified that her detainment has dramatically affected her life.

    She lost her driver’s license, moved back home and has reduced her course load at the University of Utah.

    To Davies she might be “collateral” damage, but to us she is an injured kid trying to rebuild her life. Her arrest was completely unnecessary and likely illegal. If people like Davies don’t step up to make sure that ICE agents are doing their jobs – targeting and arresting criminals for deportation – then who will?

    The answer of course is that the judicial branch must act as a strong check on the abuses of the executive branch.

    Trump’s immigration enforcement squad cannot just smash and grab Coloradans because they suspect someone might be here illegally. And if these agents do, there must be legal consequences for them and their bosses, no matter how high the orders have come from.

    Gonclaves was lucky. She was released.

    The Denver Post Editorial Board

    Source link

  • BetMGM Fraud Case Moves Forward Despite Attempts to Dismiss

    A New Jersey Superior Court judge has ruled that a lawsuit accusing BetMGM of changing the rules of a high-profile casino contest as it was ongoing will proceed. The court rejected the gambling company’s efforts to have the case dismissed, meaning that the court action will proceed as normal. This development only adds to the bad news for the platform, which will soon undergo its second transformation.

    BetMGM Allegedly Favored a High-Rolling Patron

    Judge Danielle Walcoff denied BetMGM’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Laurence Murk, a Franklin Lakes resident. The plaintiff alleges that the company manipulated its “2 Million Dollar Super Series” promotion in favor of a high-rolling patron. This newest ruling means that Murk’s accusations of fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act will advance to discovery.

    In May 2021, Murk took part in BetMGM’s month-long online casino event, which promised a $500,000 bonus and daily free spins to the top player on a leaderboard based on total wagers. The lawsuit alleges that Murk, who is paralyzed from the waist down, devised a plan to stay ahead, betting roughly $1.5 million over a couple of months to remain ahead.

    However, on May 11, the determined bettor suddenly lost his leadership position. Out of nowhere, a new player, known simply by the username “Broker,” appeared at the top of the leaderboard, having scored an unbelievable 800,000 points overnight. Murk suspects that BetMGM staff added those points to Broker’s account and allowed him into the promotion even though he had not played the qualifying games.

    The Judge Pointed to Inconsistencies in BetMGM’s Conduct

    Murk argues BetMGM’s conduct was deceptive and unlawful, arguing that the company induced him to keep gambling without intending to deliver on its promises. Murk also alleged that when he questioned the leaderboard modification, BetMGM attempted to confuse state regulators. However, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) declined to intervene, classifying the dispute as a promotional issue.

    Left to his own devices, Murk opted to pursue the case privately. Court documents allege that BetMGM may have placed Broker into the promotion as a one-time courtesy due to his high-roller status. The plaintiff argues that BetMGM did not provide notice of any rule change permitting this action. His legal team also insists that the general terms and conditions did not apply to the specific contest.

    Judge Walcoff pointed out that Broker’s inclusion without informing players and BetMGM’s lack of evidence that the plaintiff agreed to contest-specific terms presented sufficient reasons to deny dismissal. If Murk wins, he could claim more than $2.5 million in compensation, including lost promotional prizes and projected earnings.

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link