ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

  • Elon Musk accuses Apple and OpenAI of stifling AI competition in antitrust lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk on Monday targeted Apple and OpenAI in an antitrust lawsuit alleging that the iPhone maker and the ChatGPT maker are teaming up to thwart competition in artificial intelligence. 

    The 61-page complaint filed in Texas federal court follows through on a threat that Musk made two weeks ago when he accused Apple of unfairly favoring OpenAI and ChatGPT in the iPhone’s app store rankings for top AI apps.

    Musk’s post insinuated that Apple had rigged the system against ChatGPT competitors such as the Grok chatbot made by his own xAI. Now, he is detailing a litany of grievances in the lawsuit — filed by xAI and another of his corporate entities, X Corp. — in an attempt to win monetary damages and a court order prohibiting the alleged illegal tactics.

    The double-barreled legal attack weaves together several recently unfolding narratives to recast a year-old partnership between Apple and OpenAI as a veiled conspiracy to stifle competition during a technological shift that could prove as revolutionary as the 2007 release of the iPhone.

    “This is a tale of two monopolists joining forces to ensure their continued dominance in a world rapidly driven by the most powerful technology humanity has ever created: artificial intelligence,” the lawsuit asserts.

    The complaint portrays Apple as a company that views AI as an “existential threat” to its future success, prompting it to collude with OpenAI in an attempt to protect the iPhone franchise that has long been its biggest moneymaker.

    Some of the allegations accusing Apple of trying to shield the iPhone from do-everything “super apps,” such as the one Musk has long been trying to create with X, echo an antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple last year by the U.S. Department of Justice.

    The complaint casts OpenAI as a threat to humanity bent on putting profits before public safety as it tries to build on its phenomenal growth since the late 2022 release of ChatGPT. The depiction mirrors one already being drawn in another federal lawsuit that Musk filed last year, alleging OpenAI had betrayed its founding mission to serve as a nonprofit research lab for the public good.

    OpenAI has countered with a lawsuit against Musk accusing him of harassment — an allegation that the company cited in its response to Monday’s antitrust lawsuit. “This latest filing is consistent with Mr. Musk’s ongoing pattern of harassment,” OpenAI said in a statement.

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

    The crux of the lawsuit revolves around Apple’s decision to use ChatGPT as an AI-powered “answer engine” on the iPhone when the built-in technology on its device couldn’t satisfy user needs. The partnership announced last year was part of Apple’s late entry into the AI race that was supposed to be powered mostly by its own on-device technology, but the company still hasn’t been able to deliver on all its promises.

    Apple’s own AI shortcomings may be helping drive more usage of ChatGPT on the iPhone, providing OpenAI with invaluable data that’s unavailable to Grok and other would-be competitors because it’s currently an exclusive partnership.

    The alliance has provided Apple with an incentive to improperly elevate ChatGPT in the AI rankings of the iPhone’s app store, the lawsuit alleges. Other AI apps from DeekSeek and Perplexity have periodically reached the top spot in the Apple app store’s AI rankings in at least some parts of the world since Apple announced its deal with ChatGPT.

    The lawsuit doesn’t mention the potential threat that ChatGPT could also pose to Apple and the iPhone’s future popularity. As part of its expansion efforts, OpenAI recruited former Apple designer Jony Ive to oversee a project aimed at building an AI-powered device that many analysts believe could eventually mount a challenge to the iPhone.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court halts construction of Everglades immigrant detention camp

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge has ordered the State of Florida to halt all new construction and dismantle infrastructure at a migrant detention camp in the Big Cypress National Preserve within 60 days, following a lawsuit from environmental groups.The injunction was issued after Friends of the Everglades, Inc. and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit arguing that the project violates environmental laws and threatens sensitive ecosystems.The lawsuit, filed on June 27, seeks to halt construction until compliance with federal, state, and local laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) assumed control of the airport on June 23, and construction commenced without a prior environmental assessment.Governor Ron DeSantis announced that the federal government had requested and would fully fund the center. Plaintiffs contend that the camp’s construction risks harming wetlands, wildlife, and air and water quality in the preserve, which is critical for endangered species and is located near Everglades National Park.A Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed to prevent development until NEPA and APA compliance.FDEM Deputy Executive Director Keith Pruett said, “Florida is funding the project, expecting federal reimbursement, and believes the environmental impact will be minimal due to the airport’s existing infrastructure.” Representative Dr. Anna V. Eskamani served as an expert witness on this case, and below is her statement in response:“Today’s injunction is a resounding victory for Florida’s environment and for justice. The Everglades is one of the most unique and fragile ecosystems in the world, and the idea of carving it up for a sprawling detention camp was both reckless and cruel. This ruling protects our wetlands, our wildlife, and our water supply, while also affirming that we cannot sacrifice human dignity for political gain. Florida deserves solutions that protect people and the planet — not projects that devastate both.”WESH 2 has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment. We have not heard back yet.

    FLORIDA, USA —

    A federal judge has ordered the State of Florida to halt all new construction and dismantle infrastructure at a migrant detention camp in the Big Cypress National Preserve within 60 days, following a lawsuit from environmental groups.

    The injunction was issued after Friends of the Everglades, Inc. and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit arguing that the project violates environmental laws and threatens sensitive ecosystems.

    The lawsuit, filed on June 27, seeks to halt construction until compliance with federal, state, and local laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

    The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) assumed control of the airport on June 23, and construction commenced without a prior environmental assessment.

    This content is imported from Twitter.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    Governor Ron DeSantis announced that the federal government had requested and would fully fund the center. Plaintiffs contend that the camp’s construction risks harming wetlands, wildlife, and air and water quality in the preserve, which is critical for endangered species and is located near Everglades National Park.

    A Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed to prevent development until NEPA and APA compliance.

    FDEM Deputy Executive Director Keith Pruett said, “Florida is funding the project, expecting federal reimbursement, and believes the environmental impact will be minimal due to the airport’s existing infrastructure.”

    Representative Dr. Anna V. Eskamani served as an expert witness on this case, and below is her statement in response:

    “Today’s injunction is a resounding victory for Florida’s environment and for justice. The Everglades is one of the most unique and fragile ecosystems in the world, and the idea of carving it up for a sprawling detention camp was both reckless and cruel. This ruling protects our wetlands, our wildlife, and our water supply, while also affirming that we cannot sacrifice human dignity for political gain. Florida deserves solutions that protect people and the planet — not projects that devastate both.”

    WESH 2 has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment. We have not heard back yet.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawsuit Continues New York’s Chaotic Cannabis Rollout

    [ad_1]

    NYC cannabis dispensaries, exposing New York’s troubled two-year rollout and threatening businesses.

    The state and city just seems to struggle in rolling out marijuana, now a lawsuit continues New York’s chaotic cannabis rollout. A dozen high-profile cannabis dispensaries in NYC have taken the state to court after regulators admitted they botched a key zoning rule—one which could shutter or displace over 150 legal shops, many backed by social-equity entrepreneurs.  Already the state has struggle with over 1,700 unlicensed dispensaries.

    RELATED: Say Goodbye Grilling Season With The Ultimate Steak

    Since New York launched its adult-use cannabis program roughly three years ago, licensed dispensaries were told to stay 500 feet away from schools, as measured from their entrances. But in July, the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) quietly switched to the legally mandated method—measuring from the school property line. The reinterpretation retroactively rendered around 60 open shops, an additional 40 ready-to-open stores, and nearly 50 applicants out of compliance overnight.

    Enter the lawsuit. Filed on August 15 in Albany’s Supreme Court, the coalition—including Housing Works Cannabis Co., The Cannabis Place, and others—demands the state halt enforcement, deem their locations legal under the original standard, and stop threatening license renewals and leased spaces.

    For many plaintiffs, this isn’t just legalese—it’s existential. The majority are BIPOC, women, veterans, and equity program beneficiaries who invested six or seven-figure sums expecting stability. Osbert Orduna of Queens’ The Cannabis Place noted many of them built out stores, hired staff, signed long-term leases, and only now face ruin through no fault of their own.

    OCM’s acting director, Felicia Reid, has apologized, labeling the error and its impacts serious, and pointed regulators toward lawmakers for a fix. Governor Kathy Hochul has also vowed not to penalize licensees for the agency’s goof and encourages legislators to “grandfather in” existing stores once Albany reconvenes in January.

    RELATED: Immersive Events Redefine Millennial Nights

    Supporters warn of broader fallout: small-business collapse, loss of trust, and a slide back to illicit markets. One industry critic blasted the mismanagement as the latest episode in a dimly lit rollout—marked by stalled licensing, uneven oversight, and surging unlicensed dispensaries.

    As New York’s legal cannabis industry stumbles again, the lawsuit lays bare the frail infrastructure behind legalization. For millennial consumers and budding entrepreneurs alike, the saga spells caution: if you’re banking your future on bureaucratic stability, you might want to double-check the fine print—especially when it comes to how you measure school safety.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • FTC sues L.A. Fitness operators for

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday sued the operators of the popular gym franchise L.A. Fitness and other gyms for allegedly subjecting members to what it called “exceedingly difficult” cancellation policies. 

    Filed in California federal court, the lawsuit accused Fitness International and Fitness & Sports Clubs of intentionally using complicated cancellation procedures to prevent their customers from ending their gym memberships and other recurring charges. The California-based companies “have illegally charged hundreds of millions of dollars in unwanted recurring fees” as a result, the FTC said in its complaint.

    Fitness International and Fitness & Sports Clubs run gym chains including L.A. Fitness, Esporta Fitness, City Sports Club and City Studio, according to the FTC, which said they collectively operate more than 600 gym locations and have upwards of 3.7 million members nationwide. 

    “The FTC’s complaint describes a scenario that too many Americans have experienced – a gym membership that seems impossible to cancel,” said Christopher Mufarrige, the director of the Consumer Protection Bureau, in a statement released by the trade commission. “Tens of thousands of LA Fitness customers reported difficulties – cancellation was often restricted to specific times or required speaking to specific managers who were often not present or available.”

    Both companies offer gym memberships for fees as low as $30 per month and as high as $299 per month, and require customers to pay for the first and last month of their memberships upfront before incurring monthly dues and annual fees, the FTC said. In its complaint, the commission detailed “restrictive” and confusing cancellation requirements, with an in-person process that’s difficult to access being one method, and a mail-in process being another.

    “Each of these cancellation methods is opaque, complicated, and demanding—far from simple,” the complaint said. “In particular, Defendants have not adequately disclosed how to cancel when consumers are signing up for their memberships and have presented different, often contradictory, cancellation requirements during sign up, in membership agreements, and on the Defendants’ websites.”

    Fitness International addressed the lawsuit in a statement, saying “the allegations are without merit” and its leadership was “disappointed that the FTC has chosen to pursue this complaint.”

    “It is important to note that most of our memberships, and all of our personal training memberships, are purchased in person at our club locations,” said Jill Hill, the president of club operations at Fitness International, in the statement. Hill said the company also complied with the FTC’s now-void “click-to-cancel” rule that aimed to make it easier for consumers to cancel recurring subscriptions and memberships.

    Although the rule did not take effect, Hill said Fitness International has maintained an online program for members to cancel their subscriptions, in addition to the in-person and mail-in options.

    “Our company works diligently to comply with all health club state laws regarding membership cancellations and to offer at a minimum every cancellation method specifically required by each state,” Hill said. “Over the years, the company has taken many steps to improve its enrollment and cancellation processes.”

    Emily Mae Czachor

    Emily Mae Czachor is a reporter and news editor at CBSNews.com. She typically covers breaking news, extreme weather and issues involving social justice. Emily Mae previously wrote for outlets like the Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed and Newsweek.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against VGW in Montana

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge has put an end to Montana’s legal battle with VGW Holdings, dismissing a lawsuit against the Australian sweepstakes company. For context, VGW no longer operates in the state.

    One Less Thing for VGW to Worry About

    VGW, which is one of the biggest sweepstakes operators in the US, has been experiencing rapid growth, attracting the ire of state regulators. Amid a broader push against the sweepstakes model, the Australia-based company found itself in hot water in several states.

    While VGW has mostly complied with cease-and-desist orders and is no longer available in Montana, a local plaintiff sought damages against the operator. Michael Lighter, who initiated the lawsuit, accused VGW’s dual-currency model had violated Montana’s gaming laws, as well as federal laws on online gambling.

    As mentioned, Lighter sought damages, as well as injunctive relief.

    On August 16, however, VGW requested the termination of the proceedings. Only three days later, a federal judge filed an order in the US District Court for the District of Montana that granted the request, effectively dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice.

    The reason for the dismissal was not made public.

    The win in Montana is an important development for VGW, which has been feeling the heat in multiple states due to the United States’ broader pushback against sweepstakes operators. The dismissal certainly means that VGW will have one less thing to worry about.

    VGW Entered California’s Tribal Gaming Market

    Elsewhere, VGW just signed a groundbreaking partnership with the Kletsel Dehe Wintum Nation of the Cortina Rancheria tribe in California. This alliance with the tribal entity will allow the operator to offer its products in California legally under the authority of the Kletsel Economic Development Authority.

    While tribal gaming groups have largely opposed sweeps, the latest partnership suggested that compromise might be possible after all.

    More recently, VGW’s shareholders gave the green light to Laurence Escalante’s takeover offer. Escalante, who is the founder and major stakeholder of VGW, has been trying to get hold of the company for a while and recently returned with a new proposal, putting forward some AUD 3.2 billion on the table.

    On August 1, shareholders approved the proposal, bringing Escalante closer to his goal.

    [ad_2]

    Fiona Simmons

    Source link

  • Lawsuit accuses Jewish school in Oakland County of using public funds to force educator to teach religion

    [ad_1]

    A Jewish children’s author and public school teacher has filed a lawsuit accusing Hillel Day School of Metropolitan Detroit and Lake Orion Community Schools of violating her civil rights and misusing taxpayer dollars by forcing her to teach religion under a state-funded program intended for secular instruction.

    The case, brought by Lisa Rose in Oakland County Circuit Court, centers on Michigan’s “shared-time” services program, which allows public school districts to provide non-essential, secular classes — such as art, music, and library science — at private schools. Under the arrangement, Lake Orion hired Rose to teach library classes at Hillel, a Jewish day school in Farmington Hills.

    But according to the lawsuit, Hillel treated her not as a public school employee but as a private religious teacher, requiring her to include Jewish faith into her lessons and banning materials that did not fit its religious philosophy.

    “Hillel was using public, government funding for the purposes of teaching only a specific religious curriculum in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the lawsuit, filed by Rose’s attorney Annisa Hudy, states.

    The suit adds, “Hillel had a duty, but yet failed, to inform [Rose] that she would not be required to introduce religious activities or religious materials during her teaching at Hillel.”

    Michigan legislation makes clear that shared-time services cannot be used to impose religious oversight.

    “Shared time instruction clearly is not intended to benefit one or all religions,” state lawmakers wrote in legislation about the services. “The purpose is secular: to provide educational opportunities at public schools for all resident school-age children whether they attend public or religious or secular nonpublic schools.”

    According to the “Core Values” listed on its website, Hillel’s mission is to teach Judaic values and promote Zionism.

    “We believe in the importance of Israel, Zionism and the Hebrew language,” the school states. “The modern State of Israel is a place where Jewish values come to life, and a home for Jews from around the world. We see spiritual meaning in the existence of the state, and are proud of its continued growth.”

    The school adds that the goal for its graduates is to “develop a deep connection to, and the ability to advocate for, the State of Israel in all its complexity.”

    Rose, an award-winning author of Jewish children’s books, began working at the school in October 2022. A month later, Rose says her troubles began when she invited another author to present The Christmas Mitzvah, an award-winning book that blends Jewish and Christian traditions to highlight kindness across faiths. Tablet Magazine selected The Christmas Mitzvah as one of the best Jewish children’s books of 2021.

    “Al Rosen was a Jewish man who loved Christmas,” the book reads. “It wasn’t his holiday … [b]ut what could be bad about peace on earth and goodwill to humanity?”

    But Hillel administrators canceled the visit, saying the blending of “mitzvah” and “Christmas” was inappropriate.

    “My gut is also left unsettled by the title of the book,” Amira Soleimani, Hillel’s director of Judaic studies, wrote in an email to Rose on Nov. 22, 2022. “I think I would feel differently if it was called A Holiday Of Giving or Helping Others. Something about the juxtaposition of mitzvot and Christmas makes me uncomfortable for our community.”

    That decision, Rose argues, shows one of the ways Hillel imposed religious oversight on a state-funded position meant to remain secular. Her direct supervisor for the library program was Soleimani, not Lake Orion officials, as required by the shared-time agreement, according to the filings.

    The arrangement violated the separation of church and state, she and her attorney argue.

    “I found out that everything I was told about my job was not true,” Rose tells Metro Times. “Lake Orion should have been supervising me, not the director of Judaic studies.”

    When Rose suspected that both Hillel and Lake Orion were violating the shared-time agreement, her partner Alex Duensing filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the pact and discovered that the Jewish school was forbidden from using Rose to teach religion and that Lake Orion was supposed to be monitoring her work.

    In fact, she says, Lake Orion Community Schools never supervised her or checked in on her job.

    In an email to the school on March 6, Duensing warned Hillel that Rose “has NEVER been informed, in any way, that she would be required to disallow any and all religious content and materials from her library, including promoting Zionism, which is listed as a religious value of the school in the Employee Handbook (which Lisa never received) and in your school’s online materials.”

    He added, “Furthermore, I would like to notify you that according to the shared services agreement and rental agreements — the celebration of Purim, a holiday of festivity and merrimaking, mandated in the Bible by the Book of Esther — is absolutely disallowed in the spaces rented by LOCS. Furthermore, Hillel may not use personnel from the shared services team for any purpose in promoting this holiday.”

    Three days later, Hillel terminated Rose. The school cited her classroom management, but she says the firing was clearly retaliation for blowing the whistle and refusing to violate the U.S. Constitution.

    Lake Orion later placed Rose on administrative leave and laid her off a month later.

    Her lawsuit accuses Hillel of religious discrimination, retaliation, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, and emotional distress, and claims Lake Orion breached its duty to oversee the program and protect her rights as a public school teacher, the suit alleges. She is seeking damages and a ruling to vacate a prior arbitration award that dismissed her claims.

    At the heart of the case is whether Michigan’s shared-time system, which funnels millions in taxpayer dollars each year to private and parochial schools, adequately guards against religious teachings.

    Rose argues it does not.

    “She was treated as an at-will religious employee when, in fact, she was a public school teacher paid with government funds,” her lawsuit states.

    The case could test the limits of church-state separation in Michigan’s schools, particularly if evidence shows public funds were used for religious teaching.

    Meanwhile, Rose says she feels “ex-communicated” from the Jewish community because of backlash over the lawsuit.

    “They trashed my reputation,” Rose says of Hillel. “We had to withdraw from our temple. It’s very hard.”

    Still, Rose believes she did the right thing.

    “I could be silent, but I truly believe in separation of church and state,” she says. “It has made me question my faith. Do I really want to be a part of this? To me, I feel like I’m being the good Jew because I’m speaking out about something not being right. I’m saying this is not OK.”

    Hillel, which did not respond to questions from Metro Times, sued Duensing in December 2023, claiming he was masquerading as a licensed attorney and trespassed on school property when he came to support her during a hearing. Duensing says he did neither.

    Rose suspects the school is trying to intimidate her and her partner.

    “This has been life-changing, and I didn’t want any of this,” Rose says. “I was very prepared to work this out peacefully.”

    Lake Orion Community Schools did respond to requests for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Texas law requiring Ten Commandments displayed in public school classrooms

    [ad_1]

    A federal district court in Texas temporarily blocked a new state law on Wednesday that would have required public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom.

    U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, ruling that Texas Senate Bill 10, set to take effect Sept. 1, likely violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

    The lawsuit was originally filed in late June by several families after Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 10 into law. Parents argued the measure intruded on their rights to guide their children’s religious education and forced religious mandates in public classrooms.

    The ruling halts school districts from implementing the measure, which mandated a 16-by-20-inch poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom.

    Federal judge in Texas cites First Amendment concerns

    In his decision, Biery wrote that requiring the displays could amount to unconstitutional religious coercion, pressuring students into religious observance and suppressing their own beliefs.

    “[T]he displays are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State’s favored religious scripture, and into suppressing expression of their own religious or nonreligious background and beliefs while at school,” Biery stated.

    Plaintiffs and ACLU advocates welcome decision

    The plaintiffs included Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist and nonreligious families with children in Texas public schools. They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and pro bono counsel from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

    Plaintiff Rabbi Mara Nathan called the decision a win for parents’ rights: “Children’s religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools.”

    Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said the ruling protects inclusivity in schools. “Public schools are not Sunday schools,” Weaver said.

    Sergio Candido

    Sergio Candido is a managing editor for the South at cbsnews.com, coordinating multiplatform news coverage for CBS Miami and CBS Texas. He previously worked for outlets including Telemundo and The Miami Herald.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Feds say 8 Tren de Aragua gang members among 30 people charged in Colorado gun, drug-trafficking cases

    [ad_1]

    Federal prosecutors charged 30 people with largely gun and drug-trafficking crimes after a months-long investigation in metro Denver, a mix of federal and local officials announced at a news conference Monday.

    Those charged include eight people who investigators believe are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua, U.S. Attorney Peter McNeilly said. He said he considers three of the eight gang members to be “leaders.” Two of the leaders were arrested July 30 in Colombia, court records show.

    McNeilly could not say how many Tren de Aragua gang members remain in Colorado, whether the local members were taking direction from leaders in Venezuela, or how many of the 30 people arrested in the operation were Venezuelan nationals.

    David Olesky, a special agent in charge with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, said the federal charges against eight gang members “diminished” Tren de Aragua’s “influence and capabilities” in the Denver area.

    The federal investigation started in October when Arapahoe County Sheriff Tyler Brown sought federal assistance to deal with rising crime at the Ivy Crossing apartments on Quebec Street. The subsequent investigation involved at least 40 undercover operations and branched out significantly from the apartment complex.

    Federal investigators seized or purchased 69 guns during the investigation, according to court records. Twenty-seven of those guns were connected through ballistics to 67 “separate shooting events,” said Brent Beavers, Denver special agent in charge for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    Court records show those incidents included drive-by shootings, an attempted carjacking and a shootout between two large groups, among others.

    “By removing these firearms from the street, we’ve disrupted a dangerous cycle of violence, prevented further harm to our community and sent a clear message to criminal networks,” Beavers said.

    The defendants in the federal cases announced Monday were not charged in connection with those shootings.

    [ad_2]

    Shelly Bradbury

    Source link

  • After Failed Mediation, Neighbors Drop Pepper Square Development Lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    A coalition of Far North Dallas neighbors has dropped a lawsuit against the city of Dallas and local developer Henry S. Miller Companies. They say that a new development law passed in the state Legislature in June became a “nuclear bomb” to their legal resistance to the planned redevelopment of the Pepper Square shopping center…

    [ad_2]

    Emma Ruby

    Source link

  • Newsmax to pay $67M to Denver’s Dominion Voting Systems to settle defamation case over 2020 election claims

    [ad_1]

    The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming a Denver-based voting equipment company by spreading lies about President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss, according to documents filed Monday.

    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Riccardi

    Source link

  • Hotel CEO accused of sexually assaulting manager at Justin Timberlake concert in Detroit

    [ad_1]

    Steve Neavling

    Little Caesars Arena in Detroit.

    A former hotel manager has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Amerilodge Group CEO Asad Malik of sexually harassing and assaulting her during a company outing to a Justin Timberlake concert in Detroit earlier this year, and then retaliating against her when she reported the incident.

    Stephanie Starling, who managed the Courtyard Marriott in Bay City, alleges Malik groped her and tried to force a kiss during the Feb. 20 concert at Little Caesars Arena.

    While in the arena’s concession area, Malik told Starling that he wanted to kiss her and that he “bet it would be a good kiss too,” according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

    “Probably later tonight,” he added, saying he was “just looking at her lips” and thinking about the kiss, the lawsuit alleges.

    Starling says Malik slid into a booth beside her and put his hands under her thigh and onto her butt.

    Starling “was noticeably trembling in fear and her hand was shaking as she tried to eat,” the lawsuit states.

    Starling fled to the bathroom with a coworker and avoided Malik during most of the concert. Afterward, she says Malik drove her to a dark area near a hotel and told her, “Time for that kiss,” according to the lawsuit. When she refused, Malik allegedly grew agitated and asked, “What do you mean you CAN’T?”

    She threatened to walk back to the hotel in the snow if he didn’t return her, and Malik eventually relented, according to the lawsuit. Starling’s boyfriend drove from Bay City to pick her up.

    Starling “cried the entire ride home and was unable to work the next day,” the lawsuit states.

    Amerilodge Group is based in Bloomfield Hills and manages, operates, and owns hotels in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio under the brands Hilton, Marriott, and InterContinental Hotel Group.

    The lawsuit was filed by Jack W. Schulz of Schulz Ghannam PLLC.

    Starling reported Malik’s behavior to Amerilodge’s human resources director two days later. She was told the incident would be investigated confidentially by a neutral third party. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, the lawsuit was conducted by Amerilodge’s own defense attorneys and amounted to “a complete sham.”

    The complaint says coworkers openly discussed her allegations despite assurances of confidentiality at work. On March 12, Starling’s company email was cut off after she told a supervisor she was overwhelmed by stress from the incident but had no plans to resign.

    The following day, Amerilodge sent her an email saying it was “upholding [her] resignation.”

    But, according to the lawsuit, “Starling never resigned.”

    Instead, “she was terminated,” the complaint states.

    On April 1, she was told investigators could not substantiate her claims and was offered money to waive her rights against Malik and Amerilodge, which she rejected. The law firm that carried out the investigation later represented Amerilodge in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing, the lawsuit states.

    Starling alleges sexual harassment, assault, battery, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional stress. She also contends other women had made similar allegations against Malik but were “silenced” by the company.

    Schulz wrote in the complaint that Amerilodge “made a conscious effort to silence these women in an effort to protect a predator rather than to assure this horrendous conduct ends.”

    Metro Times left a message for Amerilodge Group and is awaiting a response.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Musk threatens to sue Apple for not listing X or Grok among its top recommended apps

    [ad_1]




































    Elon Musk unveils Grok 4 update



    Elon Musk unveils Grok 4 update after chatbot made antisemitic remarks

    02:38

    Billionaire SpaceX, Tesla and X owner Elon Musk says he plans to sue Apple for not featuring X and its Grok artificial intelligence chatbot app in its top recommended apps in its App Store.

    Musk posted the comments on X late Monday, saying, “Hey @Apple App Store, why do you refuse to put either X or Grok in your ‘Must Have’ section when X is the #1 news app in the world and Grok is #5 among all apps? Are you playing politics? What gives? Inquiring minds want to know.”

    Grok is owned by Musk’s artificial intelligence startup xAI.

    Musk went on to say that “Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation. xAI will take immediate legal action.”

    He gave no further details.

    There was no immediate comment from Apple, which has faced various allegations of antitrust violations in recent years.

    A federal judge recently found that Apple violated a court injunction in an antitrust case filed by Fortnite maker Epic Games.

    Regulators of the 27-nation European Union fined Apple 500 million euros in April for breaking competition rules by preventing app makers from pointing users to cheaper options outside its App Store.

    Last year, the EU fined the U.S. tech giant nearly $2 billion for unfairly favoring its own music streaming service by forbidding rivals like Spotify from telling users how they could pay for cheaper subscriptions outside of iPhone apps.

    As of early Tuesday, the top app in Apple’s App Store was TikTok, followed by Tinder, Duolingo, YouTube and Bumble. Open AI’s ChatGPT was ranked seventh.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Commentary: California has sued Trump 37 times. Here’s what’s at stake.

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — Seven months into President Trump’s second term, California has filed 37 lawsuits against his administration and spent about $5 million doing it.

    Before you go off on a government-spending rant, let me drop this figure on you: For each dollar the state has spent in litigation with Trump, it has recouped $33,600 in funds that the federal government has tried to take away from the Golden State, according to Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

    That, as he put it during a Monday news conference, is “bringing the receipts.”

    These aren’t dollars Californians were wishing for or begging for from the federal government — these are funds that have already been legally allotted to the state but which the Trump administration is attempting to stop for reasons petty, ideological or both. They pay for teacher training, immunizations, tracking infectious diseases, keeping roads safe, disaster recovery and on and on. And they are predominantly your tax dollars, being withheld from your state.

    “What we’re demanding is that we get the funding that’s already been legally approved and appropriated,” Bonta said.

    But as much as it’s about paying for the basics that keep California going, it’s also about protecting an inclusive and equitable way of living that defines the ethos of our state. Don’t tread on us! Californians get to spend our money how we see fit.

    “When you add it all up, you see the totality of what’s at stake: the California dream,” Bonta said. “The idea that every Californian, no matter how they look, where they live or how much money they have, can send their kid to school, go to the doctor when they’re sick and put food on the table and a roof over their heads.”

    Or as Gov. Gavin Newsom put it, it’s litigation not for the sake of suing, but to “defend, to stand tall, to hold the line in terms of our values, the things we hold dear.”

    It’s serious times, folks. Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t stand for LGBTQ+ rights, for immigrants’ rights, for women’s rights, for due process or even public schools. But so far, the courts have held, for the most part, to their responsibility to be a check on this unbalanced administration.

    Of course, lawyers win cases, sometimes regardless of facts. I want to give a shout out to our state Department of Justice. Bonta may be the state’s top lawyer, but there is a whole army of legal folks behind these lawsuits.

    The $5 million spent so far has been entirely in-house, Bonta said. This cash isn’t going to expensive outside counsel, but, as my colleague Kevin Rector points out, money that is funding the smart, talented attorneys and staff who work for taxpayers.

    More than a few of them were around during Trump’s first term, when the state was involved in more than 120 lawsuits against his administration. Many of those suits were about process — the haphazard, rules-be-damned way Trump seeks to implement his policies.

    Our California lawyers learned then that courts do in fact uphold law, and simply pointing out that rules have to be followed was often enough to stop Trump. While we now have a seasoned legal team that understands the weaknesses in what Trump is doing, the sort-of-funny part is that he’s still doing it. Few lessons learned, which is good for California.

    So far, these lawsuits by California have ensured that about $168 billion that Trump would have cut off instead continued to flow to California. Bonta said that in the 19 cases that have made it in front of a judge so far, he’s succeeded in 17, including winning 13 court orders directly blocking Trump’s “illegal actions.”

    He’s also secured wins outside of court, including when the U.S. Department of Education recently backed down after freezing school funding weeks before school is set to start. That funding, under threat of a lawsuit, has been restored.

    Bonta said that while the state is fighting every lawsuit with rigor, two are personal to him and “remain sort of the most important in terms of what they represent.”

    They happen to be the first two suits the state filed, shortly after Trump took office. The first was about birthright citizenship, and Trump’s bid to end it. It’s a case Bonta says is “very meaningful” to him.

    Bonta was born in the Philippines and immigrated to the United States when he was 2 months old, living in a trailer in the Central Valley town of La Paz, the home of the United Farm Workers. His parents left their country to avoid martial law as the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos gained power, and worked with civil rights leaders including Cesar Chavez once they settled here.

    So it makes sense that an executive order that would leave about 24,500 babies born each year in California without U.S. citizenship hits hard with Bonta.

    Bonta, along with attorneys general of several other states, filed that lawsuit the day after Trump took office, in response to an executive order he signed on Inauguration Day. So far, multiple courts have expressed deep skepticism of that order, and the idea that the Constitution and prior Supreme Court rulings should be ignored in favor of Trump’s position.

    The second case that Bonta takes personally is a multistate pushback on Trump’s sweeping halt of federal funding. That case put at risk about $3 trillion nationwide, including that $168 billion in California, about a third of the state budget.

    Coming up next is a challenge to the deployment of Marines and National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The Trump administration has been quietly removing those soldiers in recent days, perhaps in preparation for asking the court to drop that case, which seems like a loser for them. No troops, no case. We’ll see how it goes in a few days.

    “The Marines and the National Guardspeople arrived to quiet streets in L.A.,” Bonta said. “The president has been incredibly, in my view, disrespectful to these patriots. He’s treated them as political pawns.”

    The $5 million the state has spent so far on legal fights with Trump is part of $25 million the Legislature set aside earlier this year during a special session. Bonta said that even that will likely not be enough to keep the challenges flowing for the next three and a half years.

    Newsom, for his part, is all in and promised that Bonta “will not be in need of resources to do his job.” (And yes, I know it raises his profile for a 2028 presidential run.)

    As much as it seems ridiculous that we are setting aside this huge chunk of change for legal fees at a moment when we are facing a budget crisis, the cost of letting Trump run roughshod over our state is much higher. This is money well spent.

    Because it’s not just our federal funding at stake, it’s the California dream.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Trash issues continue to stink

    [ad_1]

    Thursday marks two dozen days since Republic Services Inc. workers went on strike.

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Republic Services sues striking Teamsters

    [ad_1]

    Republic Services Inc. has filed an injunction against the striking Teamsters Local 25 and the union’s president, Thomas Mari.

    The announcement came after another round of negotiations on Tuesday failed to bring about a new contract.


    This page requires Javascript.

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

    kAm“t?@F89 😀 6?@F89] %96 4@>>F?:EJ 😀 C625J 7@C @FC 6>A=@J66D E@ 86E 324< E@ H@C< 2?5 C6DF>6 ?@C>2= @A6C2E:@?D[” #6AF3=:4 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E 27E6C ?68@E:2E:@?D HC2AA65 FA %F6D52J] “%96 %62>DE6CD 2C6 5C288:?8 E9:D @FE 7@C E96:C 36?67:E 2?5 4@?E:?F:?8 E96:C 4C:>:?2= 3692G:@C[ AFEE:?8 @FC 6>A=@J66D 2?5 E96 4@>>F?:EJ 2E C:D<]”k^Am

    kAm%96 4@>A2?J D2:5 :ED H286D 2C6 9:896C E92? E9@D6 @7 4@>A2C23=6 H2DE6 4@==64E:@? 4@>A2?:6D 😕 E96 2C62[ 56DA:E6 E96 %62>DE6CD D2J:?8 C6A62E65=J 5FC:?8 E96 DEC:<6 E92E E96J >2<6 D:8?:7:42?E=J =6DD 2? 9@FC E92? E96D6 @E96C H@C<6CD]k^Am

    kAm“~? E96 >65:2E@C’D C64@>>6?52E:@?[ H6 6?565 ?68@E:2E:@?D 7@C E96 ?:89E[” #6AF3=:4’D DE2E6>6?E D2:5] “(6 @776C65 E@ C6DF>6 ?68@E:2E:@?D @? uC:52J[ yF=J `g[ 3FE E96 F?:@? C67FD65]”k^Am

    kAm%96 :?;F?4E:@?[ 7:=65 3J #6AF3=:4 😕 |2DD249FD6EED &]$] s:DEC:4E r@FCE[ 244FD6D E96 %62>DE6CD @7 G2?52=:K:?8 #6AF3=:4 AC@A6CEJ 5FC:?8 E96 DEC:<6[ 3=@4<:?8 ?@?F?:@? H@C<6CD 7C@> 6?E6C:?8 #6AF3=:4 D:E6D 2?5 92C2DD:?8 E96>[ >2<:?8 E9C62ED 282:?DE #6AF3=:4 6>A=@J66D[ DAC2J:?8 496>:42=D :?E@ E96 6J6D @7 2 ?@?F?:@? #6AF3=:4 5C:G6C 2?5 DE62=:?8 2 #6AF3=:4 82C3286 ECF4<]k^Am

    kAm%96 4@>A2?J 😀 D66<:?8 2? :>>65:2E6 E6>A@C2CJ C6DEC2:?:?8 @C56C 2?5 2 AC6=:>:?2CJ :?;F?4E:@? E@ “DE@A E9:D F?=2H7F= 4@?5F4E[” 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 =2HDF:E]k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:4 2==686D %62>DE6CD DE@=6 @?6 @7 E96 4@>A2?J’D =2C86[ C@==@77 H2DE6 4@==64E:@? ECF4 2 E9:C5A2CEJ EC2?D76C DE2E:@? 😕 #@I3FCJ 23@FE cib_ 2]>] @? yF=J `_ H9:=6 E96 5C:G6C H2D 4964<:?8 😕 H:E9 E96 D42=6 9@FD6 2EE6?52?E[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 4@FCE 5@4F>6?ED]k^Am

    kAm%96 ECF4< H2D 7@F?5 😕 2 A2C<:?8 =@E ?6IE E@ E96 724:=:EJ ?@E =@?8 27E6C[ 2?5 ?@?6 @7 :ED 4@?E6?ED H6C6 566>65 >:DD:?8[ #6AF3=:4 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm“!=2:?E:77D’ ECF42??6C[” #6AF3=:4 D2:5 😕 E96 =2HDF:E] “%96 DA665 H:E9 H9:49 E96 ECF4< 6I:E65 E96 G6?5@C D:E6[ 2?5 E96 724E E92E :E 6I:E65 E9C@F89 2 324< 6?EC2?46[ DF886DED E92E E96 E9:67 H2D D@>6@?6 72>:=:2C H:E9 E96 =2J@FE @7 E9:D G6?5@C =@42E:@?]”k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:4 D2:5 A:4<6E6CD 3=@4<65 C6A=246>6?E H@C<6CD 3C@F89E 😕 3J E96 4@>A2?J 7C@> 6?E6C:?8 #6AF3=:4’D #6G6C6 D:E6 7@C >@C6 E92? E9C66 9@FCD @? yF=J `] %96 4@>A2?J 244FD65 E96> @7 <6J:?8 E96 C6?E2= 42CD E96D6 H@C<6CD H6C6 😕 2?5 C@4<:?8 E96>[ J6==:?8 9@>@A9@3:4 D=FCD 2?5 AC@72?:E:6D[ D=2>>:?8 E96:C 92?5D @? E96 D:56D @7 E96 42CD 2?5 D=2D9:?8 E96 G69:4=6D’ E:C6D]k^Am

    kAm~FED:56 E96 !623@5J 92F=:?8 724:=:EJ @? yF=J b[ a_ A:4<6E6CD CFD965 2 A2DD6?86C G2? 2EE6>AE:?8 E@ =62G6 E96 AC@A6CEJ 2?5 AFD965 E96 G69:4=6[ 9:E E96 H:?5@HD H:E9 E96:C 7:DED 2?5 7=2D9=:89ED 2?5 C@4<65 :E H9:=6 282:? J6==:?8 E9C62ED 2?5 9@>@A9@3:4 D=FCD[ #6AF3=:4 2==686D]k^Am

    kAm%96 4@>A2?J D2:5 A:4<6E6CD 92G6 3=@4<65 #6AF3=:4 6>A=@J66D 7C@> =62G:?8 2?5 6?E6C:?8 E96 4@>A2?J’D AC@A6CE:6D 😕 !623@5J 2?5 #6G6C6 >F=E:A=6 E:>6D D:?46 E96 DEC:<6 92D 368F?]k^Am

    kAm“s676?52?ED 92G6 >6492?:42==J 5:D23=65 #6AF3=:4’D ECF4 =62G:?8 E96:C ECF4 7C66 >@G6>6?E 2?5 2446DD E@ #6AF3=:4’D AC@A6CE:6D[” #6AF3=:4 D2:5 😕 4@FCE 5@4F>6?ED]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 92D 92AA6?65 3@E9 2E #6AF3=:4 D:E6D[ 2?5 C6>@E6=J 2E #6AF3=:4’D 4FDE@>6C D:E6D @C >F?:4:A2=:E:6D 😕 H9:49 #6AF3=:4 6>A=@J66D 92G6 366? 2EE6>AE:?8 E@ @A6C2E6 E96:C C@FE6D]”k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:4 😀 2=D@ 244FD:?8 %62>DE6CD @7 4FEE:?8 @77 #6AF3=:4 ECF4 H9:=6 6? C@FE6 E@ D6CG:46 4FDE@>6CD[ D9:?:?8 7=2D9:?8 DEC@36D 2E ECF4< 5C:G6CD 2?5 @? @?6 @442D:@? DAC2J:?8 2 H9:E6 DF3DE2?46 @?E@ 2 #6AF3=:4 ECF4< E@ @3D4FC6 E96 5C:G6C’D G:D:@?]k^Am

    kAm“#6AF3=:4 😀 :?7@C>65[ 36=:6G6D[ 2?5 E96C67@C6 2G6CD E92E s676?52?ED :?E6?5 E@ 4@?E:?F6 DF49 :==682= 24ED 2D 56D4C:365 96C6:? F?=6DD DF49 F?=2H7F= 4@?5F4E 😀 AC6G6?E65 3J E9:D r@FCE[” E96 4@>A2?J D2:5]k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:4 92D 4@?EC24E65 H:E9 D6G6C2= A@=:46 56A2CE>6?ED E@ AC@G:56 D64FC:EJ 2E E96 !623@5J 92F=:?8 724:=:EJ[ 9@E6=D H96C6 C6A=246>6?E H@C<6CD 2?5 >2?286CD 2C6 DE2J:?8[ 2?5 @E96C ?62C3J D:E6D @A6C2E65 3J E96 4@>A2?J 2E 2 4@DE @7 S`__[___ 52:=J[ :E D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 4@>A2?J D2:5 :E 92D 4@>A=6E65 23@FE cb C@FE6D 2 52J @? 2G6C286 D:?46 E96 DEC:<6 3682? @? yF=J `[ ;FDE a_T @7 :ED ?@C>2= 3FD:?6DD G@=F>6]k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:4 $6CG:46D[ H9:49 😀 32D65 😕 !9@6?:I[ 6>A=@JD 23@FE ca[___ 7F==E:>6 H@C<6CD] xE C6A@CE65 2 a_ac ?6E :?4@>6 @7 Sa]_c 3:==:@? @? C6G6?F6 @7 S`e]_b 3:==:@?[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2 7:=:?8 H:E9 E96 &]$] $64FC:E:6D 2?5 tI492?86 r@>>:DD:@?]k^Am

    kAm%96 %62>DE6CD 5:5 ?@E :>>65:2E6=J C6DA@?5 E@ 2 C6BF6DE 7@C 4@>>6?E @? E96 :?;F?4E:@? @C #6AF3=:4’D 2==682E:@?D (65?6D52J 27E6C?@@?]k^Am

    kAmx? 2 DE2E6>6?E D92C65 27E6C ?68@E:2E:@?D HC2AA65 %F6D52J[ |2C: D2:5 #6AF3=:4 92D EFC?65 :ED 324< E@ E96 F?:@?]k^Am

    kAm“(6 @776C65 2 A=2? E@ E96 4@>A2?J E92E H@F=5 56=2J E96 DE2CE @7 E96 F?:@? :?DFC2?46[ D2G:?8 E96 4@>A2?J 2 DF3DE2?E:2= 2>@F?E @7 >@?6J[” 96 D2:5] “(6 2=D@ @776C65 2 A=2? E92E H@F=5 C6DF=E 😕 46CE2:? 6>A=@J66D E96 4@>A2?J 4=2:>65 :E H2D 4@?46C?65 23@FE E@ >2<6 46CE2:? E96J H@F=5 4@?E:?F6 E@ 86E E96 36?67:ED @7 E96 AC6G2:=:?8 H286 =2H]k^Am

    kAm“x?DE625[ E96 4@>A2?J C6;64E65 6G6CJ AC@A@D2=] %96? :E 24EF2==J 564C62D65 :ED H286 @776C 7@C @?6 @7 E96 >@C6 4C:E:42= ;@3D A6C7@C>65 7@C #6AF3=:4]”k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:4 😀 ?@H C67FD:?8 E@ E2<6 A2CE 😕 2?J 7FEFC6 D6DD:@?D[ |2C: D2:5[ 5:DAFE:?8 E96 4@>A2?J’D 4=2:> E92E :E @776C65 E@ ?68@E:2E6 282:? @? uC:52J]k^Am

    kAm“xE’D 2>2K:?8 E92E E96 4@>A2?J 4@?E:?F6D E@ D9@H :ED =24< @7 4C65:3:=:EJ 2?5 8@@5 72:E9 32C82:?:?8[” 96 D2:5] “#6AF3=:4’D 5:D52:? 7@C :ED 6>A=@J66D 2?5 E96 E9@FD2?5D @7 4:E:K6?D @7 E96 4:E:6D 2?5 E@H?D :E D6CG:46D 3J C67FD:?8 E@ 32C82:? 😕 8@@5 72:E9 😀 @3G:@FD 3FE ?@E DFCAC:D:?8]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — An abortion rights group is asking a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit against them and Gov. Maura Healey by anti-abortion groups in response to a state-funded campaign targeting pregnancy ‘crisis’ center operators.

    In a motion to dismiss filed in U.S. District Court in Boston on Tuesday, lawyers for the Reproductive Equity Now Foundation argue that the plaintiffs “lack standing” to file the lawsuit and blasted the legal challenge as an attempt to “silence” their advocacy work.

    “Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, this case is not about any wrongful deprivation of the First Amendment or other constitutional rights …” lawyers for the foundation wrote in a court filing. “Instead, it is a blatant attempt to enlist this court’s assistance in its effort to silence Reproductive Equity Now Foundation and its president Rebecca Hart Holder, by enjoining them from exercising their constitutional rights.”

    The lawsuit, filed in August by the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center on behalf of Your Options Medical Center and others, alleges that the state and Equity Now violated their constitutional rights with a “campaign of harassment, suppression, and threats” against the Revere-based facility and other pregnancy centers.

    At issue is a taxpayer-funded education campaign by the state Department of Health warning the public to avoid pregnancy crisis centers, which have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning federal protections.

    The $1 million campaign, which began earlier this year, has blanketed social media platforms, billboards and radio, with ads emblazoned on MBTA buses, trains and depots.

    The plaintiffs allege the campaign has forced them “to operate in a culture of fear and harassment” and that they continue to face “unprecedented investigations, including unnecessary subpoenas,” despite a prior state investigation clearing the operators of any wrongdoing.

    But lawyers for Holder and Equity Now argue in court filings that the public education campaign hasn’t deprived the pregnancy centers of their free speech rights or interfered with their operations.

    “To be clear, the public has not been prevented from seeking out and receiving YOM’s services, and YOM has not been prevented from expressing its viewpoints or fulfilling its mission consistent with those viewpoints,” they wrote.

    The plaintiffs “utterly failed to allege facts that plausibly demonstrate this is one of those rare instances in which the conduct of private parties constitutes state action,” they added.

    Hart-Holder calls the lawsuit “an attempt to silence our organization and prevent us from exercising our First Amendment protected right to free speech.”

    “We will not be intimidated by this lawsuit, and we will always fight for New England patients and their ability to access the reproductive health care that is right for them,” she said in a statement.

    Pregnancy crisis centers have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning federal protections.

    The centers, which advertise free services and counseling for women struggling with unplanned pregnancies, have proliferated in the wake of the high court’s decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

    But Healey and women’s reproductive rights groups claim the facilities are funded by anti-abortion groups with the intention of blocking women from getting abortions.

    In June, the state Department of Public Health partnered with the advocacy groups on a new campaign to educate the public about the “dangers and potential harm” of anti-abortion centers that advocates say are providing misleading information to women.

    The $1 million taxpayer-funded public campaign features ads on social media platforms, billboards, radio and transit warning women about the pregnancy crisis centers.

    Some communities have moved to limit or ban the centers amid complaints that they are using deceptive advertising and providing misinformation.

    But anti-abortion groups say the centers are providing options to women other than abortions and being unfairly targeted by a “smear campaign” by proponents of the procedure.

    The Pregnancy Care Alliance of Massachusetts said the network of pregnancy care centers in the state “provides millions of dollars in no-cost support and care for thousands of women annually who face planned and unplanned pregnancies.”

    The alliance has accused Healey and other state leaders of “furthering their extreme abortion agenda by using a taxpayer-funded campaign to discredit our centers.”

    “Our pregnancy resource centers are paying close attention to the case and look forward to learning the outcome, since a decision will directly impact our service to women and communities across the state,” the alliance said in a statement.

    The conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which has helped former President Donald Trump fight his legal battles, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. It argues that the campaign targeting pregnancy centers is part of a strategy to “silence the anti-abortion movement.”

    Healey, who is being represented by the Attorney General’s office, hasn’t formally responded to the lawsuit’s claims but was granted an extension this week to file her response until Dec. 13, according to federal court filings.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • A 14-year-old’s suicide was prompted by an AI chatbot, lawsuit alleges. Here’s how parents can keep kids safe.

    A 14-year-old’s suicide was prompted by an AI chatbot, lawsuit alleges. Here’s how parents can keep kids safe.

    [ad_1]

    The mother of a 14-year-old Florida boy is suing an AI chatbot company after her son, Sewell Setzer III, died by suicide—something she claims was driven by his relationship with an AI bot. 

    “Megan Garcia seeks to prevent C.AI from doing to any other child what it did to hers,” reads the 93-page wrongful-death lawsuit that was filed this week in a U.S. District Court in Orlando against Character.AI, its founders, and Google.

    Tech Justice Law Project director Meetali Jain, who is representing Garcia, said in a press release about the case: “By now we’re all familiar with the dangers posed by unregulated platforms developed by unscrupulous tech companies—especially for kids. But the harms revealed in this case are new, novel, and, honestly, terrifying. In the case of Character.AI, the deception is by design, and the platform itself is the predator.”

    Character.AI released a statement via X, noting, “We are heartbroken by the tragic loss of one of our users and want to express our deepest condolences to the family. As a company, we take the safety of our users very seriously and we are continuing to add new safety features that you can read about here: https://blog.character.ai/community-safety-updates/….”

    In the suit, Garcia alleges that Sewell, who took his life in February, was drawn into an addictive, harmful technology with no protections in place, leading to an extreme personality shift in the boy, who appeared to prefer the bot over other real-life connections. His mom alleges that “abusive and sexual interactions” took place over a 10-month period. The boy committed suicide after the bot told him, “Please come home to me as soon as possible, my love.”

    On Friday, New York Times reporter Kevin Roose discussed the situation on his Hard Fork podcast, playing a clip of an interview he did with Garcia for his article that told her story. Garcia did not learn about the full extent of the bot relationship until after her son’s death, when she saw all the messages. In fact, she told Roose, when she noticed Sewell was often getting sucked into his phone, she asked what he was doing and who he was talking to. He explained it was “‘just an AI bot…not a person,’” she recalled, adding, “I felt relieved, like, OK, it’s not a person, it’s like one of his little games.” Garcia did not fully understand the potential emotional power of a bot—and she is far from alone. 

    “This is on nobody’s radar,” Robbie Torney, program manager, AI, at Common Sense Media and lead author of a new guide on AI companions aimed at parents—who are grappling, constantly, to keep up with confusing new technology and to create boundaries for their kids’ safety. 

    But AI companions, Torney stresses, differ from, say, a service desk chat bot that you use when you’re trying to get help from a bank. “They’re designed to do tasks or respond to requests,” he explains. “Something like character AI is what we call a companion, and is designed to try to form a relationship, or to simulate a relationship, with a user. And that’s a very different use case that I think we need parents to be aware of.” That’s apparent in Garcia’s lawsuit, which includes chillingly flirty, sexual, realistic text exchanges between her son and the bot. 

    Sounding the alarm over AI companions is especially important for parents of teens, Torney says, as teens—and particularly male teens—are especially susceptible to over reliance on technology. 

    Below, what parents need to know.  

    What are AI companions and why do kids use them?

    According to the new Parents’ Ultimate Guide to AI Companions and Relationships from Common Sense Media, created in conjunction with the mental health professionals of the Stanford Brainstorm Lab, AI companions are “a new category of technology that goes beyond simple chatbots.” They are specifically designed to, among other things, “simulate emotional bonds and close relationships with users, remember personal details from past conversations, role-play as mentors and friends, mimic human emotion and empathy, and “agree more readily with the user than typical AI chatbots,” according to the guide. 

    Popular platforms include not only Character.ai, which allows its more than 20 million users to create and then chat with text-based companions; Replika, which offers text-based or animated 3D companions for friendship or romance; and others including Kindroid and Nomi.

    Kids are drawn to them for an array of reasons, from non-judgmental listening and round-the-clock availability to emotional support and escape from real-world social pressures. 

    Who’s at risk and what are the concerns?

    Those most at risk, warns Common Sense Media, are teenagers—especially those with “depression, anxiety, social challenges, or isolation”—as well as males, young people going through big life changes, and anyone lacking support systems in the real world. 

    That last point has been particularly troubling to Raffaele Ciriello, a senior lecturer in Business Information Systems at the University of Sydney Business School, who has researched how “emotional” AI is posing a challenge to the human essence. “Our research uncovers a (de)humanization paradox: by humanizing AI agents, we may inadvertently dehumanize ourselves, leading to an ontological blurring in human-AI interactions.” In other words, Ciriello writes in a recent opinion piece for The Conversation with PhD student Angelina Ying Chen, “Users may become deeply emotionally invested if they believe their AI companion truly understands them.”

    Another study, this one out of the University of Cambridge and focusing on kids, found that AI chatbots have an “empathy gap” that puts young users, who tend to treat such companions as “lifelike, quasi-human confidantes,” at particular risk of harm.

    Because of that, Common Sense Media highlights a list of potential risks, including that the companions can be used to avoid real human relationships, may pose particular problems for people with mental or behavioral challenges, may intensify loneliness or isolation, bring the potential for inappropriate sexual content, could become addictive, and tend to agree with users—a frightening reality for those experiencing “suicidality, psychosis, or mania.” 

    How to spot red flags 

    Parents should look for the following warning signs, according to the guide:

    • Preferring AI companion interaction to real friendships
    • Spending hours alone talking to the companion
    • Emotional distress when unable to access the companion
    • Sharing deeply personal information or secrets
    • Developing romantic feelings for the AI companion
    • Declining grades or school participation
    • Withdrawal from social/family activities and friendships
    • Loss of interest in previous hobbies
    • Changes in sleep patterns
    • Discussing problems exclusively with the AI companion

    Consider getting professional help for your child, stresses Common Sense Media, if you notice them withdrawing from real people in favor of the AI, showing new or worsening signs of depression or anxiety, becoming overly defensive about AI companion use, showing major changes in behavior or mood, or expressing thoughts of self-harm. 

    How to keep your child safe

    • Set boundaries: Set specific times for AI companion use and don’t allow unsupervised or unlimited access. 
    • Spend time offline: Encourage real-world friendships and activities.
    • Check in regularly: Monitor the content from the chatbot, as well as your child’s level of emotional attachment.
    • Talk about it: Keep communication open and judgment-free about experiences with AI, while keeping an eye out for red flags.

    “If parents hear their kids saying, ‘Hey, I’m talking to a chat bot AI,’ that’s really an opportunity to lean in and take that information—and not think, ‘Oh, okay, you’re not talking to a person,” says Torney. Instead, he says, it’s a chance to find out more and assess the situation and keep alert. “Try to listen from a place of compassion and empathy and not to think that just because it’s not a person that it’s safer,” he says, “or that you don’t need to worry.”

    If you need immediate mental health support, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

    More on kids and social media:

    [ad_2]

    Beth Greenfield

    Source link

  • Millions of Californians can claim cash from $27.5 million lawsuit settlement

    Millions of Californians can claim cash from $27.5 million lawsuit settlement

    [ad_1]

    Millions of Californians can claim cash from $27.5 million lawsuit settlement

    After a class-action suit brought by 2 Bay Area activists, Thomson Reuters agreed to pay up and make changes to its Clear product


    By Stephen Council | SFGATE

    If you’ve lived in California at some point in the past seven years, you’ve got a shot at a very easy payday — and it’ll probably be enough cash to get a nice meal. Claims for another class-action privacy lawsuit are due Dec. 6.On Oct. 11, a San Francisco judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement that would see Thomson Reuters cough up $27.5 million, mostly to state residents. The deal caps off a legal battle that began in 2020: Two Alameda County activists sued the media giant over its Clear product, accusing the company of compiling millions of people’s personal data and putting it up for sale on the searchable database. “Thomson Reuters sells detailed dossiers on Californians across the state, people who have no idea their personal information is being appropriated, aggregated, and sold over the internet,” a complaint from 2022 said. The company markets its Clear product — not to be confused with the airport security tool — to companies, governments and law enforcement agencies. “Easily locate subjects,” one plan offers; another “displays a list of subjects’ relatives and associates.”In August, Thomson Reuters agreed to the plaintiffs’ settlement, which forced it to create the $27.5 million fund for Californians whose data it put up for sale. The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, also agreed to limit the data it keeps on state residents and to make that data easier to delete. So how do you get your cash? It took this reporter less than a minute to file a claim. The online portal simply requires your name, address and contact information — plus, you must swear you did indeed live in California during the claim period. It offers various payment methods and also has a page allowing Californians to opt out of the settlement’s terms. Californians have until Dec. 6 to file their claims, and a hearing to officially approve the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 13 — payouts won’t arrive before then. Only people whose information was put up for sale on Clear will receive money, per the settlement agreement, but plaintiff lawyer Andre Mura told SFGATE that everyone who meets the California residency requirement will fit that bill.Mura said the size of the payouts will depend on how many people make claims. His team estimates that between 400,000 and 1 million claims will be validated and that payouts will land approximately in the $19-$48 range. He noted that each claimant will receive the same amount.The math works that way because of the attorney’s fees; class counsel, on Friday, asked for $6.88 million plus almost $671,000 in reimbursements. The two lead plaintiffs, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, are set to win $5,000 each, pending the judge’s approval.Thomson Reuters, which also owns and operates the Reuters news outlet, did not respond to SFGATE’s request for comment.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletterDo you have photos or video of an incident? If so, upload them to KCRA.com/upload. Be sure to include your name and additional details so we can give you proper credit online and on TV.

    SAN FRANCISCO —

    If you’ve lived in California at some point in the past seven years, you’ve got a shot at a very easy payday — and it’ll probably be enough cash to get a nice meal. Claims for another class-action privacy lawsuit are due Dec. 6.

    On Oct. 11, a San Francisco judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement that would see Thomson Reuters cough up $27.5 million, mostly to state residents. The deal caps off a legal battle that began in 2020: Two Alameda County activists sued the media giant over its Clear product, accusing the company of compiling millions of people’s personal data and putting it up for sale on the searchable database.

    “Thomson Reuters sells detailed dossiers on Californians across the state, people who have no idea their personal information is being appropriated, aggregated, and sold over the internet,” a complaint from 2022 said. The company markets its Clear product — not to be confused with the airport security tool — to companies, governments and law enforcement agencies. “Easily locate subjects,” one plan offers; another “displays a list of subjects’ relatives and associates.”

    In August, Thomson Reuters agreed to the plaintiffs’ settlement, which forced it to create the $27.5 million fund for Californians whose data it put up for sale. The company, which did not admit wrongdoing, also agreed to limit the data it keeps on state residents and to make that data easier to delete.

    So how do you get your cash? It took this reporter less than a minute to file a claim. The online portal simply requires your name, address and contact information — plus, you must swear you did indeed live in California during the claim period. It offers various payment methods and also has a page allowing Californians to opt out of the settlement’s terms.

    Californians have until Dec. 6 to file their claims, and a hearing to officially approve the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 13 — payouts won’t arrive before then. Only people whose information was put up for sale on Clear will receive money, per the settlement agreement, but plaintiff lawyer Andre Mura told SFGATE that everyone who meets the California residency requirement will fit that bill.

    Mura said the size of the payouts will depend on how many people make claims. His team estimates that between 400,000 and 1 million claims will be validated and that payouts will land approximately in the $19-$48 range. He noted that each claimant will receive the same amount.

    The math works that way because of the attorney’s fees; class counsel, on Friday, asked for $6.88 million plus almost $671,000 in reimbursements. The two lead plaintiffs, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, are set to win $5,000 each, pending the judge’s approval.

    Thomson Reuters, which also owns and operates the Reuters news outlet, did not respond to SFGATE’s request for comment.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter

    Do you have photos or video of an incident? If so, upload them to KCRA.com/upload. Be sure to include your name and additional details so we can give you proper credit online and on TV.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ruling revives lawsuit to allow state funding for special education to go to religious schools

    Ruling revives lawsuit to allow state funding for special education to go to religious schools

    [ad_1]

    A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel revived a lawsuit this week filed by Orthodox Jewish families that sued California education officials over the state’s policy of refusing to fund special education programs at religious schools.

    Two religious schools and three Orthodox Jewish parents whose children have autism filed the lawsuit against the California Department of Education and the Los Angeles Unified School District last year. The parents sought to send their children to Orthodox Jewish schools and argued that the state’s policy of barring funding for religious institutions was discriminatory.

    Other states allow certain religious private schools to receive special education funding. For decades in California, those dollars have only been permitted to go to schools that are nonsectarian.

    Judge Kim Wardlaw, writing for the panel, ruled that California’s requirement burdens the families’ free exercise of religion. The panel’s decision sends the case back for reconsideration to a federal court that had previously rejected it.

    Attorney Eric Rassbach, who represents the families in the lawsuit, called the court’s decision a “massive win for Jewish families in California.”

    “It was always wrong to cut Jewish kids off from getting disability benefits solely because they want to follow their faith. The court did the right thing by ruling against California’s bald-faced discrimination,” he said in a statement.

    The California Department of Education argued in legal filings that by not certifying religious schools to educate children with disabilities, which would be required for them to receive federal funds, it was upholding the “principle that the government must be neutral toward and among religions.”

    The California Department of Education declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

    Funding for special education can be directed to a private school if a local school board determines, on an individual basis, that it would be the best way for a particular student with disabilities to receive an education, the department wrote in court papers.

    Attorneys for the California Department of Education wrote in court papers that the nonsectarian requirement was necessary because without it, local district officials would wield significant power to direct students to their favored religious institutions.

    “This is the opposite of the government neutrality toward religion that the Constitution requires…” the department’s attorneys wrote.

    However, Wardlaw wrote in her ruling that the state failed to show that its nonsectarian requirement is “narrowly tailored to serve” the interest of religious neutrality.

    Wardlaw added that it puts parents in the position of being forced to choose between an education for their disabled children and religion.

    “Parent Plaintiffs are required to choose between the special education benefits made available through public school enrollment (and subsequent referral to a private nonsectarian nonpublic school placements) and education in an Orthodox Jewish setting,” she wrote.

    A U.S. district judge last year dismissed the case and denied a request for a preliminary injunction to block the state from enforcing the rule.

    Wardlaw affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss claims from Shalhevet High School and Samuel A. Fryer Yavneh Hebrew Academy because neither school could satisfy the requirements necessary to be certified to educate students with special needs, according to the decision.

    Teach Coalition, a group that helps secure government funding for Jewish day schools, lauded the ruling as a major victory for religious liberty.

    “This is a game changing moment for our community and for religious families of children with disabilities — not only requiring change in the state of California but holding nationwide implications,” Teach Coalition chief executive and founder Maury Litwack said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Hannah Fry

    Source link

  • Former Prince George’s Co. officer claims union stopped her from suing department for retaliation – WTOP News

    Former Prince George’s Co. officer claims union stopped her from suing department for retaliation – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    With the goal of clearing her name, former Lt. Sonya Zollicoffer said she is suing the police union and an officer from another department that recommended she be let go.

    Sonya Zollicoffer, a former Prince George’s County police internal affairs officer, says she was essentially forced to retire in 2017.(Courtesy Sonya Zollicoffer)

    A former Prince George’s County police internal affairs officer has filed a federal lawsuit against her union, after she claimed an attorney for the union prevented her from going after the department on her own for what she called “a case of retaliation against her.”

    With the goal of clearing her name, former Lt. Sonya Zollicoffer said she is suing the union and a police officer from another department that recommended she be let go.

    “Let me tell you, I sat in my car plenty of times crying. … Why me?” Zollicoffer told WTOP.

    Zollicoffer, who is Black, claims the case stems from a 2017 investigation she did, during which she recommended charges against two white police officers she believed both profiled and used excessive force on a man during a traffic stop.

    She claimed after her recommendation, the case was reassigned and Zollicoffer was promoted out of the internal affairs division. Once in a new area of the department, Zollicoffer said she discovered the dash camera video evidence she used to support her case against the officers was different.

    “I looked at my own copy, and then I realized seven minutes is missing,” she said.

    At this point, she said, from her new position, she pushed for the original video to be located and it ultimately resulted in her being reprimanded by a panel of officers, demoted and later recommended for dismissal by an officer with another department who investigated her alleged actions.

    The two officers she investigated were later cleared.

    The Prince George’s County Police Department declined to comment on pending litigation, they said in an email to WTOP.

    Zollicoffer said she was essentially forced to retire, to avoid a drop in her pension payouts. In 2018, she began to challenge what happened to her in court.

    While fighting the case, Zollicoffer said she joined a class action discrimination lawsuit against the department by some Black and brown officers, and settling that case resulted in her being unable to file a suit against the department for her matter.

    “That attorney (the union attorney) had a duty to inform her of the rights that she would immediately lose,” said Zollicoffer’s attorney, Jordan Howlette.

    In her lawsuit, Zollicoffer also claimed the union would assign her legal counsel who also represented the two officers she had been investigating.

    “On multiple occasions, Ms. Zollicoffer informed Defendant FOP that she objected to the representation because of the direct conflict,” the lawsuit states.

    WTOP reached out to FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) Lodge 89 and it declined to comment on the case.

    Howlette said being unable to go after the department — his hope in this case — if successful, could result in the clearing of Zollicoffer’s name.

    “The entire thing, the entire negative effect on her personnel record, we’re seeking that all be abated and taken out of her personnel records,” he said.

    For Zollicoffer, she said fighting this is about restoring her reputation.

    “I didn’t deserve this. I didn’t do anything wrong,” Zollicoffer said.

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

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Mike Murillo

    Source link