The Federal Trade Commission reached a $100 million
multi-state settlement with Walmart over allegations the company deceived
customers and drivers who participated in its Spark Driver Program.
North Carolina was one of several states that sued
the company on behalf of delivery drivers and customers. As part of the
settlement, Walmart must pay its delivery drivers in North Carolina $2 million
for stealing their tips and other payments, Attorney General Jeff Jackson announced
Friday.
The retail giant will also pay another $10 million to be
refunded to delivery customers in North Carolina and nine other states. That’s
for the tips people thought they were paying individual drivers, but which
Walmart kept for itself.
“Walmart misled its drivers and its customers so that the
company could keep tips and other money that belonged to drivers,” Jackson
wrote in a news release. “I’m grateful for the federal government’s
partnership on this case to make Walmart pay back millions for North Carolina
drivers.”
Walmart has run the Spark Driver program since 2018.
Customers can use the Spark App to order products from
Walmart for home delivery, and people can sign up to be drivers on the app.
Drivers pick up products from Walmart stores and deliver them to customers, and
they use the app to view and select offers to complete deliveries for payment.
These offers include an estimate of how much the driver will earn from the
delivery, including the base amount Walmart will pay the driver and any pre-tip
the customer has selected to pay.
New York state’s attorney general is suing Valve over its use of loot boxes in games like Counter-Strike 2. Attorney General Letitia James said Valve “enables gambling through” its popular multiplayer games.
On February 25, the New York attorney general’s office filed a lawsuit against Valve in Manhattan. The state is accusing Valve, the company behind Steam, the largest digital gaming store on the planet, of violating its laws against gambling while also claiming its loot boxes will lead to children becoming addicted to gambling.
“Illegal gambling can be harmful and lead to serious addiction problems, especially for our young people,” said Attorney General James. “Valve has made billions of dollars by letting children and adults alike illegally gamble for the chance to win valuable virtual prizes. These features are addictive, harmful, and illegal, and my office is suing to stop Valve’s illegal conduct and protect New Yorkers.” In the lawsuit and a press release, the state even directly compared Valve’s loot boxes to slot machines.
Attorney General James criticized Valve’s system of charging people to buy digital keys to open virtual loot boxes and said that “Valve intentionally makes some items far harder to win than others, making the rare items more valuable.” In 2024, a single Counter-Strike skin sold for over $1 million.
In its lawsuit against Valve, New York is seeking to permanently stop Valve from promoting gambling features in its video games and wants to force the company behind Half-Life to pay various fines for violating New York’s law.
The family of Rajon Belt-Stubblefield served notice Monday to the city of Aurora that they intend to file a lawsuit in connection with the August shooting death of the unarmed Black man.
Belt-Stubblefield was 37 when he was shot and killed by an Aurora police officer during an Aug. 30 traffic stop, and his then 18-year-old son witnessed the shooting. A notice of claim — a legal step necessary before suing the city — was filed on behalf of Belt-Stubblefield’s family and a second notice was filed on behalf of his son, Zion Murphy.
The family, along with their lawyer Milo Schwab, held a news conference to announce the filing and then attended the Aurora City Council meeting where they spoke about a lack of transparency surrounding the shooting and a need for accountability for officer Matthew Neely, who fired the fatal shots. Neely’s name had not been released by the police department.
“No child should ever have to witness that,” said Erica Murphy, Zion Murphy’s mother. “No child should have to carry the trauma for the rest of their life. Rajon was more than a headline. He was more than a police report. He was a father. He was loved. He mattered.”
On the night of the shooting, Neely tried to pull over Belt-Stubblefield for speeding and a possible DUI near East Sixth Avenue and Sable Boulevard. Zion Murphy was driving behind his father in another car.
AURORA, CO – FEBRUARY 23: Family and attorneys of Rajon Belt-Stubblefield hold a press conference at the Aurora Municipal Center to announce legal action concerning Belt-Stubblefield who was fatally shot by Aurora police last August on February 23, 2026 in Aurora, Colorado. After the press conference, the crowd gather inside the Aurora City Council chambers to address the mayor and council members. (Photo By Kathryn Scott/Special to The Denver Post)
Belt-Stubblefield fled and then rear-ended one car before crossing a median and hitting a second vehicle. He was armed but tossed a handgun into the grass before walking toward the officer, Aurora police Chief Todd Chamberlain said at the time.
Belt-Stubblefield ignored orders to stop and raised his hands, and Neely punched him in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, according to Chamberlain’s account in the days after the shooting. Belt-Stubblefield raised his fist and repeatedly asked if the officer was “ready for this,” Chamberlain said.
The officer shot Belt-Stubblefield as he continued to move toward him, backing Neely into the street, Chamberlain said.
Belt-Stubblefield died at the scene.
But the notices of claim filed by Schwab offer a different perspective on what happened.
Neely pointed his weapon at Belt-Stubblefield as soon as he exited his wrecked car, and Belt-Stubblefield asked the officer not to shoot him as he tossed his gun into the grass. Neely tried to grab Belt-Stubblefield by the neck and take him to the ground, but the officer is the one who fell, according to the notice of claim. Belt-Stubblefield did not take aggressive action and tried to walk away.
Neely then followed Belt-Stubblefield, shoved him in the back and then as Belt-Stubblefield turned to speak to his son Neely “suckerpunched Mr. Belt-Stubblefield in the back of the head, causing Mr. Belt-Stubblefield to put his fists up to protect his head,” the notice of claim stated.
Neely backed into the street with his gun and fired three times. The first two shots struck Belt-Stubblefield in the chest, and he stopped and looked at Neely. Neely then fired the third shot into Belton-Stubblefield’s head, killing him at the scene, the notice of claim said.
Schwab said the city has not communicated with the family in the six months since the shooting, and the officer has not been disciplined for his actions.
“We’ve given it six months,” he said. “We’re done waiting.”
The shooting drew national attention, leading prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump to visit with Belt-Stubblefield’s widow and to condemn the fatal shooting.
Aurora has been in the spotlight for police brutality multiple times in the past decade, most notably for the 2019 killing of Elijah McClain, an unarmed 23-year-old Black man who died during a violent arrest even though he had not committed a crime. McClain’s name became a rallying cry in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.
Two Aurora paramedics and a police officer were convicted for their roles in McClain’s death. Two others were acquitted, and the city paid $15 million to McClain’s parents to settle a civil rights lawsuit.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser placed the department under a consent decree after McClain’s death after his investigation found a pattern of racially biased police and excessive force within the department.
In 2015, Aurora paid a $2.6 million settlement — the largest in city history at the time — to the family of Naeschylus Carter-Vinzant, an unarmed Black man who shot by a city police officer. Officers were trying to serve an arrest warrant after Carter-Vinzant had removed a monitoring bracelet from his ankle. That settlement also came with an agreement from the city to improve police oversight and to improve community relations.
The family of Kilyn Lewis, an unarmed Black man killed by Aurora police in 2024, sued the city in May for wrongful death. That case is pending.
A lawsuit filed Monday against the Department of Homeland Security accuses federal agents at the Bishop Henry Whipple Building in Minneapolis of barring faith leaders from offering prayer and pastoral guidance to detainees.
Denying people in custody from receiving ministry or spiritual comfort is a violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the suit says.
Groundwork Legal and Saul Ewing are representing the Minneapolis Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ and Father Christopher Collins, a Jesuit priest. The DHS, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Head Todd Lyons are among those listed as defendants.
The Whipple Building near Fort Snelling serves as the epicenter of ICE’s operations in Minnesota. Rep. Kelly Morrison, who visited the site earlier this month, said she saw people in leg shackles on cold cement floors with no beds or blankets.
According to the lawsuit, faith leaders have been leading prayer vigils at the Whipple Building since at least 2018.
In December, during the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Collins attempted to enter Whipple to pray for a woman, but he was blocked from accessing the building and ministering, the lawsuit says.
Last week on Ash Wednesday, a reverend attempted to provide care and impose ashes on the holy day of prayer, but was denied access. The lawsuit says she was directed to an ICE waiting room and was told by a federal employee that she would not be permitted to access anyone inside for “security” and “safety” reasons.
The employee said that faith leaders had tried to enter the building four times a week since the onset of Operation Metro Surge, but had been denied each time, according to the suit. A clergy member attempted to provide care as recently as Monday morning, but was denied.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in a written statement about the lawsuit said, “The Whipple Federal Building is not a detention facility—it is a field office. Illegal aliens are only briefly held there for processing before being transferred to a detention facility. Religious organizations are more than welcome to provide services to detainees in ICE detention facilities. It is not within standard operating procedure for religious services to be provided in a field office, as detainees are continuously brought in, processed, and transferred out.”
“Constitutional rights do not disappear at the doors of the Whipple,” said Irina Vaynerman, CEO of Groundwork Legal. “The way we treat those in detention or facing deportation is one of the true litmus tests of our democracy. Pastoral care allows for detainees to be treated with humanity, instead of being treated like inventory.”
Conditions at the Whipple building have been under scrutiny since the beginning of the federal government’s enhanced immigration enforcement operation in the state. U.S. citizens who have been taken into custody at the site have described agonizing cries coming from other detainees inside the building, including children.
Last week during a Congressional oversight visit, Reps. Ilhan Omar and Angie Craig said the building was “completely empty,” as ICE had moved detainees into certain county jails.
BOSTON — Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell has joined a new multistate lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking to recoup more than $7.2 billion in frozen energy and infrastructure grants.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in California by Campbell and 12 other attorneys general, challenges an “unlawful decision” by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget to withhold the funding for renewable energy projects in mostly Democratic-led states.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
A small office complex in the Denver Tech Center has been placed into receivership following a loan default, and its owner expects the lender to take the building.
“The Colorado office market is a joke. It is beyond bad,” said Pat Melton, director of leasing for the Canadian firm Melcor.
In 2016, Melcor paid $16.85 million for The Offices at the Promenade, a 132,000-square-foot complex at 7935 and 7995 E. Prentice Ave. in Greenwood Village.
Two years later, records show, the company took out a $10.6 million loan on the property from Genworth Life Insurance Co. that it needed to pay off by the end of June 2025. But the company did not do that and still couldn’t pay when Genworth gave it three extra months.
That’s according to GLIC Real Estate Holding, a subsidiary of Genworth that was assigned the loan last month.
GLIC says Melcor owed $9 million on the loan as of Jan. 28, with interest continuing to accrue at the default rate of 9.9% annually.
In a Feb. 5 lawsuit, GLIC asked the court to appoint Trigild IVL LLC as receiver to oversee the property. Arapahoe County District Judge Joseph Riley Whitfield signed off on the request Feb. 9.
Melton, the Melcor executive, said the Denver-area office market is way worse than in Phoenix, Arizona, the other U.S. market where Melcor owns office space.
“Things are healthy in Phoenix,” he said.
In Colorado, leasing demand has “gone way down,” Melton said.
“So much vacancy, and costs are so high,” Melton said of the market. “And so many brokers with their hands out for money.”
Melton said his firm tried to make a deal with the Offices at the Promenade lender, but when it was rejected, “we basically just said, ‘Take it.’”
It may not be the only Colorado building that Melcor loses. Melton said it’s “highly likely that we’re going to be in the same position at Syracuse,” referring to the 83,000-square-foot Syracuse Hill building at 6021 S. Syracuse Way in Greenwood Village.
“I think that market’s a lost cause,” he said of the Denver office market. “We kind of gave up on it.”
Melcor also owns the office complex at 6, 8 and 10 Inverness Court East in unincorporated Arapahoe County.
Bayer said on Tuesday that its Monsanto chemical subsidiary has proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve lawsuits by customers alleging that its Roundup weedkiller product caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
If the settlement wins court approval, Monsanto would make annual payments for up to 21 years. People diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were exposed to Roundup before the proposed legal remedy was announced on Tuesday can file a claim to receive payments, according to Reuters.
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a type of cancer that develops in white blood cells called lymphocytes, which are part of the body’s infection-fighting immune system.
Bayer said in a statement that the agreement does not include any admission of liability or wrongdoing. Bayer said these resolutions will increase its litigation liability from 7.8 billion euros ($9.2 billion) to 11.8 billion euros ($13.9 billion).
Bayer, a German agricultural and pharmaceutical company, also said Tuesday that it had reached agreements to resolve other Roundup-related cases. The terms of those additional settlements were not disclosed.
Bayer has faced thousands of lawsuits linked to Roundup since it bought Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion. In 2020, Bayer announced it would pay up to $10.9 billion to settle some 125,000 filed and unfiled claims. Three years later, a jury awarded a California man $332 million after deciding that Monsanto had failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks of using Roundup.
Roundup is still available for sale online and from other major retailers. Bayer maintains that Roundup products are safe and that their ingredients have been thoroughly tested and reviewed.
A federal district court in Northern California ruled in favor of Cameo, a platform that allows users to get personalized video messages from celebrities, and ordered OpenAI to stop using “Cameo” in its products and features.
OpenAI was using the “Cameo” name for its AI-powered video generation app Sora 2. Users could use that feature to insert digital likenesses of themselves into AI-generated videos. In a ruling filed Saturday, the court said the name was similar enough to cause user confusion, and rejected OpenAI’s argument that “Cameo” was merely descriptive, finding that “it suggests rather than describes the feature.”
“We have spent nearly a decade building a brand that stands for talent-friendly interactions and genuine connection, and we like to say that ‘every Cameo is a commercial for the next one.” Cameo CEO Steven Galanis said in a statement.
“This ruling is a critical victory not just for our company, but for the integrity of our marketplace and the thousands of creators who trust the Cameo name. We will continue to vigorously defend our intellectual property against any platform that attempts to trade on the goodwill and recognition we have worked so hard to establish,” he noted.
“We disagree with the complaint’s assertion that anyone can claim exclusive ownership over the word ‘cameo,’ and we look forward to continuing to make our case,” an OpenAI spokesperson told Reuters in response to the ruling.
OpenAI has been involved in several intellectual property cases in recent months. Earlier this month, the company ditched “IO” branding around its upcoming hardware products, according to court documents obtained by WIRED. In November, digital library app OverDrive sued OpenAI over its use of “Sora” for its video generation app. The company is also in legal disputes with various artists, creatives, and media groups in various geographies over copyright violations.
An internal research study at Meta dubbed “Project MYST” created in partnership with the University of Chicago, found that parental supervision and controls — such as time limits and restricted access — had little impact on kids’ compulsive use of social media. The study also found that kids who experienced stressful life events were more likely to lack the ability to moderate their social media use appropriately.
This was one of the notable claims revealed during testimony at the social media addiction trial that began last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is identified by her initials “KGM” or her first name, “Kaley.” She, along with her mother and others joining the case, is accusing social media companies of creating “addictive and dangerous” products that led the young users to suffer anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, eating disorders, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and more.
The case is now one of several landmark trials that will take place this year, which accuse social media companies of harming children. The results of these lawsuits will impact these companies’ approach to their younger users and could prompt regulators to take further action.
In this case, the plaintiff sued Meta, YouTube, ByteDance (TikTok), and Snap, but the latter two companies hadsettled their claims before the trial’s start.
In the jury trial now underway in L.A., Kaley’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, brought up an internal study at Meta, which he said found evidence that Meta knew of, yet didn’t publicize, these specific harms.
In Project MYST, which stands for the Meta and Youth Social Emotional Trends survey, Meta’s research concluded that “parental and household factors have little association with teens’ reported levels of attentiveness to their social media use.”
Or, in other words, even when parents try to control their children’s social media use, either by using parental controls or even just household rules and supervision, it doesn’t impact whether or not the child will overuse social media or use it compulsively. The study was based on a survey of 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use.
The study also noted that both parents and teens agreed on this front, saying “there is no association between either parental reports or teen reports of parental supervision, and teens’ survey measures of attentiveness or capability.”
If the study’s findings are accurate, that would mean that the use of things like the built-in parental controls in the Instagram app or the time limits on smartphones wouldn’t necessarily help teens become less inclined to overuse social media, the plaintiff’s lawyer argued. As the original complaint alleges, teens are being exploited by social media products, whose defects include algorithmic feeds designed to keep users scrolling, intermittent variable rewards that manipulate dopamine delivery, incessant notifications, deficient tools for parental controls, and more.
During his testimony, Instagram head Adam Mosseri claimed not to be familiar with Meta’s Project MYST, even though a document seemed to indicate he had given his approval to move forward with the study.
“We do a lot of research projects,” Mosseri said, after claiming he couldn’t remember anything specific about MYST beyond its name.
However, the plaintiff’s lawyer pointed to this study as an example of why social media companies should be held accountable for their alleged harms, not the parents. He noted that Kaley’s mother, for example, had tried to stop her daughter’s social media addiction and use, even taking her phone away at times.
What’s more, the study found that teens who had a greater number of adverse life experiences — like those dealing with alcoholic parents, harassment at school, or other issues — reported less attentiveness over their social media use. That means that kids facing trauma in their real lives were more at risk of addiction, the lawyer argued.
On the stand, Mosseri seemed to partially agree with this finding, saying, “There’s a variety of reasons this can be the case. One I’ve heard often is that people use Instagram as a way to escape from a more difficult reality.” Meta is careful not to label any sort of overuse as addiction; instead, Mosseri stated that the company uses the term “problematic use” to refer to someone “spending more time on Instagram than they feel good about.”
Lawyers for Meta, meanwhile, pushed the idea that the study was more narrowly focused on understanding if teens felt they were using social media too much, not whether or not they were actually addicted. They also generally aimed to put more of the responsibility on parents and the realities of life as the catalyst for kids like Kaley’s negative emotional states, not companies’ social media products.
For instance, Meta’s lawyers pointed to Kaley being a child of divorced parents, with an abusive father, and facing bullying at school.
How the jury will interpret the findings of studies like Project MYST and others, along with the testimonies from both sides, remains to be seen. Mosseri did note, however, that MYST’s findings had not been published publicly, and no warnings were ever issued to teens or parents as a result of the research.
Colorado Department of Corrections officials forced inmates to work prison jobs through coercion that ultimately amounted to involuntary servitude, a Denver judge ruled Friday.
The state’s prisons unconstitutionally coerced labor by levying severe punishments — including solitary confinement — against prisoners who refused to work, Denver District Court Judge Sarah Wallace found in the 61-page ruling.
“By creating a framework where failure to work triggers a sequence of restrictions that culminate in a more restrictive ‘custody level’ and physical isolation, CDOC has established a system of compulsion that overrides the voluntariness of the (prisoners’) labor,” Wallace wrote.
The ruling comes out of a 2022 lawsuit in which state prisoners claimed the Department of Corrections’ approach to prison labor amounted to involuntary servitude or slavery, which Colorado voters outlawed in 2018 via Amendment A.
Prisoners in Colorado are expected to work prison jobs, which include food preparation, janitorial services and other positions within their facilities. They are paid well below minimum wage for the work. They can choose not to work, but doing so is a disciplinary infraction for which prisoners are punished, according to court filings.
State attorneys argued during the October trial that prisoners’ labor was voluntary, and that punishments for failing to work, while “uncomfortable,” did not rise to the level of coercion legally required to constitute involuntary servitude.
Wallace found that the punishments for failing to work included the “threat and use of segregation and isolation,” and that officials kept prisoners isolated in cells for more than 22 hours a day.
The judge ordered the Department of Corrections to stop using solitary confinement that lasts longer than three days to punish prisoners for failing to work, and to stop stacking disciplinary infractions related to failure to work to increase the severity of possible punishments. The order will take effect in 28 days to allow state officials time to appeal.
“The machinery of coercion is not isolated, but is a pervasive and actively operationalized feature of CDOC’s labor management,” Wallace wrote. “By consistently applying these policies, CDOC ensures the threat of punishment remains a credible and ever-present driver of inmate labor.”
Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for Attorney General Phil Weiser, said Weiser was reviewing the court’s ruling. He declined to comment further.
Representatives for the Department of Corrections did not immediately return a request for comment Monday.
The Brian Flores-led discrimination lawsuit against the NFL can proceed to open court and avoid the league’s arbitration process, a federal judge ruled Friday.
Flores, who is joined in the lawsuit by Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, sued the league and three teams in February 2022 after he was fired the previous month by the Miami Dolphins. Now the Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator, Flores alleged in his original suit that the league was “rife with racism” regarding its hiring practices when it comes to Black coaches.
The NFL argued Flores should go through the league’s arbitration process rather than the legal system, but Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York sided with the plaintiffs.
“The court’s decision recognizes that an arbitration forum in which the defendant’s own chief executive gets to decide the case would strip employees of their rights under the law,” Flores’ attorneys Douglas H. Wigdor and David E. Gottlieb said in a statement. “It is long overdue for the NFL to recognize this and finally provide a fair, neutral and transparent forum for these issues to be addressed.”
The NFL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A pretrial hearing has been set for April 3.
Flores was fired after going 24-25 record over three years without a playoff appearances. The Dolphins did have back-to-back winning seasons before Flores was dismissed.
He sued the NFL as well as the Denver Broncos, New York Giants and Houston Texans. Flores interviewed with the Broncos in 2019 and the Giants and Texans in 2022.
Wilks, who was fired in December as the New York Jets defensive coordinator, joined the lawsuit by claiming the Arizona Cardinals in 2018 hired him as a “bridge coach” and didn’t provide him with a realistic chance to succeed.
Horton, who last coached in the NFL in 2019, alleged the Tennessee Titans didn’t offer him a genuine interview for the head coaching position in 2016.
In a park just east of Sacramento, Jake Molieri guided us through his service Snakeout where he trains dogs and dog owners how to avoid rattlesnakes on hiking trails and parks. “They are obviously an animal that are dangerous if you get into an altercation and provoking them,” Molieri said. “They are never going to chase you or go after you.”Molieri currently uses his albino rattlesnake called Mr. Cheese for training. However, that snake is not the most ideal one to use for his business. “The only reason we are able to continue operating and continue doing the service is because we use these albino, which is not ideal because they are really hard to acquire,” he said. The State Department of Fish and Wildlife told Molieri he is not allowed to operate if he uses regular rattlesnakes that are found in Northern California. The state claims he violated regulations that protect those animals from being used for profit. “They told me the classes you’re doing are like illegal, you’re illegally commercializing these animals,” Molieri said. However, Molieri claims there is a gray area that needs to be changed. “The regulations they are citing were written back in the day with the idea of like, hey you can’t go out into the woods and catch a bunch of snakes and sell them into the pet trade and the skin industry,” he said. “They’re taking that idea and applying it to this dog class and saying that we’re basically selling the snakes. The snakes are not changing hands. The snakes are my snakes.”He filed a lawsuit to try to get the regulations changed. CDFW said in a statement: “Current regulations prohibit the take or possession of any native species unless specifically permitted by regulation for commercial purposes, as it presents a financial gain to motivate take. That commercial motivation can have negative impacts on native populations.”The lawsuit is still going through the court system. He hopes they can reach an agreement to change regulations that benefit his business and keep snakes safe. “We want to see more snakes being alive, less dogs getting bit and everyone having an understanding that nobody wants to get into an altercation with each other, but the state’s making it really hard,” he said. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
In a park just east of Sacramento, Jake Molieri guided us through his service Snakeout where he trains dogs and dog owners how to avoid rattlesnakes on hiking trails and parks.
“They are obviously an animal that are dangerous if you get into an altercation and provoking them,” Molieri said. “They are never going to chase you or go after you.”
Molieri currently uses his albino rattlesnake called Mr. Cheese for training. However, that snake is not the most ideal one to use for his business.
“The only reason we are able to continue operating and continue doing the service is because we use these albino, which is not ideal because they are really hard to acquire,” he said.
The State Department of Fish and Wildlife told Molieri he is not allowed to operate if he uses regular rattlesnakes that are found in Northern California. The state claims he violated regulations that protect those animals from being used for profit.
“They told me the classes you’re doing are like illegal, you’re illegally commercializing these animals,” Molieri said.
However, Molieri claims there is a gray area that needs to be changed.
“The regulations they are citing were written back in the day with the idea of like, hey you can’t go out into the woods and catch a bunch of snakes and sell them into the pet trade and the skin industry,” he said. “They’re taking that idea and applying it to this dog class and saying that we’re basically selling the snakes. The snakes are not changing hands. The snakes are my snakes.”
He filed a lawsuit to try to get the regulations changed.
CDFW said in a statement: “Current regulations prohibit the take or possession of any native species unless specifically permitted by regulation for commercial purposes, as it presents a financial gain to motivate take. That commercial motivation can have negative impacts on native populations.”
The lawsuit is still going through the court system. He hopes they can reach an agreement to change regulations that benefit his business and keep snakes safe.
“We want to see more snakes being alive, less dogs getting bit and everyone having an understanding that nobody wants to get into an altercation with each other, but the state’s making it really hard,” he said.
Is this real life or the most extra episode of courtroom couture we’ve ever witnessed?!
Blake Lively apparently decided that if she was going to spend her morning in mediation over her explosive legal battle with Justin Baldoni, she was going to do it her way. And by her way, we mean with a luxury mahjong set delivered straight to the courthouse door. Seriously. You cannot make this stuff up.
According to Page Six, the former Gossip Girl star arrived bright and early around 8:30 a.m. for a mediation session tied to her sexual harassment lawsuit against Baldoni. The talks reportedly kicked off around 10 a.m., with both sides attempting to hammer out a pre-trial settlement. Tense? Surely. Dramatic? Obviously. Slow-moving? Uh, apparently so.
By around 11 a.m., as the legal back-and-forth dragged on, Lively allegedly decided she needed a little distraction. Enter: her chauffeur. According to insiders speaking to the news outlet on Thursday, her driver pulled up to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse carrying a full mahjong set for the actress. Yes, a centuries-old Chinese tile game became the unexpected star of this already headline-grabbing showdown.
Lively has been open about her love for mahjong in the past. In fact, she previously gushed to Vogue about teaching her friends how to play. And apparently she doesn’t just dabble. She invests! Word is she favors sets from Oh My Mahjong, which can cost up to $500. That’s not exactly drugstore board game pricing. And now that set (or another one) is in court, apparently!
Meanwhile, the stakes in this case are anything but playful. Lively has accused Baldoni not only of sexual harassment but also of attempting to damage her reputation during their time filming It Ends With Us. Meanwhile, he has denied any wrongdoing.
Still, the image of a Hollywood A-lister passing time with ornate tiles while lawyers work is almost too on-brand. It’s giving bored board queen energy! LOLz!
And TBH, we’ll be watching every tile that falls from here on out. How about U??
UC Davis is facing a federal lawsuit, with lawyers having filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to keep the women’s equestrian team competing at the varsity level. The lawsuit comes after the university decided to drop the team earlier this year.Supporters are also taking their fight to the public. Equestrian alumna Olivia Russell is helping with a media campaign blitz through television commercials, a website called “Keep Davis Riding”, social media, and a petition. “For the media campaign, we’re really just making a lot of noise,” Russell said. She expressed her concerns about the university’s January decision. “If it’s really a budget issue, phase the team out. But to cut it mid-season is really weird and really cruel,” Russell said. “The hope is, of course, they’re reinstated for years to come.”Sacramento attorney Bill Janicki is representing several student-athletes, who are remaining anonymous for fear of retribution. They’re suing the regents, the university and school leaders. “No feedback, no dialog, nothing. And so this was our only recourse,” Janicki said. The lawsuit claims fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent concealment, alleging that UC Davis leaders knew for months or even years they were going to cut the program. The lawsuit states that “the university misrepresented and suppressed material facts concerning the future of the equestrian program, inducing plaintiffs to commit, enroll, or remain at UC Davis under false pretenses. “Court documents also argue that “monetary damages alone cannot remedy the loss of NCAA eligibility, competitive opportunities, recruiting exposure, and career trajectories associated with Division I athletics.”Janicki emphasized the need for transparency. “It would have been full disclosure to say, ‘Hey, this team’s at risk. It’s on the chopping block. And that should have been told to students before they commit… sign pieces of paper and relocate across the country,” Janicki said. “They need to fulfill the obligation they gave to (the athletes) when they came for athletics.” Ultimately, it could be up to a judge to decide if the athletes get to keep riding on the national level. The motion hearing for a preliminary injunction is set for March 19.KCRA 3 asked for an on-camera interview with the university. We received this statement.UC Davis is committed to our student-athletes and strives to provide the best environment for them to succeed.The decision to return the Equestrian team to a club sport after seven years as an NCAA sport was difficult. As the Athletics Director stated when the decision was announced, the change was driven by an assessment of financial considerations and the national competitive landscape in this sport, including an independent third-party review.As it has for most of its history, the Equestrian team will continue as a club sport. Our current Equestrian student-athletes will continue to receive athletics-related financial aid, academic advising, tutoring and other resources for the entirety of their undergraduate careers at UC Davis. All coaches’ contracts will be honored through their current terms. We understand the disappointment this decision has caused. We are proud of our Equestrian student-athletes, coaches and their success. They’ve brought incredible recognition to UC Davis and to our Athletics program. While petitions and advocacy reflect genuine passion, university officials must make decisions based on sustainability, equity, and institutional responsibility, and have done so here.”These decisions were made following extensive external and internal analysis and thoughtful collaboration with campus leadership. As the landscape of Division I athletics continues to evolve, it is important that we regularly evaluate how we best align our resources to support student-athletes, advance gender equity, and position UC Davis Athletics for long-term success. Our student-athletes across the board—including those in Equestrian—are dedicated, talented, and driven. They represent UC Davis with tremendous pride and excellence.”–Rocko DeLuca, Athletic DirectorAdditional points: The university is operating with constrained resources. All UC Davis schools and departments, including Athletics, are required to reduce their budgets over the next two years. Not enough universities field teams to make the sport a viable collegiate competitive platform. Only 14 Division I institutions nationally sponsor dual discipline Equestrian under the National Collegiate Equestrian Association. The university remains fully committed to its research, teaching and medical services related to equine activities. The decision to reclassify the Equestrian team in no way affects the Weill School of Veterinary Medicine or the College of Agricultural and Environmental Science, or the resources for animals on our campus. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
DAVIS, Calif. —
UC Davis is facing a federal lawsuit, with lawyers having filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to keep the women’s equestrian team competing at the varsity level. The lawsuit comes after the university decided to drop the team earlier this year.
Supporters are also taking their fight to the public. Equestrian alumna Olivia Russell is helping with a media campaign blitz through television commercials, a website called “Keep Davis Riding”, social media, and a petition.
“For the media campaign, we’re really just making a lot of noise,” Russell said.
She expressed her concerns about the university’s January decision.
“If it’s really a budget issue, phase the team out. But to cut it mid-season is really weird and really cruel,” Russell said. “The hope is, of course, they’re reinstated for years to come.”
Sacramento attorney Bill Janicki is representing several student-athletes, who are remaining anonymous for fear of retribution. They’re suing the regents, the university and school leaders.
“No feedback, no dialog, nothing. And so this was our only recourse,” Janicki said.
The lawsuit claims fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent concealment, alleging that UC Davis leaders knew for months or even years they were going to cut the program.
The lawsuit states that “the university misrepresented and suppressed material facts concerning the future of the equestrian program, inducing plaintiffs to commit, enroll, or remain at UC Davis under false pretenses. “
Court documents also argue that “monetary damages alone cannot remedy the loss of NCAA eligibility, competitive opportunities, recruiting exposure, and career trajectories associated with Division I athletics.”
Janicki emphasized the need for transparency.
“It would have been full disclosure to say, ‘Hey, this team’s at risk. It’s on the chopping block. And that should have been told to students before they commit… sign pieces of paper and relocate across the country,” Janicki said. “They need to fulfill the obligation they gave to (the athletes) when they came for athletics.”
Ultimately, it could be up to a judge to decide if the athletes get to keep riding on the national level. The motion hearing for a preliminary injunction is set for March 19.
KCRA 3 asked for an on-camera interview with the university. We received this statement.
UC Davis is committed to our student-athletes and strives to provide the best environment for them to succeed.
The decision to return the Equestrian team to a club sport after seven years as an NCAA sport was difficult. As the Athletics Director stated when the decision was announced, the change was driven by an assessment of financial considerations and the national competitive landscape in this sport, including an independent third-party review.
As it has for most of its history, the Equestrian team will continue as a club sport. Our current Equestrian student-athletes will continue to receive athletics-related financial aid, academic advising, tutoring and other resources for the entirety of their undergraduate careers at UC Davis. All coaches’ contracts will be honored through their current terms.
We understand the disappointment this decision has caused. We are proud of our Equestrian student-athletes, coaches and their success. They’ve brought incredible recognition to UC Davis and to our Athletics program. While petitions and advocacy reflect genuine passion, university officials must make decisions based on sustainability, equity, and institutional responsibility, and have done so here.
“These decisions were made following extensive external and internal analysis and thoughtful collaboration with campus leadership. As the landscape of Division I athletics continues to evolve, it is important that we regularly evaluate how we best align our resources to support student-athletes, advance gender equity, and position UC Davis Athletics for long-term success. Our student-athletes across the board—including those in Equestrian—are dedicated, talented, and driven. They represent UC Davis with tremendous pride and excellence.”
–Rocko DeLuca, Athletic Director
Additional points:
The university is operating with constrained resources. All UC Davis schools and departments, including Athletics, are required to reduce their budgets over the next two years.
Not enough universities field teams to make the sport a viable collegiate competitive platform. Only 14 Division I institutions nationally sponsor dual discipline Equestrian under the National Collegiate Equestrian Association.
The university remains fully committed to its research, teaching and medical services related to equine activities. The decision to reclassify the Equestrian team in no way affects the Weill School of Veterinary Medicine or the College of Agricultural and Environmental Science, or the resources for animals on our campus.
Mooresville Mayor Chris Carney listens during a town council meeting in Mooresville, N.C., on Monday, October 6, 2025.
KHADEJEH NIKOUYEH
Knikouyeh@charlotteobserver.com
MOORESVILLE
Mooresville Mayor Chris Carney and the town’s police chief refuted claims Wednesday in two federal lawsuits about Carney’s behavior during two late-night encounters with police.
“Enough is enough,” Carney said in an interview with The Charlotte Observer and Observer news partner WSOC. “We need to come out and set the record straight.”
Carney said claims are false in the lawsuits filed against him, the town and other Mooresville officials by a former IT worker and ex-assistant police chief Frank Falzone.
“It’s been awful, to be honest with you,” Carney said. “When you come into office trying to do the right thing” only to face “unfounded accusations.”
“I just can’t sit back” and not contest the bogus claims in the lawsuits, Carney said. “My family deserves better than this, Mooresville deserves better than this.”
Lawsuit claims
Falzone filed a whistleblower lawsuit on Monday alleging he was forced to retire for raising concerns about the late-night incidents involving Carney.
The lawsuit said Falzone was threatened with the loss of his pension if he didn’t retire, “depriving him of his career, reputation, and livelihood.”
The 37-page lawsuit stems “from a deliberate and coordinated campaign by senior officials of the Town of Mooresville to silence, discredit and remove” Falzone for refusing “to participate in or remain silent about serious governmental misconduct,” according to the complaint.
The allegations of misconduct involved Carney and Police Chief Ron Campurciani and “efforts of senior Town leadership to conceal that misconduct,” the lawsuit states.
In an interview at Town Hall with The Charlotte Observer and WSOC, Mooresville Police Chief Ron Campurciani on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026, refuted claims in two lawsuits about incidents involving Mayor Chris Carney. Joe Marusak jmarusak@charlotteobserver.com
The lawsuit cites a late-night traffic stop involving the mayor and the police chief on Jan. 30, 2024, and Carney being in town hall with a woman one overnight in October 2024.
The October 2024 incident prompted a lawsuit in January by Jeffrey Noble, a former IT employee who said he was fired in retaliation for reporting misconduct by the mayor that overnight, including video showing Carney pantless.
In each incident, according to the complaint, Falzone “identified electronic evidence … that should have existed and been preserved, or properly classified, but which was instead missing, misclassified, incomplete, or rendered inaccessible under the supervision of senior officials.”
Evidence included records, body-worn camera metadata and audit data, access-control logs, alarm data and surveillance footage, the lawsuit states.
“Rather than investigate the Mayor’s conduct or address the serious irregularities Falzone identified, many of which directly implicated the Police Chief’s supervisory and administrative responsibilities, Defendants turned the machinery of government inward.”
Mayor addresses claims
In Wednesday’s interview, Carney said separate investigations into the incidents found no truth to the claims, including by U.S. ISS, an outside, independent investigative agency, into the Jan. 30 incident.
In an interview at Town Hall with The Charlotte Observer and WSOC, Mooresville Mayor Chris Carney on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026, refuted claims in two lawsuits about his behavior during incidents in the town. Joe Marusak jmarusak@charlotteobserver.com
Earlier Wednesday, the Mooresville Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to release the findings of the separate reports through the town’s legal department. The reports were not yet released by 5 p.m.
Commissioners said they voted to release the reports to be fully transparent.
“I’ve sat here a long time,” commissioner Eddie Dingler said. “I don’t hide anything.”
“Our brand has taken a hit, and we should release what we can,” commissioner Gary West agreed.
Carney asked the board to approve releasing the reports.
“This is solely so we can tell the great citizens we were not going to hide behind laws,” he said. “We’re going to give you everything we have. The people expect that. We could not have done this more transparently.”
Falzone retired on his own, police chief says
Carney and Campurciani later addressed various claims in the lawsuits, telling the Observer and WSOC the allegations were simply untrue.
Campurciani said Falzone retired on his own after he was placed on administrative leave, as is standard practice, after preliminary results of an outside investigation into his conduct toward the owner of a local boat repair company. Falzone hired the company to do extensive repairs on his personal boat, according to a letter the owner wrote about the incident.
The findings “were troubling,” Campurciani said, but the full investigation was still being conducted by the outside agency, not his department when Falzone retired.
The owner called 911 to request police response after he said Falzone grew angry at him at Stumpy Creek Access Area on Lake Norman. Carney provided the Observer a copy of the letter the owner wrote about the incident. In the letter, the owner called Falzone’s angry behavior “unethical and outrageous,” including “jumping on and kicking my hitch” to remove his boat trailer from his truck.
Late-night traffic stop claims
Carney and Campurciani said Falzone’s lawsuit contains false claims about what happened during the Jan. 30, 2024, traffic stop. It wasn’t even a traffic stop, they said.
The mayor said he was driving from a fundraiser for Iredell County District Attorney Sarah Kirkman when he saw Campurciani driving from the event, too, and the two pulled over to chat for a few minutes.
Carney said he hosted the event and gave speeches throughout the time. Multiple people at the event would confirm he wasn’t drinking, unlike the lawsuit claim, he said.
The lawsuit cited a police captain saying the mayor appeared impaired at the scene. Carney and Campurciani said the captain happened to drive by as they chatted. The captain never left his car but continued on when he realized no stop was needed.
So there was no police body-camera footage of the scene, contrary to the lawsuit claim that footage was tampered with, Carney said. “The facts just don’t support it,” he said.
Mayor addresses pantless claim
The mayor said allegations in the IT worker’s lawsuit about his conduct in town hall in October 2024 are likewise false, including that he was walking around pantless.
Carney has repeatedly said in media interviews that he fell ill after medications he was on mixed with alcohol after a gathering at a bar near Town Hall.
The woman who accompanied him to Town Hall is a longtime family friend who sent a photo of Carney ill at Town Hall to his wife that night, so she’d know the condition he was in, he said. He’d gone there to retrieve his phone when he got sick, he said.
“I never thought, to be fair, that vomiting and making a mess would become a national story,” the mayor said Wednesday. “I really couldn’t have imagined that.
“And I would tell the public, I am so sorry,” he said. “I truly didn’t think anything other than I needed my phone and then, when I felt bad, this is a safe space … a place where, when I felt better, I would go home.”
Regarding the pantless claim, he said, he was cleaning vomit off himself, “by myself. The other person was multiple offices away, behind two sets of doors.
“When do I get to have my own dignity?” Carney asked. “Anybody who’s reviewed that film, there’s nothing inappropriate.”
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
This story was originally published February 11, 2026 at 5:23 PM.
Joe Marusak has been a reporter for The Charlotte Observer since 1989 covering the people, municipalities and major news events of the region, and was a news bureau editor for the paper. He currently reports on breaking news. Support my work with a digital subscription
When the Palisades and Eaton fires displaced thousands of tenants last year, landlords across L.A. jacked up rental prices while the flames were still burning. Officials were quick to respond, vowing crackdowns on price gouging.
A new report asserts that many of those threats were toothless.
Published by activist organization the Rent Brigade, the report analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It found 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings, but only 12 lawsuits filed so far.
Gov. Gavin Newsom put price-gouging rules into effect on Jan. 7, the day of the fires. They’ve been in place in L.A. County ever since, and they’re currently extended through Feb. 27, 2026. The protections prohibit landlords from raising rents by more than 10%, but many seemed undeterred by the rules.
In the week after the fires, one agent told The Times that their landlord client said they “doubt it’ll be prosecuted,” ordering the agent to raise the price more than 10%. A Beverly Grove condo jumped from $5,000 to $8,000. A property in Venice listed for 60% more. A Santa Monica home got a price bump of more than 100%.
“I was shocked by how many clear, unavoidable cases of price gouging there were,” said Philip Meyer, a volunteer with the Rent Brigade who co-authored the report. “A lot of folks didn’t seem to think there’d be any accountability, so they were breaking the law in plain view.”
Meyer helped design a tracking system that scrapes data from Zillow to detect price hikes greater than 10%. He said price gouging predictably skyrocketed in the month after the fires, but then it continued all year long as enforcement lagged.
“I’m not sure if people realized that price-gouging laws are still in effect,” he said.
Illegal listings were scattered across the Southland, but the report said that 42% were found in L.A. County’s 3rd District, which covers Pacific Palisades, as well as the surrounding communities where many fire victims tried to relocate, including Malibu, Santa Monica, Venice and Calabasas.
Last year, the Rent Brigade launched a campaign to inform tenants that they may have been victims of price gouging. Using the Zillow data, they sent out 2,000 postcards to addresses tied to suspect listings detailing their rights; Meyer said the goal was to help tenants contact authorities for enforcement.
The report claims that as much as $49 million in excess rent may have been collected over the last year, an estimate found by totaling up all the asking prices above the legal limit. However, the actual number is likely significantly lower, since the $49-million mark assumes all 18,360 illegal listings were rented at the advertised price.
It’s also likely that the 18,360 number is slightly lower, since data pulled from Zillow listings don’t provide information on actual leases signed — and don’t always provide the full picture.
For example, a Zillow listing could show a previous asking price of $1,500 for a home last year, and an asking price of $6,000 a year later, which would register as a 300% increase. However, the $1,500 asking price could’ve been for a single room in the home, not the entire home — in which case the $6,000 wouldn’t be considered price gouging.
However, it’s clear that thousands of landlords tried to take advantage of increased demand created by the fires, which is why officials at the state, county and city levels all vowed crackdowns.
There have been plenty of legislative efforts to help enforce such a crackdown. In February, L.A. County raised the price-gouging penalty from $10,000 to $50,000, and the L.A. City Council raised the maximum penalty to $30,000. In July, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors made it easier to punish landlords by allowing the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs to bypass the district attorney and directly fine price gougers.
Other laws were proposed, but fizzled out. A state law sought to raise the maximum fine for price-gouging and expand protections to hotels and other services, but it died in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Another state law sought to require listing platforms to remove listings suspected of price gouging, but it was vetoed by Newsom in October.
Spokespeople for the city, county and state offices that deal with price gouging responded to the report’s claims that they weren’t doing enough.
“As part of our department’s work to protect Californians following the fires, California DOJ formed a Disaster Relief Task Force, sent 753 warning letters to hotels and landlords who were accused of price gouging, and filed criminal charges against six defendants, including Los Angeles real estate agents and a landlord,” said California Department of Justice spokesperson Elissa Perez, who works with state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. “These are cases where the provable facts supported charges.”
The report claims that L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who issued strong statements condemning price gouging, hasn’t prosecuted a single price-gouging case. A statement from his office acknowledged that no cases have been filed, but pointed to collaborations with the city and state, which have both filed price-gouging lawsuits.
City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office has filed seven price-gouging lawsuits — three civil, four criminal — ranging from individual landlords to housing companies such as Blueground and Airbnb. Bonta’s office has filed five, all against individual landlords. All 12 cases are currently pending or awaiting trial.
Ivor Pine, a spokesperson for Feldstein Soto’s office, called the report inaccurate; the report claimed the office investigated only 1,100 cases but it actually investigated thousands more, which were included in its lawsuits against Airbnb and Blueground. He also questioned the report’s methodology, adding that relying exclusively on Zillow listings can be misleading and suggest price gouging that’s not actually happening since it only shows advertised rents, not actual leases.
Pine added that enforcement efforts are ongoing and that all cases filed seek restitution of hundreds or thousands of dollars paid to victims.
The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening statements in one such trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court began on Monday.
Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.
Jurors got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining social media companies named as defendants.
Mark Lanier delivered the opening statement for the plaintiffs first, in a lively display where he said the case is as “easy as ABC,” which he said stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He called Meta and Google “two of the richest corporations in history” that have “engineered addiction in children’s brains.”
He presented jurors with a slew of internal emails, documents and studies conducted by Meta and YouTube, as well as YouTube’s parent company, Google. He emphasized the findings of a study Meta conducted called “Project Myst” in which they surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use. The two major findings, Lanier said, were that the company knew children who experienced “adverse events” like trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable for addiction; and that parental supervision and controls made little impact.
Internal company documents
He also showed internal Google documents that likened YouTube to a casino, and internal communication between Meta employees in which one person said Instagram is “like a drug” and that employees are “basically pushers.”
At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury.
KGM made a brief appearance after a break during Lanier’s statement and she will return to testify later in the trial. Lanier spent time speaking about her childhood, and particularly focused on what her personality was like before she began using social media, saying her mother called her a “creative spark” as a child. She started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, Lanier said. Before she graduated elementary school, she had posted 284 videos on YouTube.
The outcome of the trial could have profound effects on the companies’ businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.
Lanier said the companies’ lawyers will “try to blame the little girl and her parents for the trap they built,” referencing the plaintiff. She was a minor when she said she became addicted to social media platforms, which she claims had a detrimental impact on her mental health.
Lanier said that despite the public position of Meta and YouTube being that they work to protect children and implement safeguards for their use of the platforms, their internal documents show an entirely different position, with explicit references to young children being listed as their target audiences.
Lanier also drew comparisons between the social media companies and tobacco firms, citing internal communication between Meta employees who were concerned about the company’s lack of proactive action about the potential harm their platforms can have on children and teens.
“For a teenager, social validation is survival,” Lanier said. The defendants “engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation,” he added, speaking about “like” buttons and similar features.
“This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.
Jurors are not being asked to stop using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or any other forms of social media throughout the course of the trial — which is expected to last about eight weeks — but Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl emphasized that they should not make any changes to the way they interact with the platforms, including changing their settings or creating new accounts.
Kuhl said that jurors should decide the liability of Meta and YouTube independently when they deliberate.
A separate trial in New Mexico, meanwhile, also kicked off with opening statements on Monday.
KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.
“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.
Mark Zuckerberg expected to testify
Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.
The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.
A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson, said that the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true.” In a statement, he said, “Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.”
The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being.
In New Mexico, opening statements began Monday for trial on allegations that Meta and its social media platforms have failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.
A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.
In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.
TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.
Other countries, meanwhile, are enacting new laws to limit social media for children. In January, French lawmakers approved a bill banning social media for children under 15, paving the way for the measure to enter into force at the start of the next school year in September, as the idea of setting a minimum age for use of the platforms gains momentum across Europe.
In Australia, social media companies have revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children since the country banned use of the platforms by those under 16, officials said. The law provoked fraught debates in Australia about technology use, privacy, child safety and mental health and has prompted other countries to consider similar measures.
The British government also said last month it will consider banning young teenagers from social media as it tightens laws designed to protect children from harmful content and excessive screen time.
“Given that consumers use multiple online home search platforms simultaneously at little or no cost, Zillow’s brand recognition and related network effect do not appear to have deterred prospective home buyers from cross-shopping amongst competitors or new entrants,” Vargas wrote in her opinion.
She elaborated that even if Zillow possessed a 50% share or more of the market, Compass had not provided enough evidence of a monopoly to warrant a preliminary injunction. Such a court order would have prevented Zillow from enforcing its private-listing ban, which was introduced last May.
A spokesperson from Zillow provided this statement:
Today’s ruling is a clear victory not just for Zillow, but for consumers, agents, brokerages and the real estate industry at large. Zillow believes everyone deserves equal access to the same real estate information at the same time. Compass does the opposite — hiding listings away in its private vault, harming consumers and small businesses to benefit itself.
Compass filed this baseless lawsuit in an attempt to force Zillow to participate in that exclusionary scheme — but today, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected their effort to reduce transparency for consumers, ruling that Compass failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. At a time when Americans are struggling to afford a home amid a major housing shortage, hiding listings in private networks only deepens the crisis. While Compass keeps consumers in the dark, Zillow turns on the lights to help people get home.
“Our lawsuit continues forward,” Reffkin told Agent Publishing. “With agents being our clients, we have an obligation to protect our agents from Zillow, which explicitly stated they are trying to ‘punish the agent.’”
Reffkin’s allegation refers to an internal Zillow strategy document that referenced a “punishment list” of agents who don’t comply with Zillow’s listing policies.
That list would presumably be full of Compass agents, seeing as the brokerage’s “private exclusive” listing model delays listing on the broader MLS in favor of its own off-market listing network.
Zillow did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the assertion that it will take any retribution against noncompliant agents.
However, Compass reiterated in a statement that the lawsuit “has nothing to do with private exclusives” but with Zillow’s insistence that publicly marketing listings must be publicly available on all listing services — including, of course, Zillow.
A correctional officer forced Ashaheed to shave during the intake process, even though Ashaheed told the officer he was a Muslim and that shaving his beard would violate a core tenet of his faith, according to the lawsuit.
The officer told Ashaheed that if he did not shave his beard, he would be disciplined and placed in solitary confinement, according to the lawsuit. Ashaheed shaved when faced with that threat.
His lawsuit kicked off a years-long legal battle. The two sides reached an agreement for a settlement in September and finalized it in mid-January, court records show.
David Lane, Ashaheed’s attorney, said in a news release Wednesday that the case highlights the importance of constitutional protections.
“As this country slides into fascism, it is critically important that the public takes every civil rights violation seriously, and never gives up the fight to protect our Constitution,” he said in the news release.
A spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Corrections did not immediately return a request for comment.
Federal immigration agents in Oregon must stop arresting people without warrants unless there’s a likelihood of escape, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai issued a preliminary injunction in a proposed class-action lawsuit targeting the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of arresting immigrants they happen to come across while conducting ramped-up enforcement operations — which critics have described as “arrest first, justify later.”
Similar actions have drawn concern from civil rights groups across the country amid President Trump’s mass deportation efforts. The nonprofit law firm Innovation Law Lab brought the lawsuit.
With Wednesday’s ruling, Oregon now joins Colorado and Washington, D.C., as jurisdictions where the Trump administration is barred from conducting warrantless arrests without first verifying that the arrestee is a flight risk. There is also a pending lawsuit over warrantless arrests in Minnesota. The government is appealing the rulings in Colorado and D.C.
In a memo last week, Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, noted that agents should not make an arrest without an administrative arrest warrant issued by a supervisor unless they develop probable cause to believe the person is likely to escape from the scene.
Lyons also expanded the grounds that ICE agents and officers can cite to conclude that getting an administrative arrest warrant for someone they encounter would give that person an opportunity to flee while the warrant is being sought.
But in a court hearing Wednesday, the judge heard evidence that agents in Oregon have arrested people in immigration sweeps without such warrants or determining escape was likely.
That included testimony from one plaintiff, Victor Cruz Gamez, a 56-year-old grandfather who has been in the U.S. since 1999. He told the court he was arrested and held in an immigration detention facility for three weeks despite having a valid work permit and a pending visa application.
The hearing also featured testimony from a person identified as M.A.M. who described a video she took of two armed immigration agents bursting into a bedroom to look for somebody who did not live there. The video of the October raid circulated widely on social media, and a person in the house spoke with CBS News last year.
Kasubhai concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail, and said there is “ample evidence in this case that established a pattern of practice of executing warrantless arrests without sufficient evidence.”
Kasubhai also said the actions of agents in Oregon — including drawing guns on people while detaining them for civil immigration violations — have been “violent and brutal,” and he was concerned about the administration denying due process to those swept up in immigration raids.
“I’m concerned, as a public servant, and as someone who has to, by virtue of my oath, to uphold the constitution, when I see actions and behavior on behalf of our executive branch that does not observe that same commitment,” the judge said. “Due process calls for those who have great power to exercise great restraint … That is the bedrock of a democratic republic founded on this great constitution. I think we’re losing that.”
