HB Partner Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Take these CLE webinars on the West LegalEdcenter platform. Each program features leading litigators in their respective fields on emerging subjects. Speakers and topics are handpicked by HB. Your organization may have already subscribed to the platform, but each session is also available for individual purpose. For questions or if you wish to propose a webinar, write to us at: Webinars@LitigationConferences.com.
Employment Law in the COVID-19 Era with Stefani Schwartz
Employment Law in the COVID-19 Era with Stefani Schwartz Joining me to discuss this important subject is Stefani Schwartz, co-founder of the woman-owned employment-and-labor boutique Hatfield Schwartz in New Jersey. Stefani has devoted her legal career to representing employers in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination matters. Stefani will be featured in the next issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Stefani is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview, and a guest appearance by Benny, her Portuguese Water Dog, you know, because she's working from home. Stefani also shares one retail customer's quick fix for forgetting her face mask. More of us are working from home and, given it often has advantages, it's an arrangement that is likely to continue for many of us. This raised the general question: Is your home officially "the office," with all the attendant rules and norms? What new risks do employers face? What new ways can employees find themselves in trouble? We're also getting vaccinated. But many are not. Can companies required employees to get the shot? Studies reveal that we're not all bearing the burden of remote working evenly. Who is carrying more of the load? Given these dramatic changes, should employers adjust their policies?
Women in Law
Western Alliance Bank presents a CLE-eligible webinar Women in Law Becoming the Master of Your Career According to the National Association of Women Lawyers, there has been a "sustained (albeit small) improvement for women amongst equity partners since the survey’s inception in 2006 (15% compared to 19% - 21% in recent years)." "This is a positive trend toward a more representative legal profession, but change at this glacial pace will continue to result in future generations of lawyers entering a profession where women and diverse attorneys are underrepresented in positions of power and influence. A continued, rigorous examination of and changes to existing practices – a movement from talk to action – is needed to speed progress in a meaningful way for women and other underrepresented groups." As women work to advance their careers amid these market and social realities, there is much they can do on their own initiative to navigate their career in a manner that -- over time -- will meet or exceed their professional and personal objectives. We are fortunate two extraordinary women professionals have agreed to share a wealth of insights, tactics and strategies they employed to steadily rise through the ranks of their respective professions. Mary Beth Foley is General Counsel of Ohio Police and Fire Fund, and President of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys. Joining her is Barbara Hart, Director and Executive Committee Member at the law firm Grant & Eisenhofer. Barbara is also a member of the Thirty Percent Coalition which advocates for diversity on Fortune 500 boards. Join us for an engaging format in which Mary Beth and Barbara take turns interviewing one another about proven strategies they recommend other women in the profession consider as they chart their careers. Review the topics they [...]
Facial Recognition: How It Works and How It Doesn’t
Debbie Reynolds Founder, CEO & CDPO Debbie Reynolds Consulting Website Martin T. Tully Founding Partner Actuate Law Website Facial Recognition: Benefits & Risks Editor's Note: Imagine how great technology would be if it weren't for people. Since the beginning of time man has developed remarkable solutions to common problems. But leave it to nefarious, despicable, criminal or just plain dumb people to ruin them for the rest of us. You know, like gun powder, nuclear power, and the internet. Facial recognition programs and collection of biometric data would appear to have more benefits than risks, but those risks are there. As use of the technology proliferates we can expect more litigation as additional states follow Illinois -- the first to enact a state Biometric Information Privacy Act. Martin T. Tully of Actuate Law LLC and Debbie Reynolds of Debbie Reynolds Consulting LLC, outline these risks and how regulation and litigation is responding in their article: Facial Recognition Proliferation: Litigation and Legal Implications of Biometric Technologies. Below are a couple excerpts from their article, published in the January 2021 edition of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. --Tom Hagy Some FR technologies use a scanner to identify 4,500 different points of facial geometry to create a map of a person's face. The application doesn’t necessarily store photos of faces; it generates and stores a unique, algorithmic representation of faces. Think of it as a hash value for that individual. The hash value can then recognize that person when they return to a facility after initially registering. "Ah, you're Mary, the FedEx driver. You are authorized to go to Suite 501 and deliver this package to Acme Corporation because you previously registered yourself here in that capacity." Notably, the hash value in this example is encrypted [...]
Does Data Sharing and Zoombombing Cause Actual Harm?
Legal Writer Law Street Media FTC Settles Health Data Sharing and Privacy Suit With Fertility App Flo Health Nothing in this life is free. Or cheap. Free and low-cost apps. Free internet searches. Free email. Free iPhones. Yeah. We're paying for it one way or the other. In this case, once again, it's private health information some folks are paying with. Here is an excerpt of a post shared with the permission of Fastcase and Law Street Media. --Tom Hagy, HB Litigation Conferences WASHINGTON, DC -- Jan. 13, 2021 -- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that that it has reached a proposed settlement with Flo Health, Inc., the “developer of a period and fertility-tracking app used by more than 100 million consumers,” over claims that the company shared user health information with third-party data analytics providers despite promising that this information would remain private. In the complaint, the FTC alleged that Flo promised users that it would keep their health data, which includes menstrual cycle tracking and a PMS symptom log, as well as ovulation, fertility, and pregnancy information, private because it would only use this information to provide the app’s services to users. However, the FTC averred that Flo disclosed millions of users’ health data from its Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker app to third-parties “that provided marketing and analytics services to the app, including Facebook’s analytics division, Google’s analytics division, Google’s Fabric service, AppsFlyer, and Flurry.” Read the complete story and more at LawStreetMedia.com.
COVID-19 and the Courtroom with Alison Besunder
COVID-19 and the Courtroom with Alison Besunder Joining me is Alison Besunder on this timely and evolving subject. It’s based on her article — Crisis is the Mother of Change: How a Pandemic Sparked Progress in Courtroom Efficiency — which will be featured in the January 2021 issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Alison brings extensive experience counseling clients on matters ranging from the simple to complex, helping them prevent future disputes through proactive planning and to resolve disputes that proceed to litigation. She is a frequent speaker on topics such as Estate Planning During Divorce, End of Life Decision Making, Cyber-Security for Lawyers, and Social Media and Ethics. She operated her own firm for several years and in 2019 joined Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Alison is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview. What efficiencies have been foisted upon our nation's courts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic? What has worked and what has not? Are we going to see permanent implementation of things like webcam hearings and virtual trials?
Does Data Sharing and Zoombombing Cause Actual Harm?
Legal Writer Law Street Media Zoom Says Data Sharing, Zoombombing Doesn't Cause Personal Harm Zoom is a good name for this company. It seems to have come out of nowhere to become the new verb for web meetings, robbing that distinction from many more established competitors like WebEx and GoToMeeting, maybe because they don't have cool web-sounding names, although people don't seem to be saying "let's Skype later," as much as they used to. Sure, we still "Facetime," but Zoom really shot to the top when it comes to name recognition. According to CNBC's Ari Levy, Zoom reported fiscal third-quarter revenue growth of more than 300% after seeing 355% expansion in the prior period. The company's stock was up almost seven-fold this year but "pulled back in November on positive news surrounding a coronavirus vaccine," Levy reported. And with success comes risk, especially when dealing with private data. Here is an excerpt of a post shared with the permission of Fastcase and Law Street Media. --Tom Hagy, HB Litigation Conferences Dec. 4, 2020 (San Francisco) -- On Wednesday [Dec. 2], in the Northern District of California, Zoom Video Communications filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended consolidated class action complaint (FAC) on the grounds that the FAC failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The consolidated complaint alleged that Zoom engaged in unauthorized data sharing with third parties, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google. Additional complaints included an alleged failure to prevent unwanted meeting disruptions by outside parties, called Zoombombing; and misrepresentation of its encryption protocols claiming it used end-to-end encryption when it purportedly did not provide such encryption. Zoom stated that it faced unprecedented growth resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, as people began using Zoom for teleconferences and to communicate with friends and family, [...]
Biogen Pays 22M To Resolve False Claims Act Charges For Paying Kickbacks
The Justice Department has announced that Biogen, Inc., has agreed to pay $22 million to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by illegally using foundations as a conduit to pay the copays of Medicare patients taking Biogen’s multiple sclerosis drugs, Avonex and Tysabri. Biogen did not admit liability in reaching the agreement. […]
FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law
MoginRubin LLP Washington, DC | San Diego Explore more from MoginRubin LLP! Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. List OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification. Jonathan Rubin, Dan Mogin. Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan lll, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger. Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin Plus, additional insights from the MoginRubin Blog. FTC's Case Against Facebook Will Challenge the Adaptability of U.S. Antitrust Law Society leads, and the law follows. This is especially true in antitrust, where industries and markets undergo constant change brought about by innovation and changing consumer behavior. Confronted with ever evolving commercial circumstances, the courts face a constant struggle to keep up. With the filing of the antitrust cases against the Facebook “monopoly” by the Federal Trade Commission and 47 state attorneys general, U.S. antitrust faces one of its most significant tests since the case of U.S. v. Microsoft, now 20 years old. In the intervening decades, the Internet has spawned a new category of industry, “demand aggregators.” These businesses seek to grow market share not just by capturing supply, but also demand. The power of the dominant digital platforms—Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Uber—arises as much or more from [...]
Chubb’s COVID-19 Claim Denials Draw Litigation from Hollywood
Editor and Managing Director HB Litigation Conferences Editor@LitigationConferences.com Chubb’s COVID-19 Claim Denials Draw Litigation from Hollywood Well-known policyholder and insurance recovery attorney Kirk Pasich and his firm have sued Chubb insurance companies on behalf of policyholders in the entertainment industry to recover millions in losses they suffered as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Entertainment Business Interruption On Nov. 11, 2020, the firm filed suit on behalf of United Talent Agency LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Vigilant Insurance Co. and Federal Insurance Co. UTA seeks coverage for the millions it lost when concerts and television and movie projections had to be cancelled. The complaint says both carriers are part of the Chubb group, “which has adopted a universal practice of denying coverage for all business interruption claims associated with SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and subsequent events” (UTA v. Vigilant, No. 20STCV43745, Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles). Acts affected include Post Malone, Guns N' Roses, and Toby Keith. The case hinges in part on the carriers’ assertion that there was no “physical loss or damage.” UTA finds Vigilant based its finding on little information, and knowing for decades that "many courts have held that the presence of a hazardous substance on a property, including the airspace inside buildings, constitutes property damage and that there may be ‘direct physical loss’ to property even if the property is not structurally damaged.” Pasich and his partner Michael S. Gehrt represent UTA. Film Coverage "Fraudulently Reformed" On Sept. 9, 2020, motion picture production company Hoosegow (Hypnotic) Productions Inc. sued Chubb National Insurance Company in federal court in California, arguing that the carrier breached its agreement to extend coverage for the film, titled Hypnotic starring actors including Ben Afleck, should production be delayed. When Covid-19 hit and stopped production, Chubb, [...]
Assessing Risk in Medical Malpractice Mediation
HB Litigation Conferences presents Assessing Risk in Medical Malpractice Mediation CLE-eligible on demand webinar | Recorded 2021 Lawyers and claims professionals assess litigation outcomes all the time. The parties do not. You can help. Understandably, parties in medical malpractice disputes do not fully appreciate the risks inherent in litigation and are not aware of how continued litigation affects their underlying interests in the dispute. For example, some parties see the outcome as a reflection of their personal character. These challenges can hamper the parties' ability to make good decisions in litigated medical malpractice cases. Even organizations that are experienced in assessing litigation risk can make more decisions in these cases with adverse outcomes. Hear our panel of medical malpractice and insurance attorneys and litigation experts as they share their insights on successfully guiding individuals and organizations through these disputes. Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. REGISTRATION Key Points What are the intangible costs of medical malpractice litigation for individuals and institutions? How can advocates, claims professionals, and parties make better decisions in these cases? How are medical malpractice claims mediated? How can advocates use risk assessments in settlement negotiations? What do participants want from mediators? Meet the speakers. Gregory K. Wells Gregory K. Wells is a Maryland-based personal injury lawyer and partner with Shadoan, Michael & Wells LLP. His practice focuses on Plaintiff’s medical malpractice, serious [...]
The Antitrust Case Against Google
The Antitrust Case Against Google Perspectives from highly regarded competition law attorneys, litigators, and economists. This overview and Q&A has been developed for advertisers, mobile device makers, app developers, corporate counsel, business writers, and search market participants. The U.S. Department of Justice and 11 states have filed a sweeping antitrust suit against Google alleging the tech giant abuses its position as "monopoly gatekeeper for the internet" to block competitors. The complaint says Google has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising. The federal and state governments charge Google uses "exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements" to "lock up distribution channels and block rivals." Google's considerable wealth helps make this happen. Google pays billions of dollars a year to distributors to secure their position as the default search engine, and prohibits these companies from dealing with Google competitors. Google's exclusionary strategy is being applied more harshly in newer technologies, such as voice assistants, and in its goal of dominating other platforms in the IoT category, such as smart speakers, home appliances, and autonomous cars. Without a court order, the government plaintiffs say, "Google will continue executing its anticompetitive strategy, crippling the competitive process, reducing consumer choice, and stifling competition." What does all of this mean to actual or potential rivals, ad buyers, consumer, developers, and device makers in three markets Search Service, Search Advertising, and Search Text Advertising? What type of defense might Google mount? What might the ultimate resolution look like? Join our panel, led by competition law thought leaders, as they address the potential impact of the litigation and answer your questions via live chat. • Setting the stage: What constitutes an illegal monopoly? • Lessons from United States v. Microsoft? [...]
Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment
MoginRubin LLP By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer M. Oliver, and Timothy Z. LaComb Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track. Author, Jonathan Rubin, MoginRubin LLP. Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Author, Jonathan Rubin, MoginRubin LLP Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certificatio. Authors, Jonathan Rubin and Dan Mogin, MoginRubin LLP Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law. By Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Speakers Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant OnDemand CLE Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee, Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger Interested in More CLE OnDemand? Click Here. Interested in this program? Click here to send us a note. Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment At a conference earlier this year on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, Assistant Treasury Secretary Thomas P. Feddo spoke with pride of the Committee’s increased funding, jurisdiction, expenditures, and more aggressive review activities. Feddo began the speech by detailing how CFIUS has implemented the 2018 Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, or FIRMMA, which expanded its jurisdiction and increased its funding. The Committee has invested in new IT infrastructure and personnel, and since May of this year, the Treasury Department has been collecting filing fees for voluntary filers, a new policy which creates a funding mechanism to supplement its budget. Feddo went on to discuss new rulemaking around foreign investment, including a proposed [...]
Heavy Metals in SFO Bay
Legal Writer Law Street Media San Francisco Baykeeper Sues Aviation Part Manufacturer Over Heavy Metal Pollution Reposted with permission of Law Street Media and Fastcase. On Tuesday in the Northern District of California, plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper filed a civil action against defendants Allied Engineering & Production Corp., Allied Land Co. (collectively Allied), and Stone Boatyard to rectify the alleged past and ongoing contamination of canal shoreline near the San Francisco Bay. The plaintiff brings the suit under the private attorney general provision, asserting rights on behalf of the public against the defendants for supposedly dumping metal shavings in the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal in violation of the law. Baykeeper is an environmental non-profit organization with approximately 3,500 members who live and recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay area. The organization’s mission is “to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive.” It monitors and investigates pollution as part of its efforts to ensure that the bay is clean and safe for recreation. Defendant Allied Engineering operated a machine shop from 1951 to about 2011, located in Alameda, Calif., on a property that Allied Land owned. The machine shop manufactured aviation industry components and stored hazardous materials, hydraulic oils, lubricants, greases, fuels, coolants, and solvents, the complaint avers. The defendants are charged with dumping materials onto an adjacent parcel that was formerly owned by the United States but is now owned by Stone Boatyard. The plaintiff organization alleges that some of its members alerted it to a stretch of the canal’s shoreline contaminated with metal waste. Baykeeper staff investigated and discovered that the contamination consisted of metal shavings or swarf. The complaint also explains that “[s]ampling indicates [...]
Podcast: Charlie Kingdollar on Social Disparagement
HBLC · HBPC Charlie Kingdollar Social Disparagement - 10:8:20, 7.57 PM Charlie Kingdollar spent more than four decades with General Reinsurance, three-quarters of which as the company's Emerging Issues Officer. One colleague described him as "one of the most prescient and gifted industry futurists I have met in my 36 year professional career within the insurance industry. Entertaining and insightful, his ability to digest and communicate complex issues, many before they are readily apparent, is both a gift and a talent." Follow him on LinkedIn. Charlie Kingdollar on Social Media Disparagement Are the risks posed by social media -- which has added jet fuel to one person's ability to smear another -- adequately addressed by the insurance market? It was my pleasure to interview Charlie for our first emerging issues podcast. It's based on his article on social disparagement which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation (JEIL), which will release in January 2021. JEIL is a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Charlie is, drop me a note at Question@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview. Tom Hagy Founder & Managing Director HB Litigation Conferences Download Charlie's article as a preview of the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation.
Cryptocurrency Article and Webinar
Cryptocurrency: The Good, The Bad, and the Tricky According to a recent Visual Capitalist article, there are now more than 5,000 cryptocurrencies in circulation, fueling an exploding $200 billion industry. Clearly it is a boom time for virtual asset service providers, or VASPs, like cryptocurrency exchanges and wallet providers. Despite its notoriety, mystique still surrounds cryptocurrency, from its use of blockchain technology, to the benefits and weaknesses of trading decentralized money, to national security implications. With crypto’s rise comes global implications. Its use often makes its way into headlines about criminal activity, such as the recent arrest of a 19-year-old and his friends for their alleged roles in a highly publicized Twitter hack. Forensic tools are in a constant state of development. For example, blockchain analysis tools assisted investigators in quickly identifying the young Twitter hackers, according to a post on the CipherTrace blog. Two Sides of the Digital Coin. There are many upsides to cryptocurrency. Transactions are secure without bank oversight. They can be processed at any time, not just during business hours. It has purchase power anywhere. Finally, cryptocurrency may provide greater benefit to developing countries where the local currency may swing due to exchange rate instability. In such countries, and where many citizens may be unbanked, supplanting traditional coinage with cryptocurrency could stabilize finance and open its doors to many. With crypto’s rise comes global implications. Shortcomings generally are human ones; intermediaries, like unregulated exchanges, create vulnerabilities. The ability to use pseudonyms in executing crypto transactions makes it ideal for bad actors, criminal syndicates, and terrorists. According to the international Financial Action Task Force, the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing is increased through “chain-hopping,” or “quick exchanges between different virtual assets,” which “allows the multiple layering of illicit funds within a short timeframe, allowing money laundering networks to disguise the origins of funds [...]
James Beck on the Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions)
Senior Life Sciences Policy Analyst Reed Smith LLP Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions) We’ll be very clear – as we have before: We don’t like most class actions. Indeed, if given our druthers, we would abolish Rule 23, as it applies to class actions for damages, altogether. But that’s not in the offing anytime soon. Today, we offer a class action decision that we think both sides, us on the defense and those on the plaintiffs side, can agree on, excluding only those responsible for the problem. In Pearson v. Target Corp., 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020), the court came up with one possible solution to the class action “objector problem.” What’s that? Well, once a class action settles (as most do), all too often “objectors” come out of the woodwork. While these objectors purport to assert the interests of the class, usually, all they want is money to make them go away. Or, as described in Pearson: We address here a recurring problem in class-action litigation known colloquially as “objector blackmail.” The scenario is familiar to class-action litigators on both offense and defense. A plaintiff class and a defendant submit a proposed settlement for approval by the district court. A few class members object to the settlement but the court approves it. . . . The objectors then file appeals. As it turns out, though, they are willing to abandon their appeals in return for sizable side payments that do not benefit the plaintiff class: a figurative “blackmail” by selfish holdouts threatening to disrupt collective action unless they are paid off. ... Read more at the Drug & Device Defense Law Blog.
Washington AG Sues Juul, Minnesota Judge Tosses RJR’s Suit to Overturn City’s Flavored Tobacco Ban, Verus Reports
Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Photo by Rubén Bagüés on Unsplash Litigation Update: Vaping and Flavored Tobacco Products Lawsuits The Washington state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court against Juul Inc., alleging that the company knowingly targeted minors in its marketing campaign on social media in an effort to push its products on young consumers. In the suit, Attorney Bob Ferguson claimed that in using young models, brightly colored ads and candy-flavored vaping juice, Juul violated Washington state’s consumer protection laws and failed to meet state tobacco product licensing regulations which would make the sales of the company’s e-cigarettes unlawful between August 2016 and April 2018 .... In another tobacco-related case, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz tossed out R.J. Reynolds’ lawsuit against Edina, MN over the city’s ban on flavored tobacco products. The company had claimed that Edina had overstepped its authority with a ban that was aimed at curbing vaping by younger consumers. In his ruling, Judge Schiltz wrote that the ban fell under a provision of the federal tobacco laws granting local governments the authority to regulate the sale of certain products .... Read more at VerusLLC.com.
Climate Change Litigation Expands with Addition of Hoboken, NJ’s Suit Against Big Oil
Excerpt of Sept. 2, 2020 post at HobokenNJ.gov. Decades-long campaign of misinformation has directly contributed to effects of climate change in Hoboken, City seeks relief for costs associated with climate adaptation efforts. Hoboken Mayor Ravi S. Bhalla today announced that the City of Hoboken has filed a lawsuit in Hudson County against Exxon Mobil, other Big Oil companies, and the American Petroleum Institute for a decades-long campaign of misinformation related to climate change and its devastating impact on Hoboken. According to the lawsuit, Big Oil companies have caused substantial harm to the public in Hoboken and New Jersey by actively lying about the detrimental effects of their products when in fact their own research indicated otherwise, all in order to generate multibillion dollar profits by producing, marketing, and selling vast quantities of fossil fuels. Big Oil engaged in a continuous practice of misleading the public about climate change and their role in it, directly resulting in adverse impacts in Hoboken including rising sea levels that jeopardize the long-term health of the City. Photo by Patrick Hendry on Unsplash “As a coastal community, Hoboken has directly felt the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels and more frequent storms,” said Mayor Bhalla. “At the same time we’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars adapting to the realities of climate change, Big Oil companies have engaged in a decades long campaign of misinformation that has contributed to global warming which has disproportionately impacted our residents. We cannot stand idly by and allow Big Oil to continue profiting at the expense of Hoboken residents. It’s time these companies pay their fair share and be held accountable for their actions.” Hoboken joins at least 19 other cities, states and counties across the country, and the first in New Jersey to [...]
Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question, Verus Reports
Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question Judge Would Likely Not Have Agreed to a Stay Had He Known About the Contingency On August 27, plaintiffs’ counsel in the multi-district litigation involving Monsanto and its widely used weed killer Roundup, advised the court that parent company Bayer AG appeared to be going back on the settlement agreement announced in June. At that time, the company had agreed to settle about 75% of the 125,000 claims filed by plaintiffs alleging that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was linked to Roundup use; the settlement was for an estimated $10 billion. At the hearing, Judge Vince Chhabria advised that he had received confidential letters from a number of plaintiffs’ counsel with cases pending in the MDL who were concerned that Bayer AG was going back on the settlement, noting that the company had terminated settlement term sheets and refused to execute master service agreements that would finalize their settlements; Bayer conceded that there were currently no final agreements. Bayer did advise Judge Chhabria that about 667 of the cases currently pending in the MDL had been resolved, a figure that the judge noted was only a fraction of the 4,000 currently filed. The judge also pointed to Bayer’s June 24 announcement of the settlement, stating that he had taken “all of that to mean the MDL is settled." He indicated that he would likely not have agreed to a 60-day stay of the litigation had he known that the larger settlement was contingent on his approval of a separate class action settlement for $1.25 billion, designed to resolve any future Roundup cases. The judge then advised the parties that although he would not lift the current stay, he would not extend it, [...]
European Union’s Top Court Strikes Down EU-US Privacy Shield
European Union's Top Court Strikes Down EU-US Privacy Shield The Court of Justice for the European Union has invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield as an approved mechanism for transferring personal data from the European Union to the United States. The Privacy Shield had been in place since October 2015, and enabled U.S. companies to more easily receive personal data from EU entities. The decision by the court “leaves many companies scrambling to implement alternative mechanisms to safeguard personal data transfers to the U.S.," says Sten-Erik Hoidal of Frederikson & Byron, P.A. With the invalidation of the privacy shield, companies are essentially left to decide on their own how data will be lawfully transferred. Attorneys from Perkins Coie recommend companies “consider amending any data processing addenda (DPAs) which companies have signed with vendors or customers to incorporate the EU Standard Contract Clauses.” Moving forward, U.S. and European companies will now attempt to create a new deal that complies with the privacy standards for transferring digital information. The first large company to weigh in on the decision, Microsoft tells customers that they “can continue to use Microsoft services in full compliance with European law” and that the ruling “does not change the data flows of our services to Consumers.” Photo by Tabrez Syed on Unsplash Send Us Your News
NJ Judge Overstepped in Striking Talc Plaintiff Experts, Verus Reports
Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Judge Abused Discretion in Striking Expert Evidence, NJ Appellate Court Finds Reverses 2016 Summary Judgment in Ovarian Cancer Cases On August 5, a three judge panel from the New Jersey state appeals court reversed a 2016 summary judgment granted in favor of defendants, talc manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and talc miner Imerys Talc America in cases brought by two women who allege J&J’s talc products caused their ovarian cancer. In its opinion, the panel ruled that Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson C. Johnson abused his discretion by serving as the fact finder in deciding the credibility of the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions instead of merely assessing whether the doctors’ opinions were based on sound scientific methodology. The trial judge acknowledged that the experts, Dr. Graham Colditz and Dr. Daniel Cramer, were qualified but opined that their scientific studies and evidence were narrow and shallow, showing a preference for cohort studies and their larger sample sizes over the case studies relied on by the experts. In overturning the ruling by the trial court and discussing the studies cited by Colditz and Cramer, the appeals court stated that those studies satisfied the criteria outlined in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence and also noted that size and the types of study are not the sole determinants of reliability. As a result of the plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony being reinstated, a dispute over a material fact exists in the matter and the case will proceed. The two cases, brought by plaintiffs Brandi Carl and Diana Balderrama, were the first two to be tried from the group of 100 lawsuits included in New Jersey’s multi-county litigation.
Organizational Values & Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns
Accommodations. Appropriate accommodation for high-risk employees or employees with family members who are at a heightened risk. Mitigation. Attention to means of mitigating transmission and infection. Tracing. Contact tracing and management of data collected, including health data, as well as responses to employees who refuse to report. Patient Sensitivity. Duty to avoid discrimination and stigmatization. Preparedness. Developing plans to address possibility of re-occurrence in the fall and managing possible outbreaks in company’s offices. On-demand on the Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter as part of the HB catalog. Organizational Values & Coronavirus Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns Produced for Emory University Center for Ethics by HB Litigation Conferences The current pandemic confronts businesses, nonprofit organizations, governments, and the legal profession with innumerable ethical challenges. Management issues and liability concerns, stakeholder demands and legal duties become even more complex in an environment of uncertainty and one where the consequences could result in serious illness or even death. This program seeks to engage the participants in thinking through these challenges and developing processes of ethical response to them. Managers must acknowledge and address the framework of fear associated with the pandemic, ranging from fear of contagion and death to fears of unemployment, childcare, and the duties of home-schooling. Additionally, as the economy reopens there must be serious attention to the processes of doing so. Join Professor Edward L. Queen from Emory University for invaluable insights. Emory's medical team was on the frontline of the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic, which began in December 2013 when an 18-month-old Guinean boy contracted the disease. According to the CDC, the outbreak ended with more than 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths. Eleven people were treated for Ebola in the United States. Edward L. Queen Director of Ethics and Servant Leadership [...]
$3M Transferred in Fraud Scheme, Law Firm Gets Sued, Says It Followed Client Instructions
$3M Transferred in Fraud Scheme, Law Firm Sued, Says It Followed Client Instructions Two related foundations hired a big law firm to sell stock and execute a merger via wire transfer. Cyber fraudsters had other ideas. Posing as stock seller, and intercepting a verification email, the perpetrators grabbed $3.1 million. The foundations sued the firm in state court in Utah, claiming the firm should have red-flagged certain inconsistencies and known it was being duped. The firm should also have picked up the phone to verify the source of the fraudulent emails and documents. Not so fast, the firm maintains. The plaintiff was not a client and it was only acting on wiring instructions sent via the plaintiff's email system and provided the instructions to the paying agent. The money was sent to the account of an alleged furniture company in Hong Kong. Sorenson, et al. v. Continental Stock Transfer, Tassel Parent, and Holland & Knight, 3rd. Jud. Dist. Ct., Salt Lake Co., Utah. Download
Microsoft Sued Over Data Sharing in Class Action
Microsoft Sued Over Data Sharing in Class Action Consumers, including individuals and companies, filed a class action complaint against Microsoft in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming the company shared consumer data without consent to subcontractors and third parties, including Facebook, despite policies that stated otherwise. The plaintiffs accused Microsoft of “misrepresenting its privacy and security practices, violating federal and state law, and illegally sharing and using its business-class Microsoft Office 365 and Microsoft Exchange customers’ data.” Read more from Law Street Media: https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/microsoft-sued-over-data-sharing-in-class-action/
Facial Recognition Update July 2020
Facial Recognition Technology -- Emerging After Decades of Development -- Draws Lawsuits and Proposed Bans We sometimes forget that not all of the technical wizards who transformed our world were young “geniuses” jacked up on Starbucks, their shirttails hanging out in the ping-pong section of their open concept offices. Woody Bledsoe was born 99 years ago. As a young son of a sharecropper he demonstrated exceptional mathematical capabilities. Early in his career he had a dream: A machine that could think like a human, converse like one, and even recognize faces. This was as far back as the 1950s. This mathematician and computer scientist would go on to teach for decades at the University of Austin where he worked to advance automated reasoning and artificial intelligence. But what was his role in the development of the technology exactly? Did he perform work for a CIA front? And why, in his old age and suffering from the cruelty of ALS that would ultimately kill him in 1995, did he ask his son to set fire to a stack of old papers? Take a look at “The Secret History of Facial Recognition” written by Shaun Raviv for Wired Magazine, which explores why, among other things, “the record of [Blesdoe’s] role all but vanished.” If there isn’t a movie script in the works there probably will be soon. Today facial recognition is used in such innocent and handy ways as pointing out your friends in a photograph on Facebook to infinitely more serious and controversial applications as identifying people who may or may not be of interest to law enforcement. We’re in what should be an expected phase with something so disruptive and, let’s face it, lucrative. That’s the phase where lawyers and lawmakers dive in to grapple with how to square the disruption with the laws and norms of society. Facebook has been on the blunt end of this recently, as has the company Clearview AI and even the New [...]