ReportWire

Tag: LEGAL

  • DoNotPay ‘robot lawyer’ fined $193K by the FTC for not being a lawyer

    DoNotPay ‘robot lawyer’ fined $193K by the FTC for not being a lawyer

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Trade Commission is taking against DoNotPay, alleging that the AI-powered company billing itself as “the world’s first robot lawyer” failed to back its claims that it could replace human legal representation. The agency’s argues that DoNotPay did not conduct tests to assess whether its AI chatbot was equivalent to a human lawyer, and that the company did not hire or retain any attorneys of its own. DoNotPay has agreed to a proposed settlement that would see it face fines of $193,000. In addition, the settlement will require DoNotPay to inform customers who subscribed to its service between 2021 and 2023 about the limitations of its offerings.

    This proposed settlement is part of an FTC program called Operation AI Comply, which is targeting businesses that leverage artificial intelligence to make deceptive claims. “Using AI tools to trick, mislead, or defraud people is illegal,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said. “The FTC’s enforcement actions make clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books. By cracking down on unfair or deceptive practices in these markets, FTC is ensuring that honest businesses and innovators can get a fair shot and consumers are being protected.”

    In addition to promising legal services, DoNotPay also claimed it could get accounts . The company its first attempt to use its AI chatbot in a court setting in 2023 after multiple state bar associations intervened in the case.

    [ad_2]

    Anna Washenko

    Source link

  • Dutch Organizations Launch Class Action Lawsuits against Operators

    Dutch Organizations Launch Class Action Lawsuits against Operators

    [ad_1]

    Gamblers across Europe continue suing gambling firms in hopes of getting their money back. As the shift toward regulated gaming continues, customers are saying that companies shouldn’t have taken their money before securing a license.

    The latest such cases involve Dutch customers who are seeking compensation from online gambling firms that took their money before becoming legal in the Netherlands. Two foundations are spearheading mass claims involving thousands of players.

    The April Case Set a Precedent

    In April, a Dutch court ruled that an unlicensed company should return the money it took from a player. The player in question had lost roughly €200,000 to a company that did not have a Dutch license.

    Back in April, lawyer Benzi Loonstein described the previous ruling as “groundbreaking” since it could set a precedent for more similar lawsuits.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is yet to finalize its final ruling. The legal authority is expected to weigh in on the matter early in 2025.

    Two Foundations Are Launching Mass Lawsuits

    Following the April decision, two foundations are getting involved in the matter, launching class action lawsuits on behalf of other players. One of these organizations is Gokverliesterug, which is preparing legal action against several operators who took money from Dutch customers before having a license.

    Lawyer Koen Rutten, who represents Gokverliesterug, spoke on the matter, accusing iGaming companies of surreptitiously trying to avoid the Netherlands’ gambling rules for years. Rutten emphasized that these operators should be held to account even if they have secured a license since.

    The second mass claim is led by Loonstein Advocaten, the foundation that won the April case. According to Dutch news outlets, over 20,000 people have so far signed up for that claim.

    For context, the Netherlands legalized online gambling three years ago. However, many gambling companies offered their product to Dutch customers before that. While many of these companies have now acquired licenses and are operating legally, customers who lost sums before that are hoping to get their money back.

    The Austrian Industry Is Experiencing Similar Lawsuits

    Such lawsuits have become a hot topic in the world of European gambling and have occurred in other regulated markets too. Austrian gamblers have also hit operators with lawsuits, alleging that the gambling companies had taken their money before becoming regulated.

    However, a recent Austrian ruling also allowed gambling companies to seek their money back from winners who won before the operators were licensed.

    The OVWG recently weighed in on the matter, advising reforms that would avoid the potential “legal vacuum for consumers.”

    [ad_2]

    Fiona Simmons

    Source link

  • Ice Spice Reaches Settlement in “In Ha Mood” Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

    Ice Spice Reaches Settlement in “In Ha Mood” Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    In January, Ice Spice was sued by two musicians—Duval “D.Chamberz” Chamberlain and Kenley “Kass the Producer” Carmenate—who claimed that her Like..? EP hit “In Ha Mood” copied their original single “In That Mood,” which the two released on D.Chamberz’s Boom Bap 2 Drill Rap in July 2022. The lawsuit also named her producer RiotUSA, Universal Music Group, Capitol Records, and 10K Projects. Now, Ice Spice has reached a settlement with D.Chamberz and Kass the Producer, according to court documents viewed by Pitchfork.

    The recent motion, which was filed in a New York federal court this past Friday, states that both parties’ attorneys agreed to resolve the lawsuit. Specific terms of the deal, however, were not disclosed, beyond that each side will “bear [their] own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.” Pitchfork has reached out to both parties for comment.

    In the initial lawsuit, D.Chamberz outlined how he and Kass the Producer made “In That Mood” before previewing it on Instagram on August 8, 2021. Apart from a two-week window where the song was on streaming platforms at the start of 2022, it wasn’t available to hear until Boom Bap 2 Drill Rap came out that summer. The Coney Island rapper also claimed that he performed “In That Mood” live in New York “no less than 36 times” before Ice Spice released “In Ha Mood” in January 2023, and that his song received “significant airplay” on local radio stations Hot 97 and Power 105.1, thus giving Ice Spice and her producer RiotUSA a chance to hear it.

    D.Chamberz and Kass the Producer alleged that there were specific similarities between “In That Mood” and “In Ha Mood,” including that the two songs have similar titles, share “the same hip-hop rap and ‘drill’ style,” and use “similar hook/chorus lyrics.” They also claimed the songs share “an almost identical tempo” and “a similar rhythm.”

    At the end of 2023, Ice Spice brought “In Ha Mood” to Saturday Night Live for her debut performance on the late-night TV program. Her first album, Y2K!, came out in the summer.

    [ad_2]

    Nina Corcoran

    Source link

  • Sean “Diddy” Combs, Still Incarcerated on Federal Charges, Sued for Sexual Assault

    Sean “Diddy” Combs, Still Incarcerated on Federal Charges, Sued for Sexual Assault

    [ad_1]

    Note: This article contains references to alleged sexual assault that some readers may find disturbing.


    Sean “Diddy” Combs has been sued by a woman who claims that he and one of his employees raped her in 2001. The woman, Thalia Graves, filed her complaint today (September 24) in a New York federal court.

    According to the lawsuit, obtained by Pitchfork, Graves met Diddy “in or around late 1999 or early 2000 through her then-boyfriend, who was an executive at [Diddy’s] Bad Boy [Records].” She claims that, “around the summer of 2001,” Diddy called her and said that “he wanted to meet with her in person to discuss her boyfriend’s supposed performance issues” at the record label. She says that she agreed to the meeting, and Diddy and Joseph “Big Joe” Sherman, “his bodyguard and head of security,” picked her up in an SUV.

    In the SUV, Graves accepted a glass of wine from Diddy, but “she started to feel lightheaded, dizzy, and physically weak,” according to the complaint. “In retrospect, it is clear that Combs had caused a drug to be put into Plaintiff’s drink, as a few sips of wine had never impacted her that way.”

    Eventually, Graves, Diddy, and Sherman arrived at Diddy’s New York recording studio, and Graves claims that she lost consciousness while in Diddy’s “personal lounge and office at the Bad Boy studio.” When she regained consciousness, Graves “was naked, and her hands were tied behind her back with what felt like a plastic grocery bag,” according to the lawsuit. She says that she “shouted for help,” at which point “Sherman lifted her up from the couch and forcefully slammed her face down on what was apparently a pool table.”

    “Shortly thereafter, Combs entered the room naked,” and he anally and vaginally raped Graves, the lawsuit states. She says that she screamed for help throughout the alleged assault before losing consciousness. Once she regained consciousness, she alleges, she saw Sherman “standing in front of her with his bare penis in her face.” The bodyguard then “slapped [her] in the face and forcefully inserted his penis into her mouth,” according to the lawsuit.

    After losing and regaining consciousness again, Graves “quickly got dressed and bolted out of the studio room” and “called a livery driver” to pick her up. “The driver drove her to the hospital and tried to convince her to report the rape and get a rape kit, but she was unable to leave the car, ‘shaking and crying hysterically’ and terrified of what Combs would do to her and her family if she reported him,” according to the complaint.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Strauss

    Source link

  • Australian Court Orders Foreign High Roller to Pay Back Gambling Debt

    Australian Court Orders Foreign High Roller to Pay Back Gambling Debt

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court in Brisbane has ordered high roller Yew Choy Wong to pay back some AUD 38 million to Star Entertainment Queensland. This came in response to the accumulation of significant gambling debt.

    Wong Accumulated a Debt He Refused to Pay

    Wong, for context, was invited to the Star Gold Coast casino in 2018. He proceeded to lose a staggering AUD 47.3 million in the span of five days. Wong, however, did not settle his account before leaving the country.

    Star Gold Coast tried to use a check Wong had provided on a previous gambling trip. Unfortunately, Wong had already contacted his bank, telling its employees to stop payment on any checks from The Star Entertainment Group.

    The Australian operator asked the high roller to pay back the AUD 43.2 million he owed but he ignored the company’s pleas. The Singaporean national insisted that he owed no money because of a verbal agreement he made with the casino after vocally objecting to the way his baccarat cards were dealt.

    Wong elaborated that the dealing had caused him to stop playing. Then, on July 29, 2018, he was offered AUD 4.5 million rebated by the casino’s president of international gambling, the Singaporean high roller added.

    Wong did not accept and, on July 30, allegedly reached an agreement with Paul Arbuckle, the casino’s chief operating officer, who told him that he would not have to pay any losses up until that date. The C-suite officer later denied these claims.

    The Court Found No Evidence Star Waived the Debt

    The court confirmed that the Star Entertainment team had sent a letter to Wong, apologizing for not following his preferred way of playing. However, the letter in question did not mention any debt waiving of the high roller’s gambling debt.

    After considering all available information, Justice Melanie Hindman pointed out that if The Star Entertainment team had waived the debt, it would have mentioned it in the letter. Overall, the court found no proof that backed Wong’s claims.

    As a result, Hindman concluded that Wong must pay back the money he owed with interest. The interest would be calculated from September 27, 2018, to the date of the judgments at a rate of $8,819 a day.

    Speaking of The Star, the company remains embroiled in trouble in New South Wales where it was recently deemed unsuitable to hold a license, again. Adding to the operator’s woes, its shares were suspended from the ASX because of a missed deadline.

    According to recent reports, not even the recent opening of Queens Wharf Brisbane managed to fully mitigate the financial troubles The Star is experiencing.

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link

  • Danny Elfman Has Sexual Assault Lawsuit Dismissed

    Danny Elfman Has Sexual Assault Lawsuit Dismissed

    [ad_1]

    Danny Elfman was sued, last year, by a woman who claimed that the composer sexually abused her between 1997 and 2002. The lawsuit has now been dismissed, Rolling Stone reports. In court documents, viewed by Pitchfork, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld ruled in favor of Elfman and his company, Musica de la Muerta, on the basis that the plaintiff (identified by the pseudonym Jane Doe XX) failed to provide evidence of sexual assault, and did not meet the statutes of limitations for multiple allegations.

    In the original complaint, the plaintiff claimed that she met Elfman at a house party when she was 21 and the composer was 47. She alleged that, during a period of time between 1997 and 2002, there were instances when Elfman would walk around naked and expose his genitals to her. The lawsuit also stated that Elfman would sometimes sleep nude in the same bed next to a fully-clothed Doe when she was in-between apartments and staying at his home in 1998. In addition, the complaint detailed an instance, in 2002, when Elfman allegedly told Doe: “Every time you have ever slept next to me, I would masturbate next to you.”

    In an August 13 motion for summary judgment, Elfman’s camp argued: “Plaintiff’s allegation that Elfman undressed in her presence and masturbated while she slept is not, as a matter of law, sexual assault, such that Plaintiff’s claims are fatally defective.” The composer’s lawyers also referred to Doe’s allegations as “speculative statements that it is possible she could have been sexually assaulted.” In addition, they pointed to a number of expired statutes of limitations pertaining to Doe’s allegations.

    Judge Sepe-Wiesenfeld ruled in Elfman’s favor on Wednesday, September 4. One of Doe’s attorneys, Jeff Anderson, told Rolling Stone, “We are disappointed but not shocked that the court found that the law does not permit her case to proceed.”

    Prior to Jane Doe XX’s complaint, Elfman was sued by by composer Nomi Abadi, who alleged that Elfman failed to pay two installments of $42,500 from a $830,000 settlement. The settlement related to Abadi accusing Elfman of multiple instances of sexual harassment that allegedly occurred in 2016, filing a report with the Los Angeles Police Department the following year.

    Earlier this year, Abadi sued Elfman for defamation over statements he made in a Rolling Stone interview in 2023. Abadi accused Elfman of breaching the nondisclosure agreement put in place during their initial settlement.

    Jane Doe XX and Danny Elfman’s respective attorneys have not returned multiple requests for comment from Pitchfork.


    If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual assault, we encourage you to reach out for support:

    RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline
    http://www.rainn.org
    1 800 656 HOPE (4673)

    Crisis Text Line
    SMS: Text “HELLO” or “HOLA” to 741-741

    [ad_2]

    Madison Bloom, Matthew Strauss

    Source link

  • Brazil bans X for refusing to comply with Supreme Court order

    Brazil bans X for refusing to comply with Supreme Court order

    [ad_1]

    Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has ordered the nation’s internet service providers to block the social media platform X. The New York Times reports that the order stems from owner Elon Musk’s refusal to appoint a legal representative for his case and comply with Moraes’ order to shut down X accounts he deemed as harmful to the democratic process. The order has been published online by Brazilian news site Poder 360.

    The justice issued a deadline to telecom companies and tech giants to remove the X from its app stores and platforms. Apple and Google have five days to take down the social media app from its app stores. Brazil’s telecommunication’s agency Anatel has confirmed it has received the order, and ISPs in the country have just 24 hours to comply with the order.

    Justice Moraes’ order doesn’t just block the country’s access to X. It also makes it a crime to use the app through a virtual private network (VPN). Anyone caught accessing X with a VPN could face a daily fine of 50,000 Brazilian Real (around $8,900).

    Justice Moraes also froze the Brazillian bank accounts of SpaceX’s Starlink internet service provider on Thursday to further pressure Musk to comply with the court’s order. SpaceX, like X, is a private company majority owned by Musk, and X has $3 million in unpaid fines related to its case in the country. The day before, Justice Moraes issued a threat to ban the X platform entirely across Brazil if the social media company did not appoint a legal representative in the country. The deadline passed without any change to the court’s docket so the judge followed through on his promise.

    Starlink expressed its disapproval with the order, vowing to fight the ruling. It even threatened to make its services free to customers to subvert the justice’s order.

    The legal fight between Justice Moraes and Musk has been fuming for months. The Supreme Court Judge is also Brazil’s electoral authority and has been monitoring and issuing orders to candidates to steer clear of spreading false information through internet and social media channels.

    Brazil’s 2022 presidential election between infamous incumbent Jair Bolsonaro and challenger and former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was reportedly filled with attempts to present voters with false information. Justice Moraes was, until recently, president of the nation’s Superior Electoral Court, which gave him the power to order takedowns of content that violated previous court orders. The judge issued a similar block of the messaging app Telegram for failing to freeze offending accounts, which was lifted after compliance.

    Musk characterized Moraes’ directives to take down or freeze similar misinformation accounts from X as “censorship orders.” Earlier this month, Musk expressed his continued refusal to comply with the court by closing X’s Brazilian office in order “to protect the safety of our staff.” X’s Global Governments Affairs team also promised to publish all of “Judge de Moraes’ illegal demands and all related court filings.”

    [ad_2]

    Danny Gallagher

    Source link

  • 5 Ways Kamala Harris Can Support The Franchise Community | Entrepreneur

    5 Ways Kamala Harris Can Support The Franchise Community | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    The five weeks between the Republican and Democratic conventions could have been a lifetime, as a brand-new Democratic ticket formed in record speed. As always, the International Franchise Association (IFA) is neutral in presidential elections and we will work with whoever is in the White House for the betterment of our model. Just as we were in Milwaukee for the RNC, we were on the ground in Chicago, educating candidates and campaigns about all the good franchising provides, especially for minority-owned businesses.

    Like many Americans, the franchise community is interested in learning more about Vice President Harris’ vision and policy priorities, which she characterized in her acceptance speech as an Opportunity Agenda. It is encouraging that one of her early commercials features her time working at McDonald’s. In fact, if elected, Harris, along with her husband Doug Emhoff, will share a common thread with the 1 in 8 Americans
    who have worked at McDonald’s. To genuinely support the franchise business model, here are five concrete ways Vice President Harris can appeal to the franchise community.

    Related: Considering franchise ownership? Get started now to find your personalized list of franchises that match your lifestyle, interests and budget.

    Be a champion for franchising

    First, Vice President Harris should be a champion for franchising and use every day on the campaign trail to visit franchises and meet their employees in swing states — and everywhere in between. Doing so will unlock franchising as a component of the Opportunity Agenda, including the unique benefits of franchising for all stakeholders involved in the model.

    Those stakeholders are substantial — from the nearly 9 million employees who work for America’s 800,000 franchise businesses (and earn higher wages and better benefits than non-franchised employees) to the franchise owners themselves, who are more diverse in race and gender than non-franchises.

    Related: The Critical First 100 Days of Onboarding — What You’re Likely Overlooking That Could Make or Break Your New Hire

    Abandon an expanded joint employer rule

    Second, Vice President Harris talked at the DNC about working with business and labor. Yet, one of labor’s top priorities has been a joint employer rule that would effectively destroy franchising. A Harris administration that wants to support small business creation must abandon efforts to implement an expanded joint employer rule.

    Bipartisan majorities in congress and a federal court have rejected expanding the joint employer test to include reserved and indirect control. Even Democratic supermajorities in the California legislature, and her home-state Governor Gavin Newsom, rejected joint employer liability. This created a pathway to negotiate a bill with organized labor that preserved franchisee equity in their business, and creating predictable increases in the minimum wage.

    Related: A Franchise Attorney and 20-Year Industry Expert Weighs in on How the Election Will Impact Small Businesses

    Call for pro-small business tax policies

    Third, Vice President Harris should call for pro-small business tax policies, given the expired and expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA). These include extending the qualified business income deduction (QBID), also known as the section 199A deduction, and restoring a pro-growth interest deductibility standard that expired at the end of 2022.

    Extending the 199A deduction, along with passing the bipartisan Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act — which garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in the House this year — would greatly benefit franchise owners. This legislation would increase the amount of interest owners can deduct from their income taxes, offer temporary bonus depreciation for the purchase of equipment and short-lived capital assets and include other pro-business and pro-worker provisions.

    These actions would provide small business entrepreneurs with a competitive edge over large corporations and demonstrate that Vice President Harris is committed to addressing the needs of the small business community. She can chart a new path and extend an open hand to the business community by putting the politics aside and commit to extending a policy they have come to rely on. Without action, every business owner in country wakes up on January 1, 2026, facing a tax increase.

    Related: Learn the Secrets of Running 20+ Businesses as a Side Hustle — Finding and Nurturing Your ‘STIC People’

    Increase lending limits at the SBA

    Fourth, increase lending limits at the Small Business Association (SBA) and boost access to the 7(a) Working Capital Pilot (WCP) program. During her acceptance speech, Harris pledged to, “provide access to capital for small-business owners and entrepreneurs and founders.” Launched earlier this year, WCP is a line of credit product that features an annual guaranty fee structure that works to offer greater flexibility than a traditional term loan to meet specific business needs.

    Accessing capital is increasingly challenging in such a high-interest rate environment. The SBA pitched the concept as a means of breaking down barriers seeking to start their own pathway to entrepreneurship, where the franchise model is poised to continue playing a major role.

    Related: Find Out Which Brands Have Ranked on the Franchise 500 for Longest, Earning a Spot In our New ‘Hall of Fame’

    Outline a future for the Federal Trade Commission

    Finally, Harris should outline a future for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that includes a modernization of the Franchise Rule, a federal regulation solely enforced by the FTC that governs the sale of a franchise. Currently under review by the FTC, the Franchise Rule hasn’t been updated since 2007 — the same year the first iPhone was introduced.

    Research published in the Wall Street Journal showed it took more than 20 years of education to understand a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), and a federal investigation found many prospective franchisees did not read the disclosures at all. This needs to change, especially during the pre-sale process when a prospective franchisee is deciding whether to invest significant financial resources in a franchise.

    A Harris administration would be wise to course-correct the FTC to foster entrepreneurial development in franchising and double-down on the true mission of the FTC — to protect consumers and prospective franchisees. The franchise business model encourages workforce development and small business formulation in local communities, we look forward to working with any administration and any political party toward that important goal.

    Related: Is Franchising Right For You? Ask Yourself These 9 Questions to Find Out.

    Matt Haller is the President and CEO of the International Franchise Association (IFA). Greg Flynn is the Founder, Chairman, and CEO of Flynn Group and Flynn Properties, and an IFA Board Member. With 2,700+ Applebee’s, Taco Bells, Paneras, Arby’s, Pizza Huts, Wendy’s and Planet Fitness units generating $4.7+ billion in sales and employing 75,000+ people in 44 states and 3 countries, Flynn Group is the largest franchise operator in the world.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Haller and Greg Flynn

    Source link

  • DOJ Sues RealPage, Alleges Harm to Millions of Renters | Entrepreneur

    DOJ Sues RealPage, Alleges Harm to Millions of Renters | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued RealPage on Friday after a two-year investigation that included an unannounced FBI raid of a national corporate landlord. The DOJ alleged that Richardson, Texas-based RealPage, which sells real estate software, decreased competition among landlords and artificially inflated rents for millions of tenants across the country.

    “We allege that RealPage’s pricing algorithm enables landlords to share confidential, competitively sensitive information and align their rents,” attorney general Merrick B. Garland stated in a press release.

    The DOJ filed the 115-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Friday. The antitrust lawsuit details how RealPage signed contracts with landlords who would otherwise be competitors and collected sensitive, detailed information about rent prices, lease terms, amenities and occupancy rates.

    RealPage then allegedly fed the information to its AI-driven algorithm, which gave landlords recommendations on how to price rentals and set terms for rental agreements. The DOJ also accused the company of ensuring landlords accepted its recommendations by sending out pricing advisors to meet with them for “accountability conversations” and adding an “auto accept” feature so landlords would automatically approve price increases.

    In 2020, RealPage said its software collected data on 16 million rental units of the 22 million investment-grade apartment units in the U.S., indicating its broad reach.

    U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland (C), U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (L) and U.S. Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin Mizer (R). Photo Credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    “As Americans struggle to afford housing, RealPage is making it easier for landlords to coordinate to increase rents,” assistant attorney general Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division stated, adding that “competition – not RealPage – should determine what Americans pay to rent their homes.”

    The DOJ filed the lawsuit with the attorneys general of North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington. State attorneys general for Arizona and Washington, D.C., have already taken legal action against RealPage this year.

    Related: State Attorneys General Sue RealPage, Landlords Over ‘Astronomical’ Rent Hikes: ‘This Was Not A Fair Market At Work’

    In a statement, RealPage said the DOJ’s claims were “devoid of merit” and “will do nothing to make housing more affordable.” The lawsuit “seeks to scapegoat pro-competitive technology,” the company claimed.

    The non-partisan nonprofit American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) took a different stance. In an emailed statement to Entrepreneur, AELP senior legal counsel Lee Hepner pointed to RealPage’s own marketing, highlighted by the DOJ, which stated that the company took “every possible opportunity” to raise prices.

    “Working people have enough problems affording daily necessities without RealPage bragging that it seizes ‘every possible opportunity’ to increase rents,” Hepner stated.

    Related: This Simple Money Formula Helped Me Escape My 9-5 and Find Financial Freedom

    [ad_2]

    Sherin Shibu

    Source link

  • Outkast Sue EDM Duo ATLiens for Trademark Infringement

    Outkast Sue EDM Duo ATLiens for Trademark Infringement

    [ad_1]

    High Schoolers LLC, a trademark holding company controlled by Outkast’s André 3000 and Big Boi, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Atlanta electronic dance music duo ATLiens. In the lawsuit, obtained by Pitchfork, lawyers for the LLC claim that Outkast coined the term “ATLiens,” and that they’ve utilized it and owned the trademark for it since 1996. The EDM duo, the lawyers claim, has infringed on the Outkast trademark and been using the trademark without authorization.

    In the complaint, the lawyers say that the band ATLiens registered for their trademark in 2020, claiming that they’d used the name since 2012—long after the 1996 release of Outkast’s beloved second studio album, ATLiens. The attorneys argue that the competing trademark “is preventing Plaintiff [High Schoolers LLC] from being able to obtain registrations for its senior ATLIENS mark.”

    They also allege that the duo chose its name “to trade upon the tremendous fame and goodwill associated with Plaintiff’s ATLIENS album, song, and mark, or, at a minimum, to call to consumers’ minds Plaintiff’s famous ATLIENS album, song, and mark.”

    Through the lawsuit, the LLC and its attorneys are asking the Georgia federal court to prevent the band ATLiens from using the “ATLiens” trademark. They’re also asking for the cancellation of the duo’s competing trademark, among other requests.

    When reached by Pitchfork, attorneys Abigail J. Remore and Peter E. Nussbaum shared the following statement on behalf of High Schoolers LLC and André 3000: “This is a basic brand protection issue. Efforts to resolve this matter amicably were unfortunately unsuccessful and Outkast therefore had to file suit in order to protect the valuable name and trademark ATLIENS that it created and has continuously used for nearly 30 years.”

    Pitchfork has also emailed an attorney for ATLiens Touring Inc. for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Strauss

    Source link

  • Fubo wins injunction to delay Disney-Fox-Warner’s live sports streamer Venu

    Fubo wins injunction to delay Disney-Fox-Warner’s live sports streamer Venu

    [ad_1]

    The sports streaming service Fubo has temporarily fended off a huge financial threat from Disney-Fox-Warner’s potential competitor Venu Sports and its collection of sports broadcasting licenses thanks to a recent court ruling. A federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted Fubo’s request for an injunction in its antitrust case against the joint sports streaming venture and its parent companies.

    US District Judge Margaret Garnett wrote in an opinion issued earlier today such a concentrated collection of media power would eliminate consumers’ choices. The launch of Venu would also “hike prices on both consumers and other distributors” and create a “multi-year monopolistic runway” in the sports streaming sector for Disney, Fox and Warner.

    “Even if the [joint venture] defendants swear that such price-hiking and competition excluding will not actually occur (though…there is good reason to believe that it will),” the opinion reads, “one purpose of antitrust injunctions is to prevent anticompetitive incentives from forming in the first place so that American consumers do not have to simply take their word for it and hope for the best.”

    Garnett also wrote the injunction is needed because of “quintessential harms that money cannot adequately repair” if Fox-Disney-Warner’s Venu Sports moves forward.

    Fox-Disney-Warner first announced its plans to launch a live sports streaming channel in February and later revealed the name and price for its Venu Sports streaming service. The joint sports streaming venture will cost viewers $42.99 a month with a seven-day free trial and promises 14 channels of live sporting events with access to ESPN+ and four of its spinoff channels, the Fox network and both of its Fox Sports channels and a handful of Warner Bros. owned cable networks such as TNT and TruTV, according to a press release.

    Fubo filed its lawsuit a couple of weeks after Fox-Disney-Warner’s initial announcement. Fubo’s antitrust lawsuit accused the trio of media giants of staging “a years-long campaign” to weaken its sports streaming service. The suit also claimed the joint venture would concentrate too many entities in one service and would hinder competitiveness and jack up prices for viewers and distributors.

    The injunction puts a temporary hold on Fox-Disney-Warner’s plans for Venu Sports. Its fate will ultimately be determined by the antitrust case in federal court.

    [ad_2]

    Danny Gallagher

    Source link

  • DraftKings Lawsuit Over “Misleading” Risk-Free Wagers Dropped by Plaintiff

    DraftKings Lawsuit Over “Misleading” Risk-Free Wagers Dropped by Plaintiff

    [ad_1]

    DraftKings has been in a tough spot. It mistakenly sent an email to its users that there had been an issue with their golf bets (even though many players had not bet on golf), causing a surge of panicked users to log in and temporarily overload the websites.

    DraftKings Gets Relief in New York Class-Action Lawsuit

    Then, its biggest competitor – FanDuel, somewhat smugly announced that it would not be rolling out “surcharge,” a previously proposed measure designed to prop up ailing finances in some high-stake taxes, forcing DraftKings to reactively withdraw its plans for such a surcharge only hours later in what turned out to be a public relations nightmare.

    Now, though, DraftKings has got a bit of good news coming its way, after Samantha Guery, who alleged in a lawsuit that DraftKings had misled her and others with its “risk-free” promotions, has decided to drop the case against the betting giant.

    At the time, Guery argued that the amount offered by DraftKings as a “risk-free wager” did not match the deposit amount, thus misleading customers. It’s not yet clear why Guery has decided to withdraw. She was first very difficult to contact, her legal team informed the court and DraftKings. Her legal team made nine attempts to contact her – none of which succeeded.

    There were rumors that Guery’s health issues had got in the way. Eventually, Guery got in touch with her legal team and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case. In the meantime, DraftKings said that it needed more time to prepare a response to the original complaint – something that may now be no longer necessary.

    More Trouble Over Risk-Free Wagers Ahead

    However, Guery is not the only class-action lawsuit that DraftKings is facing, as a similar case is currently moving along in Massachusetts, where the company stands accused of similarly having played fast and loose with the term “risk-free.”

    The case has been brought up by the Public Health Advocacy Institute which has criticized the use of “risk-free” in marketing materials because of falsely creating the impression that players do not stand to lose their own money (they do).

    In the meantime, a broader debate has begun in the United States with lawmakers rallying behind the idea of completely suspending the usage of such wording in gambling promotions.

    [ad_2]

    Angel Hristov

    Source link

  • Legal Sea Foods Chicago Arrives Inside the Marina City Towers

    Legal Sea Foods Chicago Arrives Inside the Marina City Towers

    [ad_1]

    As locations go, the just-opened Legal Sea Foods couldn’t have found a more fitting setting than in Marina City, which offers sweeping views of the nearby Chicago River.

    Or as Matt King, president and chief operating officer of Legal Sea Foods, puts it, “It’s always nice whenever you’re eating seafood and you’re on the water.”

    Initially created in 1950 as a fish market in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Legal Sea Foods Chicago is the first non-East Coast location for the chain, which operates 27 restaurants and a seafood production facility. Legal Sea Foods is a New England institution, though locals have strained feelings since the Berkowitz family sold the company in 2020. The fish chowder has been served at every Presidential inauguration since Ronald Regan’s in 1981. The new owner, PPX Hospitality Brands, already has restaurants in Chicago.

    “We have a long history of working in Chicago with Smith & Wollensky, so we are really comfortable with the market,” says King of the neighboring steakhouse, which is also part of PPX. During COVID, Legal operated a ghost kitchen out of Smith & Wollensky to test the market.

    The chowder is a Presidential institution.
    Legal Sea Foods

    A bar

    This is the former Dick’s Last Resort.
    Legal Sea Foods

    Executive Chef Ozzy Amelotti, formerly of The Metropolitan Club and Carnivale, heads up the kitchen of the two-level restaurant, which officially opened on July 30 inside the former Dick’s Last Resort. The all-day menu features a number of the restaurant’s signature dishes, including clam chowder, crab cake, and half-pound lobster roll. Fish and chips, like all its fried seafood offerings, are made with gluten-free proprietary breading. Fresh oysters are a regular feature at all Legal Sea Foods as they are here. Nigiri and maki are newer additions for the chain.

    Amelotti also created dishes specifically for Chicago, including grilled or blackened Lake Superior white fish. Appetizer scallops de Jonghe is a riff on the signature Chicago dish originally made with shrimp, buttery breadcrumbs, sherry, and garlic.

    “You can’t go into a new location and say I’m not going to use anything that’s from there,” says King. “It’s important to connect to where you are. We obviously got our core items and what we are famous for, but there’s always room to add some local flair.”

    The first floor dining room.
    Legal Sea Foods

    Local also applies to one of the on-tap beers. Legal Sea Foods worked with Chicago’s Spiteful Brewing to create a New England-style IPA, Working for the Haze. The signature red and white wine sangrias get an extra kick with the addition of rum and vodka. The wine-by-the-glass program features two pours, six and eight ounces.

    Legal Sea Foods expansive river-level space seats 240 and features a large bar area, main dining room, private event spaces, and an outdoor terrace. A curved staircase leads up to the intimate upper-level Oyster Bar, with bar seating and tables for 30.

    While the 10,000-square-foot riverfront location provides obvious perks, creating the restaurant inside the landmarked Marina City building designed by architect Bertrand Goldberg wasn’t without its challenges.

    A lobster roll with fries.

    The half-pound lobster roll.
    Legal Sea Foods

    “It certainly gives your architects and designers a lot to think about,” says King, citing the dilemma of how to incorporate the curves and turns of the space into the design. One solution was the creation of curved waved-shaped banquette seating that mirrors the curves of the building’s interior core.

    “Instead of trying to hide its uniqueness, we worked with it,” he says. “The space really dictated a lot of the layout, which is one of the things we like. It’s very much Marina City and when you come into that space, you know where you are.”

    Legal Sea Foods, 315 N Dearborn Street (entrance off State St. Bridge, next to Smith & Wollensky). Open for lunch and dinner 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Lisa Shames

    Source link

  • Justin Timberlake Pleads Not Guilty in DWI Case, Has License Suspended

    Justin Timberlake Pleads Not Guilty in DWI Case, Has License Suspended

    [ad_1]

    Justin Timberlake has submitted a not guilty plea to a revised misdemeanor charge in connection to his June arrest for driving while intoxicated in Sag Harbor, New York, CNN reports. The singer’s drivers license was also suspended in the state of New York by Sag Harbor Village Justice Carl Irace.

    Timberlake attended the hearing virtually from Europe, where he’s currently on tour behind his latest album Everything I Thought It Was. During the hearing, Irace urged caution and threatened Timberlake’s counsel with a gag order, referring to comments made outside of court to the media by the singer’s lawyer, Edward Burke. Burke previously disagreed with the claim that Timberlake was intoxicated, disputing to reporters that the police made “very significant errors” and asserting that “he was not intoxicated.”

    Timberlake was attempting to drive home from a party in June in the Hamptons when police noticed him miss a stop sign and swerve out of his lane, police told TMZ. He declined to take a breathalyzer and failed a field sobriety test: to stand on one leg and do a walk-and-turn. “I had one martini and I followed my friends home,” he told the officer, according to the police report. A further conference hearing in the case is scheduled for August 9, which Timberlake is not required to attend.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Torres

    Source link

  • The 1975 Sued by Malaysian Festival After Matthew Healy Kissed Male Bandmate

    The 1975 Sued by Malaysian Festival After Matthew Healy Kissed Male Bandmate

    [ad_1]

    The 1975 have been sued for $2.4 million by Malaysia’s Good Vibes Festival, a year after Matthew Healy kissed Ross MacDonald onstage to protest the country’s homophobic laws, Variety reports. The damages, just shy of the $2.6 million originally requested last year, relate to the Malaysian government’s subsequent decision to cancel the festival altogether. Healy addressed the incident at a show in Texas last October, alluding to being “briefly imprisoned” in Malaysia. “If you truly believe that artists have a responsibility to uphold their liberal virtues by using their massive platforms, then those artists should be judged by the danger and inconvenience that they face for doing so, not by the rewards they receive for parroting consensus,” he said.

    Festival organizers Future Sound Asia reportedly filed the lawsuit in the United Kingdom’s High Court, claiming the band deliberately flouted the country’s laws after numerous reminders. Among those rules were swearing, smoking and drinking on stage, taking off clothes, and talking about politics or religion, according to Variety. Other guidelines specifically banned kissing. The lawsuit reportedly notes that the band considered not performing, but decided instead to protest the rules by playing “a completely different setlist” and defying the guidelines on purpose, including Healy’s “provocative speech” and “long pretend passionate embrace” with MacDonald.

    During the set, Healy had denounced Malaysian government policies that make homosexuality punishable by up to 20 years in prison. “If you want to invite me here to do a show, you can fuck off,” he told the crowd. “I’ll take your money, you can ban me, but I’ve done this before and it doesn’t feel good, and I’m fucked off.” The set came to an abrupt end, with Healy saying, “All right, we just got banned from Kuala Lumpur. See you later.” The band canceled shows in Jakarta and Taipei immediately after the festival.

    Future Sound Asia filed its request for damages last year through the legal firm Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership, which cited Healy’s written agreement that the band would “adhere to all local guidelines and regulations.” It added, in a statement, at the time, “Their actions have had repercussions on local Malaysian artists and small businesses, who relied on the festival for creative opportunities and their livelihoods.”

    After the Malaysian show, the 1975 posted a statement through We the Fest, which had been due to host their show in Jakarta, Indonesia. “The band never takes the decision to cancel a show lightly and had been eagerly looking forward to playing for fans in Jakarta and Taipei but unfortunately, due to current circumstances, it is impossible to proceed with the scheduled shows,” it read.

    [ad_2]

    Jazz Monroe

    Source link

  • How to Seamlessly Relocate Your Business to Another State | Entrepreneur

    How to Seamlessly Relocate Your Business to Another State | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Starting and establishing a business is challenging, but the endeavor seems almost impossible when you decide to start over again in another state.

    I don’t mean opening an out-of-state location but moving your business from one state to another. My company has helped scores of business owners who want to relocate. The key is to tackle the process step-by-step.

    Whatever your reason for moving, starting over in a new state requires detailed planning, in-depth research and patience. Here’s what to consider if you’re thinking about moving your business.

    Related: 6 Critical Considerations Before Relocating Your Business to Another City

    Do your research

    Before making any move, it’s crucial to do your research. Consider any legal and regulatory concerns. Make sure you understand the new state’s steps for business formation, employment, licensing and tax requirements.

    Then, define the specific reasons you’re relocating. Are taxes an issue? While nine states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming) currently don’t levy an income tax, you need to find out about any local business, sales, property, and franchise taxes required by the state.

    Are you moving to a state with a lower cost of living (COL)? These expenses are defined as “the cost of maintaining a certain standard of living,” including housing, food, transportation, taxes, healthcare and more. The COL varies by state and fluctuates by city, so don’t eliminate a state based on the costs in one specific location.

    Accessing market trends and opportunities in the states you’re considering moving to is also critical. Consumer demographics, market competition and economic indicators can impact your success. Compare statistics on industries and business conditions across the U.S.

    Every state touts the availability of skilled labor, but the reality of your business’s ability to attract and keep the right talent will vary. What are the prevailing wages for your type of business? Some companies benefit from being located near a college, which provides a pipeline of potential employees. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce keeps tabs on where the labor shortage is hitting hardest.

    Also, consider your company’s infrastructure needs. Depending on your business, concerns such as transportation, access to suppliers and availability of distribution centers may impact operations. Contact state and local economic development agencies for information about infrastructure and resources.

    Many locales may meet your business criteria. However, they also need to fit your quality of life requirements. Does the state provide the healthcare, education and lifestyle options you need? Is the climate to your liking? Can you find the type of housing that suits your personal situation?

    Related: Relocating Your Company? Don’t Make These 10 Moving Mistakes.

    Business domestication

    We typically recommend that entrepreneurs who own LLCs and corporations domesticate (or redomesticate) their companies. This means your business ceases to exist in its state of formation and only exists in your new location.

    Only 31 states and Washington, D.C. allow domestication. Each state has its own rules and processes. Check with Secretary of State offices to see which states allow domestication and their requirements.

    Generally, the domestication process works in a specific order: You apply for domestication in a new state and then dissolve your company in your current home state. The process to domesticate entails getting the approval of all board members, applying for Articles of Domestication or Articles of Continuance and providing a Certificate of Good Standing and a copy of the application for Articles of Dissolution from your former state. Once approved, you’ll file Articles of Dissolution in your former state. You must pay any outstanding fees or taxes.

    Domestication has several benefits:

    • You don’t have to change your Federal Tax ID Number (Employee Identification Number/EIN).
    • There’s less paperwork and tax consequences.
    • Your business can keep its credit history.
    • You’ll save money since you won’t have to pay for annual reports and fees incurred by doing business in multiple states.

    If your corporation or LLC wants to keep your old state as your state of formation or conduct business in both states, you must file for a foreign qualification in the new state. While every state has its own process for foreign qualification, you can usually file online for a Certificate of Authority and pay a fee.

    Maintaining multiple locations means you must designate a registered agent in the state you are not headquartered in. This person must have a local address and the authority to accept legal documents and government notices on your behalf.

    Sole proprietorships and partnerships

    Moving your business is less complex if it’s a sole proprietorship or partnership. There’s still a process you must follow:

    • Cancel local business licenses and permits and apply for new ones in your new state.
    • Pay any outstanding fees and taxes.
    • Withdraw any assumed names (Doing Business As/DBAs) from your Secretary of State’s office and apply for the DBA in your new location.
    • If your business bank does not have branches in your new state, close your bank accounts.
    • Inform the IRS of your new business address.
    • If you move mid-year, you must pay taxes in your new and old states.

    Related: Patagonia Gave 90 Staff a Choice — Relocate Across the U.S. or Leave the Company. They Got 3 Days to Decide.

    HR considerations

    When you decide to relocate, it’s essential to tell your staff as soon as possible and that you be transparent, honest and empathetic. It’s best to hold an in-person meeting, allow time for questions and provide a timeline for the move.

    Do you plan to offer your team the opportunity to move with you? Most small businesses cannot afford to pay employee relocation expenses, which typically cost thousands of dollars. Will you offer them the opportunity to work remotely?

    If not, consider offering them severance and/or job transition assistance. If you know local companies looking for talent, offer to make introductions. And make sure you provide employees with letters of recommendation.

    Taking the required steps to ensure a seamless transition will help ensure a smooth start in your new location.

    [ad_2]

    Nellie Akalp

    Source link

  • DaBaby Pleads Guilty to Misdemeanor Simple Battery in Los Angeles County

    DaBaby Pleads Guilty to Misdemeanor Simple Battery in Los Angeles County

    [ad_1]

    In 2022, DaBaby was charged with felony battery and accused of sucker-punching a Los Angeles County rental property owner during an unauthorized music video shoot. The rapper has now agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor simple battery, TMZ reports and Pitchfork can confirm. As a result of the plea deal, DaBaby has also been sentenced to one day in a Los Angeles County jail (which he has served), given a year of probation, and ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution to the victim.

    The incident involving DaBaby and the rental property owner, Gary Pagar, took place in 2020. Pagar, in a lawsuit, claims that DaBaby rented one of his properties for a “private vacation,” promising that he would not have more than 12 people on the site. Instead, DaBaby allegedly hosted 40 people and a film crew to shoot a music video. Pagar, who is now 68 years old, says that DaBaby attacked him when he tried to enforce his capacity rules. The civil trial is scheduled to begin in September, according to Rolling Stone.

    Pitchfork has reached out to DaBaby’s attorney, Blair Bernholz Berk, for comment on the rapper’s plea and sentencing.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Strauss

    Source link

  • Microsoft AI CEO: Anything on Open Web Fair Use for Training | Entrepreneur

    Microsoft AI CEO: Anything on Open Web Fair Use for Training | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    In order to write, lead advertising campaigns, and power side hustles AI needs training material. ChatGPT needed about 300 billion words to get off the ground and continues to train itself based on how users interact with it.

    However, human beings aren’t being credited or compensated for creating the content that AI is eating up. Authors, artists, and news organizations have already filed countless copyright lawsuits against AI giants like OpenAI and Microsoft as they find that AI bots can talk about their copyrighted work “too accurately” — indicating that the works are in the AI’s training data.

    That’s why Microsoft’s AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman was asked at the Aspen Ideas Festival in late June if AI companies have essentially stolen the world’s intellectual property.

    Suleyman’s answer? Almost all content on the Internet, with one possible exception, is fair game for AI training.

    Related: A Microsoft-Partnered AI Startup Is Being Sued By the Biggest Record Labels in the World

    “I think that with respect to content that is already on the open web, the social contract of that content since the ’90s has been that it is fair use,” Suleyman said.

    Suleyman stated that “anyone” can copy or recreate the content on the open web.

    “That has been freeway,” he said. “That’s been the understanding.”

    However, some news sites and publishers have asked not to be scraped or crawled.

    “That’s the gray area and I think that’s going to work its way through the courts,” Suleyman said.

    Mustafa Suleyman. Photographer: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Suleyman leads Microsoft AI at a time when Microsoft has invested billions into the technology. His position on what is fair use and what isn’t fleshes out how AI companies might defend intellectual property allegations in court.

    OpenAI, for example, has allegedly used more than a million hours of YouTube videos to train ChatGPT. When asked whether YouTube or social media videos were used to make OpenAI’s video generator Sora, the company’s chief technology officer Mira Murati said, “We used publicly available data and licensed data” and wouldn’t specify further.

    AI also appears to be eating work generated by other AI, resulting in lower-quality output. Experts estimate that 90% of online content will be AI-generated within the next two years.

    Related: The Most Downloaded News App in the U.S. May Have Published Dozens of Fake, AI-Written Stories

    [ad_2]

    Sherin Shibu

    Source link

  • Prince’s Former Business Advisors Win Key Ruling in Ongoing Estate Lawsuit

    Prince’s Former Business Advisors Win Key Ruling in Ongoing Estate Lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Prince’s former business advisors L. Londell McMillan and Charles Spicer Jr. have won a key ruling in their ongoing estate lawsuit against several of the late artist’s heirs, reports Billboard. McMillan and Spicer are currently managers of Prince Legacy LLC, the estate management holding company they co-created with several of Prince’s legal heirs, but several of those family members—Prince’s half-sisters Sharon and Norrine Nelson, plus his niece and nephew Breanna and Allen Nelson—allegedly attempted to oust them from the company. On July 5, a Delaware judge ruled that those four family members could not amend the LLC agreement to remove McMillan and Spicer because it breaks the terms of the agreement.

    “The LLC agreement is unambiguous and [McMillan and Spicer]’s interpretation is the only reasonable one,” Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick wrote in the decision, which Pitchfork has viewed. “Plaintiffs here allege that Defendants breached the LLC Agreement by purporting to remove the Managing Members and amend the LLC Agreement. As stated in the above analysis, that allegation is adequately alleged. Plaintiffs have stated a claim for breach of contract.”

    In a statement to Pitchfork, McMillan said he and Spicer were “pleased” with the new ruling in this lawsuit, as was Johnny Nicholas Nelson Torres, another Prince relative who “strongly opposes” Nelson’s actions and joined their lawsuit as a plaintiff. “I have protected Prince and been his partner for decades. Nothing will change our history and my loyalty to him and his legacy,” said McMillan. “We are pleased with the Judge’s decision and wish we were not forced to take legal action for the wrongdoing of the Defendants (and their advisors) yet we have a heavy responsibility to preserve and protect Prince’s legacy and all he created, by any and all appropriate means necessary.”

    An attorney for Sharon Nelson and the other defendants did not immediately return a request for comment to Pitchfork.

    As previously reported, and reiterated in the court documents, six of Prince’s siblings inherited equal interests in his estate, with three of them assigning their combined 50% interest to Prince Legacy LLC. As Prince’s former business advisors, McMillan and Spicer assisted some of those heirs in the probate process and, in return, were each compensated with a 10% interest in Prince Legacy and “broad and exclusive management authority” as Managing Members of the LLC. “One of the heirs, Sharon Nelson, came to regret this decision and inserted herself into management decisions—by demanding, for example, that the entire staff of the Paisley Park Museum be replaced,” reads the decision. “When McMillan and Spicer did not acquiesce to her demands, Sharon led the defendants’ efforts to remove McMillan and Spicer as Managing Members by amending the LLC agreement.”

    The lawsuit also claims that both Sharon and Breanna Nelson attempted to sell their shares to Primary Wave, which would seemingly tip the balance of the Prince estate’s current 50-50 divide. McMillan and Spicer’s complaint alleges that not only have the Nelsons sought to change bylaws to remove the two advisors, but to also sell their shares to a third party without unanimous consent from Prince Legacy’s membership.

    Prince died of a fentanyl overdose in 2016. At the time, he did not have a written will – leading to a six-year-long legal battle in Minnesota probate court over the division of his estate and assets. When that case concluded in August 2022, the estate was split into two companies: Prince Legacy and Primary Wave.

    [ad_2]

    Nina Corcoran

    Source link

  • Sean “Diddy” Combs Sued for Alleged Sex Trafficking at Parties

    Sean “Diddy” Combs Sued for Alleged Sex Trafficking at Parties

    [ad_1]

    Sean “Diddy” Combs has been sued again, this time for alleged sex trafficking, sexual assault, and other allegations, TMZ and the Los Angeles Times report. Adria English, a former adult-film star, says Diddy hired her to work as a “go-go dancer” at a party in 2004, before rehiring her for parties where she alleges her drinks were laced with narcotics and she was eventually coerced into having sex with guests. One such guest, she claims, was celebrity jeweler Jacob “the Jeweler” Arabo, who is named in the lawsuit, along with several of Diddy’s enterprises, two media companies, a woman who allegedly facilitated the sex trafficking, and two people who are not named. Diddy has denied the claims.

    In the lawsuit, English alleges that Diddy “groomed” her into sex trafficking as she attended more of his white parties, particularly when he learned of her background in adult entertainment. To refuse his “demands was not an option,” she says in the lawsuit, adding that Diddy threatened to blackball her and her boyfriend from the modeling industry if she did not comply. The music magazine Vibe is also named in the lawsuit for allegedly providing resources for the parties, inflicting emotional distress connected to the alleged sex trafficking, and publicizing her likeness in an article on the parties.

    Jonathan Davis, an attorney for Diddy, said in a statement emailed to Pitchfork, “No matter how many lawsuits are filed it won’t change the fact that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted or sex trafficked anyone. We live in a world where anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason and without any proof. Fortunately, a fair and impartial judicial process exists to find the truth and Mr. Combs is confident he will prevail against these and other baseless claims in court.”

    English’s complaint is the ninth filed against Diddy since November, when Cassie sued him for rape, sex trafficking, and years of physical violence. That suit was quickly settled, but several of the lawsuits are ongoing, as is a federal sex trafficking investigation by Homeland Security Investigations. He has denied all charges against him.


    If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual assault, we encourage you to reach out for support:

    RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline
    http://www.rainn.org
    1 800 656 HOPE (4673)

    Crisis Text Line
    SMS: Text “HELLO” or “HOLA” to 741-741

    [ad_2]

    Jazz Monroe

    Source link