ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

  • Shein lawsuit accuses fast-fashion site of RICO violations

    Shein lawsuit accuses fast-fashion site of RICO violations

    [ad_1]

    Shein is a popular online destination for social influencers and shoppers to stock up on trendy yet affordable clothing, but a new lawsuit alleges that the site maintains its edge by engaging in “egregious” copyright infringement that constitutes racketeering. 

    The complaint was filed on Tuesday in California federal court on behalf of three designers who claimed they were “surprised” and “outraged” to see their products faithfully copied and sold by the Chinese fast-fashion retailer.

    The reproduced products weren’t “close call” copies, where designs are interpreted with some liberties, but were “truly exact copies of copyrightable graphic design” that were sold by Shein, the lawsuit alleges. The company allegedly engages in a pattern of copyright infringement as part of its effort to produce 6,000 new items each day for its millions of customers. That amounts to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the claim alleges.

    “Shein has grown rich by committing individual infringements over and over again, as part of a long and continuous pattern of racketeering, which shows no sign of abating,” the suit alleges. 

    Shein is the largest fashion retailer in the world with annual sales of almost $30 billion, more than H&M and Zara combined, the lawsuit notes.

    A company representative told CBS MoneyWatch it doesn’t comment on pending litigation. 

    The lawsuit is just the latest in a series of difficulties Shein has faced. In May a bipartisan group of two dozen lawmakers asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to put the brakes on an initial public offering by Shein until it verified that it does not use forced labor from the country’s predominantly Muslim Uyghur population.

    “Shein has also been accused of other kinds of labor violations having to do with sweatshops and wage theft in China…and we don’t want to be a party to that,” Susan Scafidi, founder and director of the Fashion Law Institute of Fordham University, told CBS News. 

    “Downright evil”

    One of the designers who is suing Shein, Krista Perry of Worcester, Massachusetts, discovered copies of a graphic poster with the words “Make It Fun” for sale on Shein and a sister site, Romwe.com. Perry complained to Shein via contact forms on its websites about the copy, describing it as “incredibly disheartening, insulting and downright evil to profit off of artists without their knowledge or permission.”

    Shein wrote back with an offer of $500. “Shein made its offer as if it were a mom-and-pop operation rather than one of the richest enterprises in the world,” the suit alleges.

    make-it-fun-artwork.jpg
    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three designers, including Krista Perry, whose “Make It Fun” poster (left) was allegedly exactly copied by Shein (right.) When Perry reached out to complain, Shein offered her $500, the lawsuit claims. 

    Aimee Picchi


    Perry suffered “substantial damage to her business in the form of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a diminishment in the value of her designs and art, her rights, and her reputation,” the lawsuit alleges.

    The suit claims that Shein’s pattern, when accused of copyright infringement, is to claim it had low sales and blame a third-party organization for the theft. 

    “Shein will also offer an apology and a vague explanation that makes it seem that this was an anomaly — somehow Shein got its wires crossed and produced a very small number of exact copies of the designer’s goods,” the lawsuit alleges. “[N]ine times out of 10 the designer’s counsel will accept what’s offered, or bargain for just a little bit more.”

    Two other designers, Jay Baron of Burbank, California, and Larissa Blintz of Los Angeles, also alleged their designs were exactly copied by Shein. Baron created artwork called “Trying My Best,” which was allegedly copied and sold by Shein, while Blintz’s “Orange Daisies” clothing was also allegedly copied.

    trying-my-best.png
    The design by Jay Baron was allegedly copied by Shein, which the lawsuit claims would create “confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression that Shein’s goods are manufactured, associated with or connected with Baron.”

    Aimee Picchi


    Who owns Shein?

    Part of the challenge in pursuing Shein in court is its decentralized, even byzantine, structure, the lawsuit noted. 

    Shein “is a loose and ever-changing (though still continuous even as some individual elements might change to be replaced by others) association-in-fact of entities and individuals,” the lawsuit stated. Designers without an attorney “face an utter brick wall,” the lawsuit added, noting that even people with lawyers by their side can struggle to find “an appropriate defendant.”

    orange-daisies.png
    Larissa Blintz’s “Orange Daisies” pattern was allegedly copied by Shein, according to the lawsuit. The copy has “irreparably tarnished” Blintz’s reputation as an artist and designer while decreasing the revenue she received from her work, the lawsuit alleges.

    Aimee Picchi


    As a result, the claimants are alleging a violation of the RICO Act, which is “designed to address the misconduct of culpable individual cogs in a larger enterprise,” the lawsuit noted.

    “Unrepresented parties face an utter brick wall,” the lawsuit claims. “But even plaintiffs with attorneys, with strong cases, struggle to find an appropriate defendant. In the end, they simply sue whatever party they can find, and hope to straighten the matter out in discovery.”

    Shein was founded in 2012 by Chinese entrepreneur Chris Xu, also known as Xu Yangtian, who is valued at more than $10 billion by Forbes. But not much is known about him, according to The Guardian, which noted the different reports about his background, with some stories describing him as a Chinese-American who studied at George Washington University, while others say he was born in Shandong in 1984 and studied at Qingdao University of Science and Technology.

    “There is no Coco Chanel or Yves Saint Laurent behind the Shein empire. Rather, there is a mysterious tech genius, Xu Yangtian aka Chris Xu, about whom almost nothing is known,” the lawsuit alleges.

    What is a RICO charge?

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 was designed as a way to combat the exploitation of legal businesses by organized crime, according to the Justice Department. While often viewed as a law to combat organized crime, the RICO Act also has been used to prosecute white-collar crimes like the Enron accounting scandal and Bernie Madoff’s financial pyramid scheme. 

    Racketeering typically refers to an illegal activity carried out by extortion or fraud, but the RICO Act also has a civil section that can be used for consumer protection or to protect against commercial fraud, according to the Justice Department. 

    “It is well established that egregious copyright infringement (of the type alleged here, and of the type referenced in other similar cases against Shein) constitutes racketeering,” the lawsuit claims.

    A Congressional report last month unloaded a blistering critique of Shein and another Chinese retailer, Temu.

    The report is part of an ongoing Congressional investigation into products offered to American consumers that could be made with forced labor in China. As part of the probe, the committee sent letters in early May to brands Nike and Adidas, as well as Shein and Temu, asking for information about their compliance with the anti-forced labor law.

    Shein said at the time that the company’s “policy is to comply with the customs and import laws of the countries in which we operate.” It also said it has “zero tolerance” for forced labor and has implemented a robust system to ensure compliance with U.S. law.

    —With reporting by the Associated Press.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Shein lawsuit accuses fast-fashion site of RICO violations

    Shein lawsuit accuses fast-fashion site of RICO violations

    [ad_1]

    Shein is a popular online destination for social influencers and shoppers to stock up on trendy yet affordable clothing, but a new lawsuit alleges that the site maintains its edge by engaging in “egregious” copyright infringement that constitutes racketeering. 

    The complaint was filed on Tuesday in California federal court on behalf of three designers who claimed they were “surprised” and “outraged” to see their products faithfully copied and sold by the Chinese fast-fashion retailer.

    The reproduced products weren’t “close call” copies, where designs are interpreted with some liberties, but were “truly exact copies of copyrightable graphic design” that were sold by Shein, the lawsuit alleges. The company allegedly engages in a pattern of copyright infringement as part of its effort to produce 6,000 new items each day for its millions of customers. That amounts to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the claim alleges.

    “Shein has grown rich by committing individual infringements over and over again, as part of a long and continuous pattern of racketeering, which shows no sign of abating,” the suit alleges. 

    Shein is the largest fashion retailer in the world with annual sales of almost $30 billion, more than H&M and Zara combined, the lawsuit notes.

    A company representative told CBS MoneyWatch it doesn’t comment on pending litigation. 

    The lawsuit is just the latest in a series of difficulties Shein has faced. In May a bipartisan group of two dozen lawmakers asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to put the brakes on an initial public offering by Shein until it verified that it does not use forced labor from the country’s predominantly Muslim Uyghur population.

    “Downright evil”

    One of the designers who is suing Shein, Krista Perry of Worcester, Massachusetts, discovered copies of a graphic poster with the words “Make It Fun” for sale on Shein and a sister site, Romwe.com. Perry complained to Shein via contact forms on its websites about the copy, describing it as “incredibly disheartening, insulting and downright evil to profit off of artists without their knowledge or permission.”

    Shein wrote back with an offer of $500. “Shein made its offer as if it were a mom-and-pop operation rather than one of the richest enterprises in the world,” the suit alleges.

    make-it-fun-artwork.jpg
    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three designers, including Krista Perry, whose “Make It Fun” poster (left) was allegedly exactly copied by Shein (right.) When Perry reached out to complain, Shein offered her $500, the lawsuit claims. 

    Aimee Picchi


    Perry suffered “substantial damage to her business in the form of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a diminishment in the value of her designs and art, her rights, and her reputation,” the lawsuit alleges.

    The suit claims that Shein’s pattern, when accused of copyright infringement, is to claim it had low sales and blame a third-party organization for the theft. 

    “Shein will also offer an apology and a vague explanation that makes it seem that this was an anomaly — somehow Shein got its wires crossed and produced a very small number of exact copies of the designer’s goods,” the lawsuit alleges. “[N]ine times out of 10 the designer’s counsel will accept what’s offered, or bargain for just a little bit more.”

    Two other designers, Jay Baron of Burbank, California, and Larissa Blintz of Los Angeles, also alleged their designs were exactly copied by Shein. Baron created artwork called “Trying My Best,” which was allegedly copied and sold by Shein, while Blintz’s “Orange Daisies” clothing was also allegedly copied.

    trying-my-best.png
    The design by Jay Baron was allegedly copied by Shein, which the lawsuit claims would create “confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression that Shein’s goods are manufactured, associated with or connected with Baron.”

    Aimee Picchi


    Who owns Shein?

    Part of the challenge in pursuing Shein in court is its decentralized, even byzantine, structure, the lawsuit noted. 

    Shein “is a loose and ever-changing (though still continuous even as some individual elements might change to be replaced by others) association-in-fact of entities and individuals,” the lawsuit stated. Designers without an attorney “face an utter brick wall,” the lawsuit added, noting that even people with lawyers by their side can struggle to find “an appropriate defendant.”

    orange-daisies.png
    Larissa Blintz’s “Orange Daisies” pattern was allegedly copied by Shein, according to the lawsuit. The copy has “irreparably tarnished” Blintz’s reputation as an artist and designer while decreasing the revenue she received from her work, the lawsuit alleges.

    Aimee Picchi


    As a result, the claimants are alleging a violation of the RICO Act, which is “designed to address the misconduct of culpable individual cogs in a larger enterprise,” the lawsuit noted.

    “Unrepresented parties face an utter brick wall,” the lawsuit claims. “But even plaintiffs with attorneys, with strong cases, struggle to find an appropriate defendant. In the end, they simply sue whatever party they can find, and hope to straighten the matter out in discovery.”

    Shein was founded in 2012 by Chinese entrepreneur Chris Xu, also known as Xu Yangtian, who is valued at more than $10 billion by Forbes. But not much is known about him, according to The Guardian, which noted the different reports about his background, with some stories describing him as a Chinese-American who studied at George Washington University, while others say he was born in Shandong in 1984 and studied at Qingdao University of Science and Technology.

    “There is no Coco Chanel or Yves Saint Laurent behind the Shein empire. Rather, there is a mysterious tech genius, Xu Yangtian aka Chris Xu, about whom almost nothing is known,” the lawsuit alleges.

    What is a RICO charge?

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 was designed as a way to combat the exploitation of legal businesses by organized crime, according to the Justice Department. While often viewed as a law to combat organized crime, the RICO Act also has been used to prosecute white-collar crimes like the Enron accounting scandal and Bernie Madoff’s financial pyramid scheme. 

    Racketeering typically refers to an illegal activity carried out by extortion or fraud, but the RICO Act also has a civil section that can be used for consumer protection or to protect against commercial fraud, according to the Justice Department. 

    “It is well established that egregious copyright infringement (of the type alleged here, and of the type referenced in other similar cases against Shein) constitutes racketeering,” the lawsuit claims.

    A Congressional report last month unloaded a blistering critique of Shein and another Chinese retailer, Temu.

    The report is part of an ongoing Congressional investigation into products offered to American consumers that could be made with forced labor in China. As part of the probe, the committee sent letters in early May to brands Nike and Adidas, as well as Shein and Temu, asking for information about their compliance with the anti-forced labor law.

    Shein said at the time that the company’s “policy is to comply with the customs and import laws of the countries in which we operate.” It also said it has “zero tolerance” for forced labor and has implemented a robust system to ensure compliance with U.S. law.

    —With reporting by the Associated Press.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Shein lawsuit accuses fast-fashion site of RICO violations

    Shein lawsuit accuses fast-fashion site of RICO violations

    [ad_1]

    Shein is a popular online destination for social influencers and shoppers to stock up on trendy yet affordable clothing, but a new lawsuit alleges that the site maintains its edge by engaging in “egregious” copyright infringement that constitutes racketeering. 

    The complaint was filed on Tuesday in California federal court on behalf of three designers who claimed they were “surprised” and “outraged” to see their products faithfully copied and sold by the Chinese fast-fashion retailer.

    The reproduced products weren’t “close call” copies, where designs are interpreted with some liberties, but were “truly exact copies of copyrightable graphic design” that were sold by Shein, the lawsuit alleges. The company allegedly engages in a pattern of copyright infringement as part of its effort to produce 6,000 new items each day for its millions of customers. That amounts to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the claim alleges.

    “Shein has grown rich by committing individual infringements over and over again, as part of a long and continuous pattern of racketeering, which shows no sign of abating,” the suit alleges. 

    Shein is the largest fashion retailer in the world with annual sales of almost $30 billion, more than H&M and Zara combined, the lawsuit notes.

    A company representative told CBS MoneyWatch it doesn’t comment on pending litigation. 

    “Downright evil”

    One of the designers who is suing Shein, Krista Perry of Worcester, Massachusetts, discovered copies of a graphic poster with the words “Make It Fun” for sale on Shein and a sister site, Romwe.com. Perry complained to Shein via contact forms on its websites about the copy, describing it as “incredibly disheartening, insulting and downright evil to profit off of artists without their knowledge or permission.”

    Shein wrote back with an offer of $500. “Shein made its offer as if it were a mom-and-pop operation rather than one of the richest enterprises in the world,” the suit alleges.

    make-it-fun-artwork.jpg
    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three designers, including Krista Perry, whose “Make It Fun” poster (left) was allegedly exactly copied by Shein (right.) When Perry reached out to complain, Shein offered her $500, the lawsuit claims. 

    Aimee Picchi


    The lawsuit claims that Shein’s pattern, when accused of copyright infringement, is to claim it had low sales and blame a third-party organization for the theft. 

    “Shein will also offer an apology and a vague explanation that makes it seem that this was an anomaly — somehow Shein got its wires crossed and produced a very small number of exact copies of the designer’s goods,” the lawsuit alleges. “[N]ine times out of 10 the designer’s counsel will accept what’s offered, or bargain for just a little bit more.”

    The two other designers, Jay Baron of Burbank, California, and Larissa Blintz of Los Angeles, also alleged their designs were exactly copied by Shein. Baron created artwork called “Trying My Best,” which was allegedly copied and sold by Shein, while Martinez’ “Orange Daisies” clothing was also allegedly copied.

    trying-my-best.png
    The design by Jay Baron was allegedly copied by Shein, which the lawsuit claims would create “confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression that Shein’s goods are manufactured, associated with or connected with Baron.”

    Aimee Picchi


    Perry suffered “substantial damage to her business in the form of diversion of trade, loss of profits, and a diminishment in the value of her designs and art, her rights, and her reputation,” the lawsuit alleges.

    Who owns Shein?

    Part of the challenge in pursuing Shein in court is its decentralized, even byzantine, structure, the lawsuit noted. 

    Shein “is a loose and ever-changing (though still continuous even as some individual elements might change to be replaced by others) association-in-fact of entities and individuals,” the lawsuit stated. Designers without an attorney “face an utter brick wall,” the lawsuit added, noting that even people with lawyers by their side can struggle to find “an appropriate defendant.”

    As a result, the claimants are alleging a violation of the RICO Act, which is “designed to address the misconduct of culpable individual cogs in a larger enterprise,” the lawsuit noted.

    “Unrepresented parties face an utter brick wall,” the lawsuit claims. “But even plaintiffs with attorneys, with strong cases, struggle to find an appropriate defendant. In the end, they simply sue whatever party they can find, and hope to straighten the matter out in discovery.”

    Shein was founded in 2012 by Chinese entrepreneur Chris Xu, also known as Xu Yangtian, who is valued at more than $10 billion by Forbes. But not much is known about him, according to The Guardian, which noted the different reports about his background, with some stories describing him as a Chinese-American who studied at George Washington University, while others say he was born in Shandong in 1984 and studied at Qingdao University of Science and Technology.

    “There is no Coco Chanel or Yves Saint Laurent behind the Shein empire. Rather, there is a mysterious tech genius, Xu Yangtian aka Chris Xu, about whom almost nothing is known,” the lawsuit alleges.

    What is a RICO charge?

    The RICO Act of 1970 was designed as a way to combat the exploitation of legal businesses by organized crime, according to the Justice Department. While often viewed as a law to combat organized crime, the RICO Act also has been used to prosecute white-collar crimes like the Enron accounting scandal and Bernie Madoff’s financial pyramid scheme. 

    Racketeering typically refers to an illegal activity carried out by extortion or fraud, but the RICO Act also has a civil section that can be used for consumer protection or to protect against commercial fraud, according to the Justice Department. 

    “It is well established that egregious copyright infringement (of the type alleged here, and of the type referenced in other similar cases against Shein) constitutes racketeering,” the lawsuit claims.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department reverses position, won’t support shielding Trump in original E. Jean Carroll lawsuit

    Justice Department reverses position, won’t support shielding Trump in original E. Jean Carroll lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    The Justice Department on Tuesday reversed its position that former President Donald Trump was shielded from a 2019 defamation lawsuit filed by the writer E. Jean Carroll.

    The government had originally argued that Trump was protected from liability by the Westfall Act, because he was acting as a federal employee. Under the act, federal employees are entitled to absolute immunity from personal lawsuits for conduct occurring within the scope of their employment.

    Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton wrote in a letter Tuesday to attorneys for Trump and Carroll that a jury’s determination in a separate civil lawsuit that Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll factored into the decision. That lawsuit was filed in November 2022 and involved statements Trump made after his presidency.

    “The allegations that prompted the statements related to a purely personal incident: an alleged sexual assault that occurred decades prior to Mr. Trump’s Presidency,” Boynton wrote. “That sexual assault was obviously not job-related.”

    Carroll filed her first lawsuit in 2019, while Trump was still president — and after he accused her of “totally lying” when she said he sexually assaulted her in a high-end New York City department store in the 1990s. In October 2021, a federal judge in New York ruled that Trump was not shielded from Carroll’s suit. In 2022, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and suggested the Westfall Act could protect Trump from liability in the case. 

    The lawsuit has remained active and has yet to go to trial. After the jury found Trump liable in April, Carroll amended the suit, adding new defamation claims related to more recent statements made by Trump, and he filed a countersuit. 

    The Justice Department had initially argued that even though “the former president made crude and offensive comments in response to the very serious accusations of sexual assault” the law protecting employees like the president from such a lawsuit should be upheld.

    But the Justice Department reviewed that decision after the jury in Carroll’s second lawsuit in New York found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, Boynton wrote. It concluded that Trump had not acted “out of a desire to serve the government” when he denied her claims.

    Boynton also cited statements Trump has made about Carroll in the years since his presidency ended.

    “These post-Presidency statements, which were not before the Department during the original scope certification in this case, tend to undermine the claim that the former President made very similar statements at issue in Carroll out of a desire to serve the government,” Boynton wrote.

    Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan expressed gratitude for the department’s reversal and said in a statement, “We have always believed that Donald Trump made his defamatory statements about our client in June 2019 out of personal animus, ill will, and spite, and not as President of the United States.”

    She added that “we look forward to trial in E Jean Carroll’s original case in January 2024.”

    An attorney for Trump did not immediately return a request for comment.

    Graham Kates

    Graham Kates is an investigative reporter covering criminal justice, privacy issues and information security for CBS News Digital. Contact Graham at KatesG@cbsnews.com or grahamkates@protonmail.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge limits Biden administration’s contact with social media companies

    Judge limits Biden administration’s contact with social media companies

    [ad_1]

    A judge on Tuesday prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about “protected speech,” a decision called “a blow to censorship” by one of the Republican officials whose lawsuit prompted the ruling.

    U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana granted the injunction in response to a 2022 lawsuit brought by attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri. Their lawsuit alleged that the federal government overstepped in its efforts to convince social media companies to address postings that could result in vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or affect elections.

    Doughty cited “substantial evidence” of a far-reaching censorship campaign. He wrote that the “evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

    Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt, who was the Missouri attorney general when the lawsuit was filed, said on Twitter that the ruling was “a huge win for the First Amendment and a blow to censorship.”

    Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said the injunction prevents the administration “from censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans” on social media.

    “The evidence in our case is shocking and offensive with senior federal officials deciding that they could dictate what Americans can and cannot say on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms about COVID-19, elections, criticism of the government, and more,” Landry said in a statement.

    The Justice Department is reviewing the injunction “and will evaluate its options in this case,” said a White House official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

    “This administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” the official said. “Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”

    The ruling listed several government agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, that are prohibited by the injunction from discussions with social media companies aimed at “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

    The order mentions by name several officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and others.

    Doughty allowed several exceptions, such as informing social media companies of postings involving criminal activity and conspiracies; as well as notifying social media firms of national security threats and other threats posted on platforms.

    The plaintiffs in the lawsuit also included individuals, including conservative website owner Jim Hoft. The lawsuit accused the administration of using the possibility of favorable or unfavorable regulatory action to coerce social media platforms to squelch what it considered misinformation on masks and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also touched on other topics, including claims about election integrity and news stories about material on a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son.

    Administration lawyers said the government left it up to social media companies to decide what constituted misinformation and how to combat it. In one brief, they likened the lawsuit to an attempt to put a legal gag order on the federal government and “suppress the speech of federal government officials under the guise of protecting the speech rights of others.”

    “Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction would significantly hinder the Federal Government’s ability to combat foreign malign influence campaigns, prosecute crimes, protect the national security, and provide accurate information to the public on matters of grave public concern such as health care and election integrity,” the administration says in a May 3 court filing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News reaches $12 million settlement in lawsuits brought by former Tucker Carlson producer

    Fox News reaches $12 million settlement in lawsuits brought by former Tucker Carlson producer

    [ad_1]

    Fox News reaches $12 million settlement in lawsuits brought by former Tucker Carlson producer – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Fox News has agreed to pay $12 million to settle two lawsuits brought by Abby Grossberg, a former producer for host Tucker Carlson. In one of her lawsuits, Grossberg alleged that she faced a hostile and sexist work environment while working on Carlson’s show.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Killeen councilmembers vote to exceed legal expense fund to decriminalize marijuana possession | KWKT – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    Killeen councilmembers vote to exceed legal expense fund to decriminalize marijuana possession | KWKT – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    [ad_1]

    Killeen, TX (FOX 44) — Killeen city council members voted to exceed its legal expenses funding – at the cost of $100,000 to defend itself against Bell County.

    Bell County filled a lawsuit against Killeen enacting Proposition A to decriminalize low levels of marijuana possession.

    The case is in pending litigation.

    City councilmembers recognized this was a hard decision, and it split the room.

    “I’ve never been for the decriminalization of marijuana. We all know that, but I’m always for, whether it’s the council, or, a man or woman, that walks through a courtroom to have a defense team,” said Killeen Mayor Pro Temp Nina Cobbs.

    Five to one was the city council’s vote for exceeding its legal funding against Bell County.

    [ad_2]

    MMP News Author

    Source link

  • Tourist subs aren’t tightly regulated. Here’s why.

    Tourist subs aren’t tightly regulated. Here’s why.

    [ad_1]

    The accident involving a tourist sub that killed all five people on the vessel is raising questions about the rules governing deep-sea exploration. It’s a space on the high seas where laws and conventions can be sidestepped by risk-taking entrepreneurs and the wealthy tourists who help fund their dreams. 

    “We’re at a point in submersible operations in deep water that’s kind of akin to where aviation was in the early 20th century,” said Salvatore Mercogliano, a history professor at Campbell University in North Carolina who focuses on maritime history and policy.

    “Aviation was in its infancy, and it took accidents for decisions to be made to be put into laws,” Mercogliano said. “There’ll be a time when you won’t think twice about getting on a submersible and going down 13,000 feet. But we’re not there yet.”

    Thursday’s announcement by the U.S. Coast Guard that the Titan had imploded near the Titanic shipwreck has drawn attention to how these expeditions are regulated.

    Mercogliano said such operations are scrutinized less than the companies that launch people into space. In the Titan’s case, that’s in part because it operated in international waters, far from the reach of many laws of the U.S. or other nations.


    Expert discusses safety concerns he raised about Titan sub in 2018

    08:55

    The Titan wasn’t registered as a U.S. vessel or with international agencies that regulate safety, Mercogliano added. Nor was it classified by a maritime industry group that sets standards on matters such as hull construction.

    Stockton Rush, the OceanGate CEO who died on Titan, had said he didn’t want to be bogged down by such standards. “Bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid innovation,” he wrote in a blog post on his company’s website.

    The Titan was a small vessel that was launched from another ship, the Canadian icebreaker Polar Prince, a setup that Mercogliano likened to pulling a boat on a trailer, in terms of regulatory purposes.

    “The highway patrol has jurisdiction over the car and over the trailer, but not over the boat,” he said. “The boat is cargo.”

    Experts say wrongful death and negligence lawsuits are likely in the Titan case — and they could be successful. But legal actions will face various challenges, including waivers signed by the Titan passengers that warned of the myriad ways they could die.

    Waiver could make it hard to sue

    Mike Reiss, a writer for “The Simpsons” television show who went on a Titanic expedition with OceanGate in 2022, recalled that his waiver said he would be “subject to extreme pressure. And any failure of the vessel could cause severe injury or death.”

    “I will be exposed to risks associated with high pressure gases, pure oxygen, high voltage systems which could lead to injury, disability and death,” Reiss said Thursday, going by memory. “If I am injured, I may not receive immediate medical attention.”

    Thomas Schoenbaum, a University of Washington law professor and author of the book “Admiralty and Maritime Law,” said such documents may be upheld in court if they are worded well.

    “If those waivers are good, and I imagine they probably are because a lawyer probably drafted them, (families) may not be able to recover damages.”


    CBS News’ David Pogue on “catastrophic implosion” of Titanic submersible

    05:28

    At the same time, OceanGate could still face repercussions under the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993, Schoenbaum said. But it may depend on which arm of OceanGate owned the Titan submersible.

    Rush, the late OceanGate CEO, told AP in 2021 that it was an American company. But he said OceanGate Expeditions, which led dives to the Titanic, was based in the Bahamas.

    Schoenbaum said the Bahamas subsidiary has the potential to circumvent U.S. law, but courts have at times “pierced the corporate veil” and OceanGate could be found liable.

    Guillermo Söhnlein, who co-founded OceanGate in 2009 before leaving the company four years later, told Reuters on Friday that Rush was highly focused on safety. 

    “Stockton was one of the most astute risk managers I’d ever met. He was very risk-averse. He was very keenly aware of the risks of operating in the deep ocean environment, and he was very committed to safety,” Söhnlein told the wire service.

    Meanwhile, there are questions of whether the Titan was insured or if the Canadian icebreaker’s insurance could come into play.

    The countries where lawsuits may be filed could also depend on contracts signed by passengers and crew.

    “I would be very surprised, in a high-risk operation like this, if the contract did not address which law applies and where any claim can be filed,” said George Rutherglen, a professor of admiralty law at the University of Virginia.

    Need for stronger rules?

    In the meantime, Rutherglen said, he expects the U.S. will respond with tighter regulations given the loss of life and the millions of dollars spent by the Coast Guard.

    “These wrecks at the bottom of the sea have become more accessible with advancing technology,” Rutherglen said. “It doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily become safer to go down and take a look.”

    The International Maritime Organization, which regulates commercial shipping, could take some kind of action, he added, and Congress also could pass legislation. Nations such as the U.S. could, for example, block ships engaging in such expeditions from docking in their ports.

    “I would just be surprised if any incident with all of these costs involved — wrongful death, expensive rescue — would not lead to some initiatives,” he said.

    But not everyone agrees. Forrest Booth, a San Francisco-based partner at Kennedys Law, said the International Maritime Organization “has no authority to impose its will.”

    “There could be a move for states to adopt an international treaty on the deep ocean,” Booth said via email. “But that will be resisted by some nations that want to do deep-sea mining, etc. I do not think much of substance will happen after the media attention of this event dies down.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC accuses Amazon of deceptive Prime enrollment practices

    FTC accuses Amazon of deceptive Prime enrollment practices

    [ad_1]

    FTC accuses Amazon of deceptive Prime enrollment practices – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Federal Trade Commission has filed a lawsuit against Amazon, accusing the e-commerce giant of enrolling people into its Amazon Prime subscription service without their consent.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • E. Jean Carroll Can Amend Lawsuit Against Trump To Seek More Damages, Judge Rules

    E. Jean Carroll Can Amend Lawsuit Against Trump To Seek More Damages, Judge Rules

    [ad_1]

    A judge ruled on Tuesday that E. Jean Carroll, the columnist who won $5 million in damages in a civil lawsuit she filed against former President Donald Trump in 2022, may amend a separate, pending 2019 defamation lawsuit against Trump to seek more damages.

    U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan approved the request to amend the 2019 lawsuit, which now seeks at least $10 million in damages against Trump, CNBC reported.

    A trial for the lawsuit is still pending as the courts weigh whether Trump can be sued as an individual for comments he made while he was still president in 2019.

    Carroll requested an amendment to the lawsuit last month after Trump — whose lawyers tried to block the amendment — made inflammatory remarks about her at a CNN Town Hall event a day after the verdict in her 2022 civil case came out.

    In that second 2022 lawsuit, Carroll alleged that Trump had raped her in a luxury department store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s. Last month, the jury found him liable for sexual abuse and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million.

    The next day, Trump verbally attacked and mocked Carroll, denied any wrongdoing and claimed that he didn’t know her, despite photographic evidence to the contrary. Trump also repeatedly denied knowing Carroll throughout the trial, which he did not attend.

    “I have no idea who the hell [this is],” Trump said at the town hall event. “She’s a whack job.”

    Trump’s legal woes are mounting with the amended lawsuit.

    Following his indictment last week, the former president was arraigned in Miami on Tuesday, where he pleaded not guilty to 37 federal felony charges for his alleged mishandling of classified documents at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago.

    Trump was previously indicted and arraigned in March over hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, who alleged the two had an affair, prior to the 2016 election. Trump also faces probes into his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. A decision on whether to charge Trump as a result of the Georgia investigation is expected to arrive in the upcoming months, according to the Fulton County district attorney.

    Need help? Visit RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Online Hotline or the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s website.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s War of the Rosé

    Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s War of the Rosé

    [ad_1]

    The new owners of Jolie’s share demanded access to “documents [that] would allow Nouvel to seek redress in France for Pitt and his allies’ mismanagement.” To Pitt, as spelled out in a memorandum, it was a blatant ploy to “intimidate them into surrendering the business they built.” 

    On March 4, 2022, Miraval was under siege.

    Two court officers and an IT expert, armed with the French equivalent of a search warrant, drove through the gates and down the 2.5-mile road to Miraval. They had been dispatched by Nouvel’s new owners to conduct what French law, translated literally, calls a “spontaneous interpellation.” 

    To Pitt and his partners, it was nothing short of a raid, although the Stoli Group disputes that characterization. “It was not a raid,” the spokesperson says, but rather a “bailiff’s mission…precisely and narrowly foreseen by the judge.”

    Lawyers for Shefler’s wine division had petitioned a commercial court in Provence to invoke article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which enables businesses to enter the premises of their adversaries and seize evidence of suspected malfeasance. The filing before the court cited “mismanagement,” “misuse of corporate assets,” and a “blocking mechanism” by its other 50 percent shareholder, Mondo Bongo, the company that held Pitt’s Miraval shares, in conjunction with two associates at the winery. 

    “Given the existing links between the different protagonists, it is to be feared that they will consult each other in order to conceal” evidence, the petition read. It went on to say that only a “spontaneous interpellation, without the recipients of it being notified in advance,” would enable the court to collect the relevant evidence.

    When their first request was denied, the lawyers petitioned the court again. In February 2022, the bailiff granted an order to proceed. Now the court’s emissaries entered the offices of the historic wine estate. They seized Miraval’s files and copies of “contracts, invoices, correspondence (including emails),” and turned it all over to the court, which would investigate and decide whether or not to pass the materials on to Nouvel. Neither Pitt nor Perrin were at Miraval at the time. 

    In March of this year, the president of the commercial court issued a ruling to “retract the order” for the search and ensure “the restitution of the documents.” Nevertheless, Miraval’s records remain in the hands of the court, as yet unopened. “This procedure is pending before the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence,” says a Stoli spokesperson.

    In the years since the plane incident, Jolie has shifted her focus, according to a source familiar with the matter: “In addition to continuing her global humanitarian work, she began advocating for survivors of domestic violence. She spoke before members of the Senate and House and campaigned on behalf of the Violence Against Women Act; the Justice for All Act, which protects the rights of crime victims; and Kayden’s Law, also known as Keep Your Children Safe From Family Violence. She also partnered with Amnesty International to write a book for young people called Know Your Rights and Claim Them.”

    Pitt and Jolie’s Vista Jet.BACKGRID.

    Coverage of Jolie’s account of the plane incident prompted an outcry on social media as fans of both parties digested the shocking details. And yet, in Hollywood, Pitt remains golden. In 2019, he reteamed with Quentin Tarantino in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, costarring opposite Leonardo DiCaprio as a handsome, aging stuntman trying to make sense of the swinging ’60s. Pitt’s laid-back charm earned him critical acclaim and an Oscar for best supporting actor. 

    The battle rages on. On June 1, Pitt filed an amended complaint against his ex-wife and Nouvel’s new owners, continuing his campaign to have Jolie’s sale to Shefler’s company reversed. That kicked off another round of headlines, with Jolie’s attorney telling CNN that Pitt “has never publicly denied” the accusations of assault on the plane. (“Brad has owned everything he’s responsible for from day one, but he’s not going to own anything he didn’t do,” says Pitt’s attorney Anne Kiley.) 

    “This case has been covered as a celebrity divorce; it is really a story about abuse,” says a source familiar with the matter. 

    For some, it’s simply a human tragedy. “I hope you’ll give some grace to somebody who had a breakdown,” says one person who knew the family. “Everybody was shocked by the eruption on the plane, because Brad is not an abusive person. But even more devastating was what came afterwards: Brad being alienated from those he loves most—his children.”

    In May, Miraval was named the “Most Desirable Provence Rosé Wine in the World,” number one in a Le Figaro magazine ranking of 33 top Provençal vineyards. And while the family that created modern-day Miraval is gone, signs of the happy life they lived here remain in an all-white bedroom with furniture designed by Pitt.

    “This is for the kids. Everything was for the kids and the family,” says someone in the château, leading the way into the magical bedroom, located inside a building where the children were privately schooled by teachers who traveled with them from the US. Three of the children are now over 18, but the rest live with their mother, and Pitt shares custody and visits them. But their memory remains in this room, with its circle of white bunk beds adorned with teddy bears and other reminders of another time. Six bunk beds now lying empty where six kids once slept. None have returned to Miraval since they left in September 2016. 

    [ad_2]

    Mark Seal

    Source link

  • The Royal Family Believes Prince Harry’s Case Against the British Tabloids Is “Not Going to End Well”

    The Royal Family Believes Prince Harry’s Case Against the British Tabloids Is “Not Going to End Well”

    [ad_1]

    Prince Harry “will stop at nothing” in the hacking case against Britain’s tabloids and is optimistic he will win against Mirror Group Newspapers, publisher of the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, and the Sunday People.

    According to a source close to Harry, the prince feels his lawsuit is “not about seeking payouts or public apologies but about changing the way the tabloid press operates.” 

    The source added, “Harry will stop at nothing. He believes he was hacked and that he has every reason to believe this was the case, given that the Mirror has admitted to historic phone hacking [in other cases]. In his eyes everything leads back to phone hacking.”

    Harry has made it clear in both his extensive witness statement and his court testimony that he believes he has been the victim of illicit news gathering on an industrial scale. 

    Prince Harry told the court Wednesday he believes he may have been hacked on “a daily basis” over a 15-year period but admitted he had no evidence to back it up. While at the High Court for the second consecutive day, Harry was cross-examined by Andrew Green and questioned by his own barrister, David Sherborne.

    The historic court case is the first time a senior royal has taken the witness stand in 132 years and has attracted global attention. Harry has arrived alone for each day of the hearing, which has been covered by media outlets from around the world. When asked by Sherbourne how he felt about being in the public courtroom with the world’s media watching, Harry, who looked exhausted and emotional after a second day of extensive questioning, responded, “It’s a lot.”

    Wednesday’s hearing has centered largely on stories about Prince Harry’s relationship with his ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy and how the press seemed to know where they would be and when. The matter of blagging (obtaining confidential information through deceptive methods) was raised when Sherbourne on Wednesday read out details of a flight taken by Davy, including her seat number, which were allegedly blagged by a freelance journalist in South Africa.

    Harry also claimed that he was targeted by paparazzi, who became known to him and would turn up at places before he arrived. He told the court that he believes the journalists at the newspapers in question went to “extreme lengths to cover their tracks” and that there had been an “industrial-scale destruction of evidence” of unlawful news gathering. 

    Given the high-profile nature of the case and the personal nature of questioning, King Charles and Prince William were both said to be wary about Harry giving evidence. It is understood that Harry’s father had previously advised him not to take on the tabloids but Harry was intent on having his day in court. 

    The fact that he has pursued the case is said to be another factor dividing Prince Harry from his family. “The family believes this is not going to end well,” one source said.

    Harry’s relationship with his father and brother remains strained and he has not seen them during his fleeting trip to the UK. Harry is expected to leave for California Wednesday evening.

    The case risks embarrassing the royal family as private information has been revealed about other family members in Harry’s case against News Group Newspapers (NGN). Court documents in April revealed that his brother, Prince William, had accepted “a very large sum of money”—thought to be about 1 million British pounds—from Rupert Murdoch’s NGN after he was a victim of phone hacking. 

    So far Buckingham Palace has declined to comment.

    While Harry has performed well under pressure on the witness stand, he has crucially not been able to deliver any concrete evidence that he was hacked, despite submitting 148 articles he claims are suspicious and testifying and being cross-examined about 33 of these. During the hearing, Green pointed out that many of the articles selected by Harry’s legal team had either been based on reports from other newspapers or confirmed by palace aides, suggesting that they were not the result of hacking.

    [ad_2]

    Katie Nicholl

    Source link

  • Cuba Gooding Jr. settles lawsuit over New York City rape accusation before trial, court records say

    Cuba Gooding Jr. settles lawsuit over New York City rape accusation before trial, court records say

    [ad_1]

    Cuba Gooding Jr. settles civil sex abuse case


    Cuba Gooding Jr. settles civil sex abuse case

    00:30

    Actor Cuba Gooding Jr. has settled accusations that he raped a woman in a New York City hotel a decade ago, according to court records. Tuesday’s revelation came as a trial was set to begin in federal court.

    The Oscar-winning “Jerry Maguire” star had insisted through lawyers that his encounter with the woman was consensual after the two met at a nearby restaurant in Manhattan.

    The woman had proceeded anonymously until last week, when Judge Paul A. Crotty ruled that she would have to reveal her name at trial. She said in her lawsuit that Gooding raped her in his hotel room after convincing her to stop at the room so he could change clothing. His lawyers, though, insisted that it was consensual sex and that she bragged afterward to others that she had sex with a celebrity.

    The lawsuit sought $6 million in damages. Gloria Allred, one of several attorneys representing the woman, declined to comment to CBS News about the reported settlement. Other lawyers, including those representing Gooding, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The trial was to start with jury selection in New York federal court. Minutes after jurors were to begin assembling in a courtroom, a calendar entry in the official court record said: “TRIAL OFF.” It added: “Reason for cancellation (on consent): the parties have resolved the matter.”

    The lawsuit was filed against a man who authorities say has been accused of committing sexual misconduct against more than 30 other women, including groping, unwanted kissing and other inappropriate behavior.

    Late last week, the judge seemed to strengthen the woman’s hand at trial and in settlement negotiations by ruling that he would let three women testify that they also were subjected to sudden sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults after meeting Gooding in social settings such as festivals, bars, nightclubs and restaurants.

    One of the women who had planned to testify at the trial was Kelsey Harbert, who told police Gooding fondled her without her consent at Magic Hour Rooftop Bar & Lounge near Times Square in 2019.

    Harbert said last year after Gooding pleaded guilty in New York state court to a charge that spared him from jail or a criminal history that never getting her day in court was “more disappointing than words can say.”

    In April 2022, Gooding was permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, admitting that he forcibly kissed a worker at a New York nightclub in 2018.

    By staying out of trouble and completing six months of alcohol and behavioral counseling, Gooding was permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and plead guilty to a non-criminal harassment violation, eliminating his criminal record and preventing further penalties.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Playboy model accuses Bill Cosby of sexual assault in lawsuit

    Former Playboy model accuses Bill Cosby of sexual assault in lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Former Playboy model accuses Bill Cosby of sexual assault in lawsuit – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Victoria Valentino, a former Playboy model, is accusing comedian Bill Cosby of sexually assaulting her in a new lawsuit filed Thursday in California.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Delta faces lawsuit alleging its

    Delta faces lawsuit alleging its

    [ad_1]

    A Delta passenger is suing the airline over its claim that it is “carbon-neutral,” saying the three-year-old pledge is greenwashing, relying on dubious carbon offsets that have no environmental benefit.

    The suit, filed Tuesday in federal court in California, alleges that Delta’s claim to be “the world’s first carbon-neutral airline” is a sham. Greenwashing refers to a marketing spin that makes it appear that a company or product is environmentally friendly, when it may not be.

    Rather than undertaking the hard work of reducing its carbon emissions, the complaint alleges, Delta is buying largely fabricated carbon offsets, while continuing to charge a premium price from travelers who believe they’re paying for environmentally friendly travel.

    The suit, which is seeking class-action status, is the first to challenge a U.S. airline’s climate claims, according to Jonathan Haderlein, the plaintiff’s attorney.

    “The climate crisis is, in a lot of ways, a consumption crisis— it’s the corporate supply chain and decisions that everyone makes, everyone participates in,” he told CBS MoneyWatch. “As public consciousness is raised, consumers are trying to make informed decisions that are trying to mitigate their own impact. Companies are trying to capitalize on that by saying they’re a green choice.”

    He added, “If you think you’re flying the world’s most green airline, and you’re not, why wouldn’t that be actionable?”

    Flying is a major contributor to carbon pollution, accounting for more than 2% of all greenhouse-gas emissions, according to the International Energy Agency.

    Delta, which did not immediately reply to a request for comment from CBS MoneyWatch, told the Associated Press the suit was “without legal merit.”

    “Since March 31, 2022, (Delta) has fully transitioned its focus away from carbon offsets toward decarbonization of our operations, focusing our efforts on investing in sustainable aviation fuel,” Delta spokesperson Grant Myatt told the AP.


    France bans short domestic flights to cut carbon emissions

    04:51

    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Glendale, California resident Mayanna Berrin, who works for Nickelodeon and is about to turn 30, according to the AP. (Paramount Global, the owner of CBS News, also owns Nickelodeon.)

    Berrin told the outlet that climate change gives her and her generation great anxiety, and that she was frustrated to learn Delta’s climate claims, which made her comfortable paying more for a flight, may be lies. 

    “They can’t just claim neutrality if that’s not factually accurate,” she told the AP. 

    The suit claims that “thousands” of travelers potentially paid more for Delta’s flights because of the company’s climate stance.

    Pollute now, offset later

    Carbon offsets, which rely on paying for a climate-beneficial activity like reforestation to counteract the carbon pollution a company creates, have emerged as a major part of many corporate climate pledges. But a growing body of research has shown that offsets are dubious at best. 

    For instance, Delta’s forestry and agriculture offsets for 2021 were certified by the carbon-offset vendor Verra, according to the complaint. However, an investigation by The Guardian earlier this year concluded that more than 90% of Verra’s rainforest offsets had no climate benefit. 

    Most of Delta’s offsets paid for projects that would have happened anyway, without the airline’s investment, the suit contends — meaning they shouldn’t count as truly counterbalancing the airline’s carbon emissions. A Bloomberg investigation last year found that dozens of large companies — including Delta — relied on “junk” credits to make carbon-neutrality claims.

    Even when a carbon-offset project is real, there’s no guarantee that its carbon savings are permanent: for instance, that there’s no assurance that a tree planted in 2021 won’t burn down in a forest fire two years later, releasing all its carbon. 

    Because of these concerns, the suit claims, companies including JetBlue and Lyft have stopped using carbon credits and have moved toward reducing their emissions in other ways.  

    “The reality is, a lot of companies knew these offsets were questionable and they didn’t buy them, and they didn’t advertise on it,” said Haderlein. “This case isn’t just about climate change, it’s about fairness to consumers and it’s also about fairness generally in the marketplace.”

    A handful of lawsuits over the past two years have taken aim at companies’ environmental claims with the Dutch airline KLM, French energy giant TotalEnergies and food company Danone being sued over claims of being “carbon-neutral.”

    U.S. regulators are also looking to rein in greenwashing, with the Federal Trade Commission in the midst of updating its “Green Guides” which dictate the types of environmental marketing that companies can engage in.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Black gym employee says she was fired after calling out racism. A jury awarded her $11.3 million.

    Black gym employee says she was fired after calling out racism. A jury awarded her $11.3 million.

    [ad_1]

    After she was hired by the high-end Equinox gym in 2018, Röbynn Europe, a Black personal trainer, was quickly promoted to oversee a group of 15 employees. But soon, she alleges, a White employee created a “toxic atmosphere” by repeatedly making vulgar comments about Black women’s bodies as well as objecting to her being his boss.

    Europe’s employment didn’t last long. Less than a year after starting at Equinox, she was fired — and the reason for the termination was the crux of a lawsuit she filed in 2020. 

    She alleged she faced discrimination due to her race and gender, and that she lost her job because Equinox retaliated against her for calling out racism and sexism at the club. The gym claimed she was fired for arriving late 47 times during her 11 months at the company. While a judge dismissed her claim of retaliation last year, the case continued, focused on the issues of race and gender bias.

    Earlier this month, a jury of five women and three men sided with Europe, awarding her $11.25 million in damages, a verdict that includes $10 million in punitive damages against the gym, according to court records.

    Millions of employees face toxic workplaces, which can reduce employee performance and impact a worker’s personal life, according to the Harvard Business Review. According to Europe’s lawsuit, her experiences at Equinox allegedly demoralized her, caused her “substantial emotional distress” and exacerbated her bulimia.

    “The jury sent a loud message to Equinox that there are serious consequences for corporations that permit racist and sexist behavior in the workplace,” said Susan Crumiller, an attorney for Europe, in a statement. 

    She added, “We are also pleased that the jury found Equinox’s racism had a severe and lasting impact on Röbynn’s mental health and that she deserved to be compensated for it.”

    After the jury’s award, the judge ordered both sides to meet with a magistrate judge to discuss a settlement.

    In a statement emailed to CBS MoneyWatch, Equinox said it doesn’t tolerate discrimination “in any form.”

    It noted, “This is a case of termination for performance related to attendance, and nothing more.” Equinox added, “[W]e vehemently disagree with the jury’s finding, as well as the unjust and excessive award, and have filed a motion seeking to have the judge overturn the jury’s decision.”

    Toxic workplace

    Equinox is known as a tony gym, with more than 100 locations in cities ranging from New York City to San Francisco. Memberships can cost several hundred dollars a month, with amenities like “Eucalyptus steam rooms” and high-end juice bars. 

    Europe worked at Equinox’s location on East 92nd Street on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, the same location with the employee who allegedly made racist and sexist language. Europe complained to the company about his remarks, but, her lawsuit alleges, “rather than address and fix those issues, they targeted [Europe] for reprisals.”

    The retaliation allegedly came in the form of being cited for lateness. Europe didn’t deny she came in late, but noted that other workers frequently did the same and weren’t reprimanded. Her lawsuit claimed she “was never late for a training appointment with a client, never kept a client waiting, and regularly stayed an hour or more past the end of her shift regardless of what time she had arrived.”

    The man who allegedly made the sexist and racist comments was among those who “regularly arrived at work well after their official start-times without consequence.” The lawsuit also claimed that the employee “often left work early without repercussion.”

    That prompted Europe to believe she “was being singled out for selective enforcement of time and attendance policies in retaliation for having engaged in legally protected activities,” the lawsuit claimed. 

    Just months after she complained about the club’s toxic work environment, Equinox fired her, citing her lateness as its reason, the claim says. 

    The trial included “swipe-in data” from other Equinox workers that showed that other managers had worse time and attendance records than Europe, although she was the only worker who was disciplined, her attorney stated.

    In addition to the $10 million in punitive damages, the jury awarded Europe $1.25 million in compensatory damages and $16,000 in economic damages representing back pay. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Burger King to pay roughly $8 million to customer who slipped and fell

    Burger King to pay roughly $8 million to customer who slipped and fell

    [ad_1]

    A Florida court has ordered a Burger King franchise to pay nearly $8 million to a customer who allegedly slipped and injured his back at the restaurant. 

    Richard Tulecki, 48, suffered “serious injuries” in 2019 after he slipped on a “wet foreign substance” and fell inside the bathroom at a Burger King in Hollywood, Florida, court documents show. Those injuries required surgery, which left Tulecki with a post-operative perforated colon, Ginnis & Krathen, the law firm that represents Tulecki, said in a statement.

    A jury sided with Tulecki earlier this month, awarding him $7.81 million in damages, including $3.35 million for lost earnings and $700,000 for medical expenses. The court later reduced the amount to $7.68 million to account for medical expenses Tulecki’s insurance had already covered.

    As a result of the injuries, Tulecki was forced to stop working, hurting him financially and emotionally. Working was “a major part of his identity,” his attorney’s told CBS MoneyWatch.

    The settlement will help pay the medical bills for treating Tulecki’s back injuries, they added.

    img-9884.jpg
    Attorneys H Ross Zelnick (left) and Miguel A. Amador (left) of Ginnis & Krathen, P.A. flank Richard Tulecki and his wife.

    Ginnis & Krathen, P.A.


    Seven Restaurants, the franchise’s operator, filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that Tulecki’s lawyers presented “virtually no evidence” that the restaurant’s management had been apprised of the bathroom floor’s slippery conditions. Neither Seven Restaurants nor Burger King was immediately available for comment.

    A family successfully sued McDonald’s earlier this month, alleging a scalding hot chicken nugget from the restaurant gave their 4-year-old daughter second-degree burns. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Taco Tuesday’ is for everyone, argues Taco Bell. Taco John’s says it owns the trademark to the phrase.

    ‘Taco Tuesday’ is for everyone, argues Taco Bell. Taco John’s says it owns the trademark to the phrase.

    [ad_1]

    CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Declaring a mission to liberate “Taco Tuesday” for all, Taco Bell is asking U.S. regulators to force Wyoming-based Taco John’s to abandon its longstanding claim to the trademark.

    Too many businesses and others refer to “Taco Tuesday” for Taco John’s to be able to have exclusive rights to the phrase, Taco Bell asserts in a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filing that is, of course, dated Tuesday.

    It’s the latest development in a long-running beef over “Taco Tuesday” that even included NBA star LeBron James making an unsuccessful attempt to claim the trademark in 2019.

    “Taco Bell believes ‘Taco Tuesday’ is critical to everyone’s Tuesday. To deprive anyone of saying ‘Taco Tuesday’ — be it Taco Bell or anyone who provides tacos to the world — is like depriving the world of sunshine itself,” the Taco Bell filing reads.

    A key question is whether “Taco Tuesday” over the years has succumbed to “genericide,” New York trademark lawyer Emily Poler said. That’s the term for when a word or phrase become so widely used for similar products — or in this case, sales promotions — they’re no longer associated with the trademark holder.

    Well-known examples of genericide victims include “cellophane,” “escalator” and “trampoline.”

    “Basically what this is about is you cannot trademark something that is ‘generic,’ ” Poler said. “That means it doesn’t have any association with that particular source or product.”

    Basketball legend James — a well-known taco lover — encountered this problem when he tried to trademark “Taco Tuesday” in 2019. The Patent and Trademark Office, in a ruling that didn’t refer to Taco John’s, deemed “Taco Tuesday” too much of a “commonplace term” to qualify as a trademark.

    With more than 7,200 locations in the U.S. and internationally, Taco Bell — a Yum Brands
    YUM,
    -2.45%
    chain along with Pizza Hut, KFC and the Habit Burger Grill — is vastly bigger than Cheyenne-based Taco John’s. Begun as a food truck more than 50 years ago, Taco John’s now has about 370 locations in 23 mainly in western and midwestern states.

    The chain’s size hasn’t discouraged big-time enforcement of “Taco Tuesday” as trademark, which dates to the 1980s. In 2019, the company sent a letter to a brewery just five blocks from its corporate headquarters, warning it to stop using “Taco Tuesday” to promote a taco truck parked outside on Tuesdays.

    Actively defending a trademark is required to maintain claim to it, and the letter was just one example of Taco John’s telling restaurants far and wide to stop having “Taco Tuesdays.”

    Taco John’s responded to Taco Bell’s filing by announcing a new two-week Taco Tuesday promotion, with a large side of riposte.

    Press release: Ring the Bell! Every Day is Taco Tuesday® at Taco John’s

    “I’d like to thank our worthy competitors at Taco Bell for reminding everyone that Taco Tuesday is best celebrated at Taco John’s,” CEO Jim Creel said in an emailed statement. “We love celebrating Taco Tuesday with taco lovers everywhere, and we even want to offer a special invitation to fans of Taco Bell to liberate themselves by coming by to see how flavorful and bold tacos can be at Taco John’s all month long.”

    The filing is one of two from Taco Bell involving “Taco Tuesday.” One contests Taco John’s claim to “Taco Tuesday” in 49 states, while a similar filing contests a New Jersey restaurant and bar’s claim to “Taco Tuesday” in that state. Both Taco John’s and Gregory’s Restaurant and Bar in Somers Point, N.J., have been using “Taco Tuesday” for over 40 years.

    A Taco John’s franchisee in Minnesota first came up with “Taco Twosday” to promote two tacos for 99 cents on a slow day of the week, Creel told the Associated Press in a recent interview.

    The Patent and Trademark Office approved the Taco John’s “Taco Tuesday” trademark in 1989. Even with its many letters, Creel said, the company — established in 1969 in Cheyenne, Wyo. — has never had to go to court over the phrase.

    He’s not feeling too picked on, either, by the much bigger Taco Bell. “It’s OK. It’s kind of nice that they’ve noticed,” Creel said.

    From the archives (January 2022): Taco Bell takes taco subscription program nationwide

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tiger Woods’ ex-girlfriend Erica Herman must follow NDA, Florida judge says in $30 million legal battle

    Tiger Woods’ ex-girlfriend Erica Herman must follow NDA, Florida judge says in $30 million legal battle

    [ad_1]

    Tiger Woods‘ ex-girlfriend Erica Herman must abide by a nondisclosure agreement she purportedly signed and resolve her lawsuits seeking millions from the golf superstar through private arbitration behind closed doors, a Florida judge ruled late Wednesday.

    Herman wanted to quash the 2017 agreement by saying Woods had committed sexual harassment against her. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Metzger called Herman’s allegations “vague and threadbare” in an 11-page opinion sending the case to arbitration.

    “Herman has had the opportunity (to) provide factual specificity for any claim relating to sexual assault or sexual harassment, however, she has not done so,” Metzger wrote.

    Tiger Woods and Erica Herman’s NDA

    Metzger also said that the evidence shows that a nondisclosure agreement was negotiated between Herman and Woods in 2017, even if her attorney, Benjamin Hodas, now questions whether she actually signed it.

    At a May 9 hearing, Hodas conceded that Herman signed an agreement, but he said she doesn’t remember ever seeing the one Woods’ attorneys presented to the court.

    Metzger said that if Herman unequivocally denied signing the agreement, she would have ordered a hearing on that issue. But since Herman isn’t sure if she signed it or not, that is a question for the arbitrator to decide.

    Nether Hodas nor Woods’ attorney, J.B. Murray, immediately responded to emails late Wednesday seeking comment. It is unknown if Hodas will appeal.

    Herman, 39, had sued both Woods, 47, and the trust that owns his $54 million Florida mansion, seeking $30 million from the latter amid unspecified allegations of sexual harassment. Forbes Magazine estimates Woods’ net worth at $1.1 billion.

    Tiger Woods catches a ball on the practice area during the third round of the Masters Tournament at Augusta National Golf Club on April 8, 2023, in Augusta, Georgia.
    Tiger Woods catches a ball on the practice area during the third round of the Masters Tournament at Augusta National Golf Club on April 8, 2023, in Augusta, Georgia.

    Andrew Redington/Getty Images


    Herman, who managed Woods’ Palm Beach County restaurant before and during the first years of their romantic relationship, argues that the nondisclosure agreement is unenforceable under a new federal law that says such contracts can be voided when sexual abuse or sexual harassment occurred.

    She alleged in court documents that Woods threatened to fire her if she didn’t sign a nondisclosure agreement. Hodas argued that is a type of harassment, treating one employee different than others because they have a sexual relationship.

    But the sexual harassment allegation was barely mentioned during last week’s hearing. Metzger told Hodas she needed more information about what allegedly happened to consider it. Hodas said he couldn’t provide more information publicly in fear that he would be violating the nondisclosure agreement if it is ultimately upheld.

    Murray has called the allegation “utterly meritless.”

    Erica Herman’s lawsuit

    In Herman’s lawsuit against Woods, she asked Metzger to either void the nondisclosure agreement or at least give her guidance about what she can say publicly. She also argued that the contract covers only her work relationship with Woods, not their personal matters.

    In her unlawful-eviction lawsuit against the trust, she is basing her $30 million claim on how much it would cost to rent a property like Woods’ beachfront mansion north of Palm Beach for the six years of residence she was allegedly promised by the golfer and then denied.

    Before they dated, Woods hired Herman in 2014 to help develop and then operate the golfer’s The Woods sports bar and restaurant in nearby Jupiter — but they do not agree when their romantic relationship and cohabitation began.

    Herman says in her court filings that their romantic relationship began in 2015 and that in late 2016 she moved into Woods’ nearly 30,000-square-foot mansion in the ritzy Hobe Sound community. She says that in 2017, Woods verbally promised she could live there at least 11 more years. Herman says Woods pressured her to quit the job in 2020 so she could spend more time taking care of him and his children.

    Woods, in his court documents, says their romantic relationship began in 2017 and that she moved in with him that August, about the time the disputed nondisclosure agreement was signed. In March 2017, Woods had put the mansion into the Jupiter Island Irrevocable Homestead Trust, an entity he created that has only himself and his two children as beneficiaries.

    Erica Herman and Tiger Woods
    Erica Herman and Tiger Woods look on prior to the Women’s Singles Second Round match between Anett Kontaveit of Estonia and Serena Williams of the United States on Day Three of the 2022 US Open at USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center on August 31, 2022.

    Matthew Stockman / Getty Images


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Deutsche Bank to pay $75 million to settle lawsuit by Jeffrey Epstein accusers

    Deutsche Bank to pay $75 million to settle lawsuit by Jeffrey Epstein accusers

    [ad_1]

    Deutsche Bank will pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit claiming that the German bank “knowingly benefited” from Jeffrey Epstein‘s sex trafficking, profiting from doing business with him. 

    The settlement, announced by lawyers for women who say they were abused by the late financier, is believed to be the largest sex trafficking settlement with a bank in U.S. history, according to law firm Edwards Pottinger. 

    In 2020, Deutsche Bank agreed to a $150 million settlement with the New York Department of Financial Services, which claimed the bank had for years allowed Epstein’s questionable account activity to largely go unchecked because of the potential revenue that the financier could generate. Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase is facing allegations that it also “turned a blind eye” to Epstein’s sex crimes to pursue business deals.

    The lawyers for the women abused by Epstein said the Deutsche Bank settlement is the result of a decade-long investigation to hold the bank responsible.


    Ghislaine Maxwell says meeting Jeffrey Epstein was “greatest mistake of my life”

    02:07

    Big win for victims of sex trafficking

    “The settlement reached with Deutsche Bank is an important moment for sex trafficking victims because it establishes that those who hold the purse strings are accountable under the law,” said Sigrid McCawley, managing partner of Boies Schiller Flexner, which with Edwards Pottinger, represented Epstein’s victims.

    She added, “This settlement signifies real progress for the rights of victims.”

    Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the settlement. It added that it has recently “made considerable progress in remedying a number of past issues, including investing more than 4 billion euros to bolster our controls, as well as training and operational processes. Further, we have increased the size of our global Anti-Financial Crime team to more than 1,900 employees.”

     In 2020, it acknowledged its “error of onboarding Epstein in 2013 and the weaknesses in our processes.”

    With reporting by the Associated Press.

    [ad_2]

    Source link