ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

    Stanton wrote on LinkedIn:

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

    The cost of a lawsuit

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

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

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

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

    Why people sue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What about people who really need to go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Suzanne Lucas

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Khouri

    Source link

  • Campbell Soup executive called its products food for

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Des Moines schools

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Valerie Bonk

    Source link

  • Baltimore Sports Betting Lawsuit Will Be Tried in City Court

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Case Continues

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

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

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

    Market Leaders

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Devin O’Connor

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Katie King

    Source link

  • AGs reach deal with DOE on education funding

    [ad_1]

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

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

    This page requires Javascript.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Why is Trump threatening to sue the BBC?

    [ad_1]



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










































    Watch CBS News



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

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Judge Denies TRO in Rose Bowl Lawsuit Against UCLA

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Taylor Ford

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cheyanne Mumphrey / AP


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ByHeart brand baby formula

    A package of ByHeart brand baby formula.

    Business Wire via AP


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Infant Formula Botulism Recall

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

    Stephen Dexter / AP


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Infant Formula Botulism Recall

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

    Hanna Everett / AP


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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (ACLU)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (ACLU)

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Uranga

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

    This is no simple mistake that is easily rectified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gonclaves was lucky. She was released.

    [ad_2]

    The Denver Post Editorial Board

    Source link

  • BetMGM Fraud Case Moves Forward Despite Attempts to Dismiss

    [ad_1]

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

    BetMGM Allegedly Favored a High-Rolling Patron

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

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

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

    The Judge Pointed to Inconsistencies in BetMGM’s Conduct

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link

  • FDA drug chief’s “revenge” emails revealed in explosive lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s drug division, Dr. George F. Tidmarsh, resigned on November 2, 2025, one day before he was named in a federal defamation lawsuit filed in Maryland by Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    The suit alleges that the FDA official, who was appointed in July, used his position to pursue a personal vendetta against a former business associate while directing agency actions that impacted multiple drugmakers.

    Tidmarsh has denied all wrongdoing.

    Newsweek reached out to the FDA and attorneys for Tidmarsh for comment via email.

    Why It Matters

    The controversy surrounding Tidmarsh’s resignation and the lawsuit filed against him by Aurinia Pharmaceuticals raises questions about the integrity of federal drug regulation. At stake is not only one man’s reputation but public trust in the FDA’s ability to act independently of personal, political, or financial influence.

    Ethics Probe and Resignation

    Tidmarsh, who became director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) in July, stepped down after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched an internal ethics investigation.

    “Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy expects the highest ethical standards from all individuals serving under his leadership,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement on November 3.

    The department confirmed that Tidmarsh was placed on administrative leave two days before his resignation.

    The LinkedIn Post and Market Fallout

    The 32-page complaint, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. George F. Tidmarsh (D. Md., No. 1:25-cv-03593), alleges that Tidmarsh made “false and defamatory statements” about the company’s lupus nephritis drug, Lupkynis (generic name voclosporin), in a September 29 LinkedIn post, while holding office as the nation’s top drug regulator.

    The post claimed that Lupkynis “has not been shown to provide a direct clinical benefit for patients” and that Aurinia had “failed to perform the trials necessary to confirm actual clinical benefit.”

    According to the complaint, the statements were “baseless” and contradicted the FDA’s own findings that supported full approval of the drug in 2021. The LinkedIn post was “swiftly deleted” after internal FDA ethics officials raised concerns.

    Aurinia says the remarks triggered a 20 percent drop in its stock, erasing more than $350 million in market value. The company asserts that its pivotal Phase 3 studies, AURORA-1 and AURORA-2, demonstrated significant and sustained clinical benefit.

    “We stand behind the favorable benefit/risk profile of LUPKYNIS,” Aurinia said in a statement on September 29, 2025.

    What Is Lupkynis and What Does It Do?

    Lupkynis (voclosporin) is an immunosuppressant used to treat lupus nephritis, a severe and potentially life-threatening inflammation of the kidneys caused by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), an autoimmune disease where the immune system attacks the body’s own tissues.

    Voclosporin is a next-generation calcineurin inhibitor (CNI), a class of drugs that suppresses the immune system by blocking calcineurin, an enzyme required for activating T-cells—a type of white blood cell central to immune responses. By inhibiting calcineurin, voclosporin reduces the overactive immune response that drives lupus nephritis. This helps prevent further inflammation and scarring in the kidneys, preserving kidney function over time.

    Voclosporin is chemically similar to cyclosporine but has been modified to exhibit more predictable pharmacokinetics, resulting in steadier blood levels and fewer dose adjustments.

    Allegations of Retaliation and Bribery

    The lawsuit links the LinkedIn post to a broader pattern of alleged retaliation against Kevin Tang, Aurinia’s board chair and head of Tang Capital Partners.

    Tang had previously asked Tidmarsh to resign from three companies where Tang was also a director: La Jolla Pharmaceutical, Odonate Therapeutics, and American Laboratories Holdings. The complaint cites a series of text messages and emails in which Tidmarsh allegedly threatened revenge, including one in which he told Tang, “The pain is not over.”

    In one of its most serious claims, the complaint accuses Tidmarsh of attempting to solicit a bribe from American Laboratories, a company chaired by Tang.

    The alleged solicitation followed the FDA’s August 6, 2025, industry notice announcing enforcement action against unapproved animal-derived thyroid products—drugs such as Armour Thyroid and NP Thyroid, which are manufactured using porcine thyroid glands.

    The FDA stated that these products “require an approved biologics license application (BLA) under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act” and that “there are no FDA-approved BLAs for the ADT products currently on the market.”

    The agency’s letter cited safety, potency, and contamination risks associated with unapproved desiccated thyroid extract products, adding that the FDA would allow “sufficient time for patients currently using these products to transition to an FDA-approved thyroid hormone replacement product.”

    The FDA has received over 500 adverse event reports related to such products since 1968.

    Aurinia’s lawsuit alleges that Tidmarsh pushed the FDA to issue that enforcement letter soon after taking office, targeting American Laboratories’ core product line.

    Days later, the complaint says, Tidmarsh’s attorney contacted Tang to propose a contract extension with a company affiliated with Tidmarsh in exchange for assistance with “issues that may arise” from the FDA action—a request Aurinia characterizes as extortion.

    Tidmarsh has denied any wrongdoing. “I gave up everything to go into government,” he said on November 2. “I pursued the thyroid medications because they were marketed without FDA approval.”

    As the lawsuit moves forward, both Aurinia and the FDA face renewed scrutiny over transparency and accountability in an agency responsible for overseeing more than 20,000 approved drugs.

    What People Are Saying

    Dr. George F. Tidmarsh’s now-deleted LinkedIn post: “We have approved drugs with significant toxicity like vocolosporin…that has not been shown to provide a direct clinical benefit for patients.”

    “For some diseases such as lupus nephritis, companies have not run trials to demonstrate a benefit on hard clinical endpoints like progression to end stage renal disease,” he also wrote.

    Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. in its lawsuit claims Tidmarsh sent texts and emails threatening the biopharma investor: “Over the next six years, Dr. Tidmarsh repeatedly threatened that he would exact revenge against Mr. Tang…writing in texts and emails to Mr. Tang and his business associates that he would ‘be exposed,’ that there was ‘[m]ore bad karma to come,’ that ‘[t]he pain is not over,’ and that ‘I’m Not powerless.’”

    What Happens Next

    The Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general is currently reviewing Tidmarsh’s conduct.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta Says Porn Stash was for ‘Personal Use,’ Not Training AI Models

    [ad_1]

    Meta forgot to keep its porn in a passworded folder, and now its kink for data collection is the subject of scrutiny. The social media giant turned metaverse company turned AI power is currently facing a lawsuit brought by adult film companies Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media, alleging that the Big Tech staple illegally torrented thousands of porn videos to be used for training AI models. Meta denies the claims, and recently filed a motion to dismiss the case because, in part, it’s more likely the videos were downloaded for “private personal use.”

    To catch up on the details of the case, back in July, Strike 3 Holdings (the producers of Blacked, Blacked Raw, Tushy, Tushy Raw, Vixen, MILFY, and Slayed) and Counterlife Media accused Meta of having “willfully and intentionally” infringed “at least 2,396 movies” by downloading and seeding torrents of the content. The companies claim that Meta used that material to train AI models and allege the company may be planning a currently unannounced adult version of its AI video generator Movie Gen, and are suing for $359 million in damages.

    For what it’s worth, Strike 3 has something of a reputation of being a very aggressive copyright litigant—so much so that if you search the company, you’re less likely to land on its homepage than you are to find a litany of law firms that offer legal representation to people who have received a subpoena from the company for torrenting their material.

    There may be some evidence that those materials were swept up in Meta’s data vacuum. Per TorrentFreak, Strike 3 was able to show what appear to be 47 IP addresses linked to Meta participating in torrenting of the company’s material. But Meta doesn’t seem to think much of the accusation. In its motion to dismiss, the company calls Strike 3’s torrent tracking “guesswork and innuendo,” and basically argues that, among other reasons, there simply isn’t even enough data here to be worth using for AI model training. Instead, it’s more likely just some gooners in the ranks.

    “The small number of downloads—roughly 22 per year on average across dozens of Meta IP addresses—is plainly indicative of private personal use, not a concerted effort to collect the massive datasets Plaintiffs allege are necessary for effective AI training,” the company argued. The company also denied building a porn generator model, basically stating that Strike 3 doesn’t have any evidence of this and Meta’s own terms of service prohibit its models from generating pornographic content.

    “These claims are bogus: We don’t want this type of content, and we take deliberate steps to avoid training on this kind of material,” a spokesperson for Meta told Gizmodo.

    As absurd as the case is, whether the accusations are right or wrong, there is one clear victim: the dad of a Meta contractor who is apparently simultaneously being accused by Strike 3 of being a conduit for copyright infringement and accused by Meta of being a degenerate: “[Strike 3] point to 97 additional downloads made using the home IP address of a Meta contractor’s father, but plead no facts plausibly tying Meta to those downloads, which are plainly indicative of personal consumption,” Meta’s motion said. God forbid this case move forward and this poor person has to answer for his proclivities reserved for incognito tabs.

    [ad_2]

    AJ Dellinger

    Source link

  • FDA’s top drug regulator resigns after federal officials probe ‘serious concerns’

    [ad_1]

    The head of the Food and Drug Administration’s drug center abruptly resigned Sunday after federal officials began reviewing “serious concerns about his personal conduct,” according to a government spokesperson.Dr. George Tidmarsh, who was named to the FDA post in July, was placed on leave Friday after officials in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of General Counsel were notified of the issues, HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard said in an email. Tidmarsh then resigned Sunday morning.“Secretary Kennedy expects the highest ethical standards from all individuals serving under his leadership and remains committed to full transparency,” Hilliard said.The departure came the same day that a drugmaker connected to one of Tidmarsh’s former business associates filed a lawsuit alleging that he made “false and defamatory statements,” during his time at the FDA.The lawsuit, brought by Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, alleges that Tidmarsh used his FDA position to pursue a “longstanding personal vendetta” against the chair of the company’s board of directors, Kevin Tang.Tang previously served as a board member of several drugmakers where Tidmarsh was an executive, including La Jolla Pharmaceutical, and was involved in his ouster from those leadership positions, according to the lawsuit.Messages placed to Tidmarsh and his lawyer were not immediately returned late Sunday.Tidmarsh founded and led a series of pharmaceutical companies over several decades working in California’s pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Before joining the FDA, he also served as an adjunct professor at Stanford University. He was recruited to join the agency over the summer after meeting with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary.Tidmarsh’s ouster is the latest in a string of haphazard leadership changes at the agency, which has been rocked for months by firings, departures and controversial decisions on vaccines, fluoride and other products.Dr. Vinay Prasad, who oversees FDA’s vaccine and biologics center, resigned in July after coming under fire from conservative activists close to President Donald Trump, only to rejoin the agency two weeks later at the behest of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.The FDA’s drug center, which Tidmarsh oversaw, has lost more than 1,000 staffers over the past year to layoffs or resignations, according to agency figures. The center is the largest division of the FDA and is responsible for the review, safety and quality control of prescription and over-the-counter medicines.In September, Tidmarsh drew public attention for a highly unusual post on LinkedIn stating that one of Aurinia Pharmaceutical’s products, a kidney drug, had “not been shown to provide a direct clinical benefit for patients.” It’s very unusual for an FDA regulator to single out individual companies and products in public comments online.According to the company’s lawsuit, Aurinia’s stock dropped 20% shortly after the post, wiping out more than $350 million in shareholder value.Tidmarsh later deleted the LinkedIn post and said he had posted it in his personal capacity, not as an FDA official.Aurinia’s lawsuit also alleges, among other things, that Tidmarsh used his post at FDA to target a type of thyroid drug made by another company, American Laboratories, where Tang also serves as board chair.The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court of Maryland, seeks compensatory and punitive damages and “to set the record straight,” according to the company.

    The head of the Food and Drug Administration’s drug center abruptly resigned Sunday after federal officials began reviewing “serious concerns about his personal conduct,” according to a government spokesperson.

    Dr. George Tidmarsh, who was named to the FDA post in July, was placed on leave Friday after officials in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of General Counsel were notified of the issues, HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard said in an email. Tidmarsh then resigned Sunday morning.

    “Secretary Kennedy expects the highest ethical standards from all individuals serving under his leadership and remains committed to full transparency,” Hilliard said.

    The departure came the same day that a drugmaker connected to one of Tidmarsh’s former business associates filed a lawsuit alleging that he made “false and defamatory statements,” during his time at the FDA.

    The lawsuit, brought by Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, alleges that Tidmarsh used his FDA position to pursue a “longstanding personal vendetta” against the chair of the company’s board of directors, Kevin Tang.

    Tang previously served as a board member of several drugmakers where Tidmarsh was an executive, including La Jolla Pharmaceutical, and was involved in his ouster from those leadership positions, according to the lawsuit.

    Messages placed to Tidmarsh and his lawyer were not immediately returned late Sunday.

    Tidmarsh founded and led a series of pharmaceutical companies over several decades working in California’s pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Before joining the FDA, he also served as an adjunct professor at Stanford University. He was recruited to join the agency over the summer after meeting with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary.

    Tidmarsh’s ouster is the latest in a string of haphazard leadership changes at the agency, which has been rocked for months by firings, departures and controversial decisions on vaccines, fluoride and other products.

    Dr. Vinay Prasad, who oversees FDA’s vaccine and biologics center, resigned in July after coming under fire from conservative activists close to President Donald Trump, only to rejoin the agency two weeks later at the behest of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    The FDA’s drug center, which Tidmarsh oversaw, has lost more than 1,000 staffers over the past year to layoffs or resignations, according to agency figures. The center is the largest division of the FDA and is responsible for the review, safety and quality control of prescription and over-the-counter medicines.

    In September, Tidmarsh drew public attention for a highly unusual post on LinkedIn stating that one of Aurinia Pharmaceutical’s products, a kidney drug, had “not been shown to provide a direct clinical benefit for patients.” It’s very unusual for an FDA regulator to single out individual companies and products in public comments online.

    According to the company’s lawsuit, Aurinia’s stock dropped 20% shortly after the post, wiping out more than $350 million in shareholder value.

    Tidmarsh later deleted the LinkedIn post and said he had posted it in his personal capacity, not as an FDA official.

    Aurinia’s lawsuit also alleges, among other things, that Tidmarsh used his post at FDA to target a type of thyroid drug made by another company, American Laboratories, where Tang also serves as board chair.

    The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court of Maryland, seeks compensatory and punitive damages and “to set the record straight,” according to the company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • She helped get her violent husband deported. Then ICE deported her — straight into his arms.

    [ad_1]

    Carmen’s abusive husband came home drunk one night last summer. He pounded and kicked the door. He threatened to kill her as her young son watched in horror. She called police, eventually obtaining a restraining order. Months later he returned and beat her again. Police came again and he was eventually deported.

    Thinking she finally escaped his cruelty, Carmen applied for what is known as a U-Visa. The visa provides crime victims a way to stay in the United States legally, but the Trump administration has routinely ignored pending applications.

    During a regular immigration check-in in June, Carmen was detained. Two months later, she was put on a plane with her 8-year-old son, who just completed second grade. She was headed to her home country, terrified her husband would find her.

    Lawyers for Carmen along with several immigrant victims of human trafficking, domestic violence and other crimes last month sued the Trump administration in the Central District of California for detaining and deporting survivors with pending visa applications, some of whom have been granted status to stay and sometimes work.

    They argue that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement implemented a policy in the early days of the administration that upended decades-long standards aimed at protecting victims with pending applications for a class of visas known as survivor-based protections.

    Congress created those visas to ensure immigrant victims would report crimes to law enforcement and be safe, but lawyers for the victims argue the administration has reneged on those promises.

    “These laws have existed because they keep us all safe, and there is a process and legal rights that attach when you seek out those protections,” said Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, who is one of the lead attorneys on the case.

    Carmen’s real name and certain details about her case weren’t included in the lawsuit because her lawyers say her life is still at risk.

    But others were.

    Immigration agents arrested Kenia Jackeline Merlos, a native of Honduras, during a family outing near the Canadian border. The Portland, Ore., mother of four U.S. citizen children had been given deferred status allowing her to reside in the U.S. after a man pulled a gun and threatened to kill her. Merlos has been in detention for about four months in Washington state. She was released late last month, weeks after a judge threw out her case.

    Yessenia Ruano self-deported after immigration agents told her she would be removed, despite her pending T-Visa application for trafficking survivors. Ruano, a teacher’s aide in Wisconsin, fled El Salvador and had been trafficked in the United States. A mother of twins girls, she had been living in the U.S. for 14 years, fighting a removal order. Rather than have her children see her arrested and removed, she decided to leave.

    Yessenia Ruano on her last day at the Milwaukee public school where she was a teacher’s aide. Ruano, who was a victim of human trafficking, self-deported along with her twin daughters in June.

    (Yessenia Ruano)

    Under the Trump administration, immigration agents no longer routinely check or consider a detained immigrant’s status as a crime victim before deporting or detaining them. The policy only makes an exception if it will interfere with law enforcement investigations.

    The administration’s actions affect nearly half a million immigrants who are awaiting a decision on a pending application for survivor-based protections, the most common of which is the U-Visa. Because Congress capped the number of visas that can be issued annually at 10,000, it can take a person 20 years to have their application processed.

    Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, defended the practice of deporting those stuck in limbo, saying every unauthorized immigrant ICE removes “has had due process and has a final order of removal — meaning they have no legal right to be in the country.”

    The lawsuit argues the administration violated procedural rules in referencing the executive order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” as the main justification for the policy.

    The invasion, it states, is “fictional” but the rhetoric has allowed Department of Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem and the immigration agencies to wage an “arbitrary, xenophobic and militarized mass deportation campaign that has terrorized immigrant communities and further victimized survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking and other serious crimes who Congress sought to protect.”

    The lawsuit is one of several challenging the agencies’ practice as the administration focuses its enforcement campaign in Democratic-led cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland and Washington, D.C.

    “They just detain and deport them,” said Rebecca Brown, with Public Counsel, one of the groups litigating the case. “It’s is a policy of arrest first, ask questions later.”

    Kenia Jackeline Merlos is seen during a family trip in 2023.

    Kenia Jackeline Merlos is seen during a family trip in 2023.

    (Kenia Jackeline Merlos)

    In Carmen’s case, according to a sworn declaration filed in the lawsuit, she arrived in 2022 to the United States and sought asylum. A judge denied her case. She scraped together money and found an attorney to file an appeal. She later learned he didn’t correctly fill out the forms and the case was denied. In the meantime, she did regular check-ins with immigration officials as the abuse worsened.

    “I was terrified of these appointments, but I never missed a single appointment,” she said in the declaration.

    The night her husband tried to knock down the door, her son was hysterical. The restraining order helped for a while, but a few months later, he showed up again.

    Law enforcement eventually placed an ankle monitor on her husband, but he came to her son’s soccer games, stalking them and watching from afar.

    Carmen submitted the U-Visa in March and learned he had been deported that same month. Finally, she thought she would be free.

    Months later, she was summoned to an immigration check-in. She arrived alone. Officials told her to return the next day for an appointment with ICE. When she did, an officer told her she was being detained and would be deported.

    Was there someone who could care for her son, the officer asked.

    “I didn’t have anyone,” she said in the statement.

    A family member brought her boy to the facility and the two were transferred to a recently reopened family detention center in Texas. There, her son, distraught, slept all hours of the day.

    “My son suffered so much,” she stated. “He would try to sleep in the morning so the day would go faster and he wouldn’t have to endure the many hours imprisoned.”

    After a month at the facility, Carmen’s new attorney informed authorities of the pending application and asked for her release because her son suffered from medical issues, as did she. The request was denied, as were others to pause the removal.

    At the end of July, she and her son were deported.

    “I had nowhere to go,” she stated.

    She emerged from the plane to her nightmare.

    “I saw a man standing across from us and my heart sank,” she said. “It was my husband.”

    “My husband told me it was such a coincidence that he was there when we arrived,” she said. “I knew he was lying. He had found that we were being deported and he was there to take us.

    “I had no choice, I had nowhere else to go and there was no one speaking up for me.”

    Now she says she is even more trapped than before.

    He took her passports, so she can’t travel. She must ask permission just to leave the house, and if she is allowed to, give him constant updates while she is away. At night, he takes her phone and checks it, interrogating her about every call she made.

    “I never know what will make him angry,” she said. “We live in constant fear.”

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Uranga

    Source link