Yasmin lawyers have already filed a number of lawsuits against the pharmaceutical giant Bayer. For women who have taken the YAZ contraceptive or its older, higher-dose counterpart Yasmin, side effects can be potentially life-threatening. YAZ birth control, despite an aggressive marketing campaign touting additional positive benefits, may actually do much more harm than good.
YAZ side effects lawsuits are based on a number of different accusations. They allege that the manufacturers failed to:
• Properly warn about the potential risks
• Adequately test and research the drugs before releasing them into the marketplace
• Remove the medication from the market once the adverse effects were apparent
Yasmin attorneys have also filed claims relating to false advertising. Though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) chastised the drug maker, prompting a $20 million advertising campaign correcting previous misleading ads, that correction may have come too late for those who were convinced to use the product after seeing ads that promised benefits such as clearer skin and less severe premenstrual syndrome. However, the products still became the biggest-selling contraceptives worldwide, and brought in over $1.5 billion in the first quarter they were released.
The dangerous component of the Yasmin pill is most likely drospirenone, a synthetic variety of the hormone progestin. Unique to Bayer’s versions and the generic Ocella, the hormone is not included in any other contraceptive currently approved in the United States.
Drospirenone has been known to increase potassium levels, which can result in a condition known as hyperkalemia that disrupts heart rhythms and causes circulation to slow. Slower blood travelling to and from the heart increases the chance of blood clots occurring, and if these break off and find their way to the lungs or to the brain, a pulmonary embolism or stroke is likely. According to a study published in the British Medical Journal, this hormone could as much as double the risk of blood clots.
YAZ attorneys have encouraged women who have been diagnosed with certain serious health problems after taking the drug to seek legal advice. The most severe YAZ birth control pill side effects include:
• Cardiac arrhythmia
• Cardiac arrest
• Intracardiac thrombus
• Pulmonary embolism
• Stroke
These serious conditions can even end in death. Over 50 fatalities related to the pills have been reported to the FDA, including victims as young as 17 years old.
For those seeking legal advice after suffering injuries relating to YAZ birth control, lawyer experience is critical. If you or someone you know has been harmed due to false promises in the misleading advertising campaign, find help from a Yasmin birth control lawyer.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Should Avandia Be Pulled from the Market? FDA Advisers Say So
The latest in a series of troubling developments for the manufacturers of the diabetes drug Avandia comes in the form of a new report suggesting that pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) knew of the cardiac risks associated with the drug even before the public became aware.
Intended to help diabetes sufferers through better blood sugar regulation, the drug has unfortunately been at the heart of a number of reports of life-threatening complications including heart disease and pulmonary edema. The drug already contains a "black box" warning, a labeling requirement prescribed by the FDA only in cases of the most severe potential side effects, the strongest warning that can be placed on a legal drug.
Most recently, senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley released a 2008 memo from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that stated that there was "strong evidence" that Avandia confers an increased risk of heart failure when compared to a competitor. At the time, FDA reviewer Dr. David Graham argued to an advisory panel that Avandia should be pulled from the market and sales stopped.
The senators' report speculates that GSK may have known "several years prior" of these possible cardiac risks and may even have "attempted to intimidate independent physicians ... to downplay findings." GSK has denounced the findings, saying that the report mischaracterizes their research efforts.
Though the FDA has stated that patients already on the drug should not stop taking it without consulting a doctor, they are convening a new advisory panel of outside experts to reconsider the safety issues associated with Avandia. Unfortunately, this closer scrutiny may come too late for patients who have already suffered harmful side effects. Many of these victims have already been seeking out assistance from a number of different Avandia law firms helping those harmed by the diabetic drug.
Intended to help diabetes sufferers through better blood sugar regulation, the drug has unfortunately been at the heart of a number of reports of life-threatening complications including heart disease and pulmonary edema. The drug already contains a "black box" warning, a labeling requirement prescribed by the FDA only in cases of the most severe potential side effects, the strongest warning that can be placed on a legal drug.
Most recently, senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley released a 2008 memo from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that stated that there was "strong evidence" that Avandia confers an increased risk of heart failure when compared to a competitor. At the time, FDA reviewer Dr. David Graham argued to an advisory panel that Avandia should be pulled from the market and sales stopped.
The senators' report speculates that GSK may have known "several years prior" of these possible cardiac risks and may even have "attempted to intimidate independent physicians ... to downplay findings." GSK has denounced the findings, saying that the report mischaracterizes their research efforts.
Though the FDA has stated that patients already on the drug should not stop taking it without consulting a doctor, they are convening a new advisory panel of outside experts to reconsider the safety issues associated with Avandia. Unfortunately, this closer scrutiny may come too late for patients who have already suffered harmful side effects. Many of these victims have already been seeking out assistance from a number of different Avandia law firms helping those harmed by the diabetic drug.
Denture Cream Manufacturers Admit Health Risks and Remove Zinc From Products
Considering the over 49 million Americans with dentures, it is unsurprising that a serious health risk associated with denture adhesives would be cause for alarm. It is only recently, however, that one of the largest manufacturers has taken a major step in acknowledging this known problem. On February 18, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline announced that it will be removing zinc from its denture creams based on evidence that excessive use of the products has caused health problems in some consumers.
GlaxoSmithKline's popular brands include Poligrip Ultra and Poligrip Total Care. Unfortunately, these products have been linked to neurological damage due to high levels of zinc entering the body. The company states that this was a precautionary decision and that the products are safe when used in normal amounts.
However, it is well established that for many denture wearers, using extra cream is a necessity due to ill-fitting dentures, which can be expensive to replace. Therefore, zinc can enter the body at dangerous levels when swallowed rather than being absorbed by the mouth. Some consumers have been using as much as a tube of denture cream per day, which would provide about 45 times the recommended daily dose of zinc.
This move by GlaxoSmithKline comes only after hundreds of lawsuits are awaiting trial in America, based on allegations of nerve damage and even paralysis. Another company affected by these lawsuits currently is Procter & Gamble, which manufactures Fixodent. Though the company currently states that they have no plans to remove zinc from their products, this new attention given to the problem could lead to closer scrutiny. More lawsuits may therefore be forthcoming.
Meanwhile, consumers should be on the lookout for signs that your denture cream may be causing zinc poisoning. Medical experts recommend that anyone using denture cream and experiencing neurological symptoms such as numbness or difficulty walking should consult with a doctor and consider switching to a zinc-free alternative product.
GlaxoSmithKline's popular brands include Poligrip Ultra and Poligrip Total Care. Unfortunately, these products have been linked to neurological damage due to high levels of zinc entering the body. The company states that this was a precautionary decision and that the products are safe when used in normal amounts.
However, it is well established that for many denture wearers, using extra cream is a necessity due to ill-fitting dentures, which can be expensive to replace. Therefore, zinc can enter the body at dangerous levels when swallowed rather than being absorbed by the mouth. Some consumers have been using as much as a tube of denture cream per day, which would provide about 45 times the recommended daily dose of zinc.
This move by GlaxoSmithKline comes only after hundreds of lawsuits are awaiting trial in America, based on allegations of nerve damage and even paralysis. Another company affected by these lawsuits currently is Procter & Gamble, which manufactures Fixodent. Though the company currently states that they have no plans to remove zinc from their products, this new attention given to the problem could lead to closer scrutiny. More lawsuits may therefore be forthcoming.
Meanwhile, consumers should be on the lookout for signs that your denture cream may be causing zinc poisoning. Medical experts recommend that anyone using denture cream and experiencing neurological symptoms such as numbness or difficulty walking should consult with a doctor and consider switching to a zinc-free alternative product.
State Laws Start Cracking Down on Texting While Driving
A current hot legal topic in state legislatures around the country is that of road safety, or specifically, how to discourage one activity that has proven to be increasingly dangerous: texting while driving. A number of states (including Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Virginia, and Washington) already have laws that prohibit sending text messages via mobile phones while behind the wheel, much in the vein of requiring "hands-free" cell phone use, or even seatbelts. This legislative session, it seems that other states are following by example.
In Alabama, the House just voted on the ban, 95 to 3. The bill would require a fine of $25 for the first conviction of someone caught writing a text message while driving, $50 for a second, and $75 for each subsequent violation. The bill also prohibits police officers from searching the car of someone pulled over for a texting violation. This proposed law will now go to the state Senate for debate.
Georgia lawmakers are considering a similar law, with two House representatives proposing a ban that would come with both a fine and driver's license penalties. And in Wisconsin, legislation has already passed in both the House and the Senate and is expected to be signed by Governor Jim Doyle. The Wisconsin ban carries hefty penalties, up to $400 for a first offense. Whichever of these states first passes a texting law will become the 20th state to impose a ban.
In states that already have similar laws, one problem that has arisen is that of enforceability. In Missouri, it is already illegal for those under the age of 21 to text while driving, and the current legislature is current discussing extending this to all drivers. However, law enforcement officials have noted that the ban is difficult to enforce.
After all, how can a police officer tell whether someone is texting or reading a text – or even dialing a phone number? Though driver distraction and inattention is a serious and dangerous problem, some feel that a texting ban is simply too difficult to enforce, and that requiring hands-off cell phones altogether would be more effective. Of course, for many laws like these, deterrent is the major goal; perhaps simply knowing that texting behind the wheel could cost them hundreds of dollars will be enough to encourage drivers to save their texts for later.
In Alabama, the House just voted on the ban, 95 to 3. The bill would require a fine of $25 for the first conviction of someone caught writing a text message while driving, $50 for a second, and $75 for each subsequent violation. The bill also prohibits police officers from searching the car of someone pulled over for a texting violation. This proposed law will now go to the state Senate for debate.
Georgia lawmakers are considering a similar law, with two House representatives proposing a ban that would come with both a fine and driver's license penalties. And in Wisconsin, legislation has already passed in both the House and the Senate and is expected to be signed by Governor Jim Doyle. The Wisconsin ban carries hefty penalties, up to $400 for a first offense. Whichever of these states first passes a texting law will become the 20th state to impose a ban.
In states that already have similar laws, one problem that has arisen is that of enforceability. In Missouri, it is already illegal for those under the age of 21 to text while driving, and the current legislature is current discussing extending this to all drivers. However, law enforcement officials have noted that the ban is difficult to enforce.
After all, how can a police officer tell whether someone is texting or reading a text – or even dialing a phone number? Though driver distraction and inattention is a serious and dangerous problem, some feel that a texting ban is simply too difficult to enforce, and that requiring hands-off cell phones altogether would be more effective. Of course, for many laws like these, deterrent is the major goal; perhaps simply knowing that texting behind the wheel could cost them hundreds of dollars will be enough to encourage drivers to save their texts for later.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Selling the Oval Office: The President & the Right of Publicity
The right of publicity is a legal concept in the United States that deals primarily with protecting celebrities from the commercial exploitation of their name or likeness. As a doctrine it touches both on intellectual property and the First Amendment, and often overlaps with trademark law, since if someone is famous enough their name often becomes a sort of brand. The President certainly falls into this category, particularly with so many eyes all over the world focused on the White House – so is it legal for his likeness to be used in an advertisement without his permission?
The ad in question was nearly as big as you can get – a billboard in Times Square. It featured a photograph of President Obama wearing a Weatherproof Garment Company coat, standing in front of the wall of China, and featured the tagline "A Leader in Style." Though the company legally licensed the photograph from the Associated Press, they did not receive any permission from the White House, and in fact, several news publications, including The New York Times, refused to run the ad.
Upon receiving word of the President's displeasure from White House lawyers, Weatherproof has agreed to take down the billboard, having no desire to "alienate the White House." However, it is unclear as to whether, legally, they were definitely in the wrong. Part of the question may be whether the advertisement implies an endorsement. The company maintains that it does not; they were merely showing that the President was wearing their coat, which is undisputed, not that he was endorsing it in any way.
Interestingly, this is not the only such case in recent days. Michelle Obama found herself in an ad as well – on a poster for PETA proclaiming her as "fur-free and fabulous!" The White House has asked for those ads to be taken down as well.
Some think that publicity rights are a threat to free speech, and others that they are necessary to keep those in the public eye from being exploited. Is there a point when you give up some of these rights as a necessary evil of celebrity – and if so, does the same apply to the President? In any case, Weatherproof may have gotten what they desired in terms of publicity – though they may have lost a customer in the Obamas.
Source:Legalmatchmaker.com
The ad in question was nearly as big as you can get – a billboard in Times Square. It featured a photograph of President Obama wearing a Weatherproof Garment Company coat, standing in front of the wall of China, and featured the tagline "A Leader in Style." Though the company legally licensed the photograph from the Associated Press, they did not receive any permission from the White House, and in fact, several news publications, including The New York Times, refused to run the ad.
Upon receiving word of the President's displeasure from White House lawyers, Weatherproof has agreed to take down the billboard, having no desire to "alienate the White House." However, it is unclear as to whether, legally, they were definitely in the wrong. Part of the question may be whether the advertisement implies an endorsement. The company maintains that it does not; they were merely showing that the President was wearing their coat, which is undisputed, not that he was endorsing it in any way.
Interestingly, this is not the only such case in recent days. Michelle Obama found herself in an ad as well – on a poster for PETA proclaiming her as "fur-free and fabulous!" The White House has asked for those ads to be taken down as well.
Some think that publicity rights are a threat to free speech, and others that they are necessary to keep those in the public eye from being exploited. Is there a point when you give up some of these rights as a necessary evil of celebrity – and if so, does the same apply to the President? In any case, Weatherproof may have gotten what they desired in terms of publicity – though they may have lost a customer in the Obamas.
Source:Legalmatchmaker.com
Monday, February 22, 2010
A (Cookie) Monster of a Lawsuit for Kim Kardashian
A sentence or two – or specifically, 140 characters – doesn't seem like a lot of space to commit libel. On Kim Kardashian's Twitter feed, it may well have been, though it was really just one word that was the problem: "unhealthy."
The problems began when Kardashian sent a cease-and-desist letter to the manufacturers of Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet, accusing them of falsely attributing her endorsement to their product. Though the company says that they never made such a claim, they did find statements related to their product on Kardashian's Twitter feed, including: "Dr. Siegal's cookie diet is falsely promoting that I'm on this diet. NOT TRUE! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim!"
The company has since filed a defamation lawsuit, saying that Kardashian's derogatory statement about the brand could cost them "tens of millions of dollars." Complicating matters is that Kardashian is actually a paid endorser of QuickTrim, another diet product. Therefore, the company behind the Cookie Diet claims, Kardashian had incentive to make damaging public comments.
The most problematic part of Kardashian's tweet could be the word "unhealthy," the question becoming whether it was a statement of opinion or a statement of fact. This could be the line between free speech and liability.
This case brings up an interesting example of the power of social media, particularly when it comes to celebrities. After all, saying something to your friends is one thing; saying something to nearly 3 million of them is another. Bloggers know by now that words can be dangerous; the litigation magnet Perez Hilton is proof enough of this. Perhaps now Twitter users are learning the same lesson – 140 characters at a time.
Source: Legalmatchmaker.com
The problems began when Kardashian sent a cease-and-desist letter to the manufacturers of Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet, accusing them of falsely attributing her endorsement to their product. Though the company says that they never made such a claim, they did find statements related to their product on Kardashian's Twitter feed, including: "Dr. Siegal's cookie diet is falsely promoting that I'm on this diet. NOT TRUE! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim!"
The company has since filed a defamation lawsuit, saying that Kardashian's derogatory statement about the brand could cost them "tens of millions of dollars." Complicating matters is that Kardashian is actually a paid endorser of QuickTrim, another diet product. Therefore, the company behind the Cookie Diet claims, Kardashian had incentive to make damaging public comments.
The most problematic part of Kardashian's tweet could be the word "unhealthy," the question becoming whether it was a statement of opinion or a statement of fact. This could be the line between free speech and liability.
This case brings up an interesting example of the power of social media, particularly when it comes to celebrities. After all, saying something to your friends is one thing; saying something to nearly 3 million of them is another. Bloggers know by now that words can be dangerous; the litigation magnet Perez Hilton is proof enough of this. Perhaps now Twitter users are learning the same lesson – 140 characters at a time.
Source: Legalmatchmaker.com
Well-Connected Jurors - Should the Internet Be Off-Limits in the Jury Box?
A recent article in Time Magazine examines the question of whether electronic devices such as phones with Internet access could be dangerous to the expectation of a fair trial. After all, in sharp contrast to just five years ago, a juror's phone may as well be a computer in their pocket when it comes to the sort of information they can access on it.
With the stigma that jury duty has of being dull, jurors may be reluctant to give up their ability to check email or Twitter during breaks in the proceedings. Perhaps they're itching to update Facebook with "is wishing this trial would end soon so I can go home!" But the impetus for a new rule in Michigan that bans the devices from deliberations is the research at their fingertips; should a juror be able to supplement the information provided by witnesses by what they can get from the Wikipedia app on their iPhone? And social media could also be a problem, as illustrated by one example given in the article of a juror sending a Facebook friend request to a witness.
This isn't the first time that cultural changes have had a profound impact on the way that lawyers think about their juror audiences; during the past decade, the "CSI effect" has become more prevalent. The obsession with television shows featuring forensic science has brought with it an increased interest in the subject in courtrooms – and also an expectation for more evidence. Likewise, our just-Google-it generation expects information at our fingertips; we're used to seeing source documents and are skilled at finding them for ourselves.
But is the banning of phones really necessary or should courtroom expectations be shifting with the technology and culture? Some believe that the real danger could be that of misinformation – and worse, the possibility of misinformation planted online with the intention of influencing jury pools. Perhaps it is more difficult for justice to be blind when she has a search engine in her pocket.
Source: Legalmatchmaker.com
With the stigma that jury duty has of being dull, jurors may be reluctant to give up their ability to check email or Twitter during breaks in the proceedings. Perhaps they're itching to update Facebook with "is wishing this trial would end soon so I can go home!" But the impetus for a new rule in Michigan that bans the devices from deliberations is the research at their fingertips; should a juror be able to supplement the information provided by witnesses by what they can get from the Wikipedia app on their iPhone? And social media could also be a problem, as illustrated by one example given in the article of a juror sending a Facebook friend request to a witness.
This isn't the first time that cultural changes have had a profound impact on the way that lawyers think about their juror audiences; during the past decade, the "CSI effect" has become more prevalent. The obsession with television shows featuring forensic science has brought with it an increased interest in the subject in courtrooms – and also an expectation for more evidence. Likewise, our just-Google-it generation expects information at our fingertips; we're used to seeing source documents and are skilled at finding them for ourselves.
But is the banning of phones really necessary or should courtroom expectations be shifting with the technology and culture? Some believe that the real danger could be that of misinformation – and worse, the possibility of misinformation planted online with the intention of influencing jury pools. Perhaps it is more difficult for justice to be blind when she has a search engine in her pocket.
Source: Legalmatchmaker.com
Lawsuit Seeks 2 Million in Compensation for Customers
Recently, a lawsuit known as Doe v. Netflix was filed in a California federal court. The suit alleges the company violated fair-trade and federal privacy laws by disclosing information that was not sufficiently anonymized, as part of a contest.
The contest was designed to help the popular online DVD rental service improve their recommendation algorithm. They gave away to over 50,000 contestants massive datasets that included movie ratings along with number identifiers for the subscribers.
The privacy problem arose when only weeks after the contest's launch, two researchers managed to link the "anonymous" Netflix reviews with those posted on another (non-anonymous) website – thus revealing information such as political leanings and sexual orientation.
The complaint points out that movie rentals can be highly personal, the sort of information that one might not want published to the world – for example, the viewing of "Brokeback Mountain" or even "The Passion of the Christ." It is for this very reason that the Video Privacy Protection Act exists. The impetus for the law was the release of Robert Bork's video rental history during his Supreme Court nomination.
But did Netflix really "knowingly disclose" the personally identifying information of its customers, as required for a violation of the VPPA? The definition given by the Act of "personally identifying information" is "information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials."
This has been filed as a class action suit, seeking no less than $2,500 for each member; Netflix currently has over 2 million customers. This could prove to be an extremely costly lawsuit for what many consider to be a simple mistake. Legally, did Netflix make a good faith effort to preserve their customers' privacy? And from a public relations standpoint, can their customers forgive them if that effort wasn't good enough?
Source: Legalmatchmaker.com
The contest was designed to help the popular online DVD rental service improve their recommendation algorithm. They gave away to over 50,000 contestants massive datasets that included movie ratings along with number identifiers for the subscribers.
The privacy problem arose when only weeks after the contest's launch, two researchers managed to link the "anonymous" Netflix reviews with those posted on another (non-anonymous) website – thus revealing information such as political leanings and sexual orientation.
The complaint points out that movie rentals can be highly personal, the sort of information that one might not want published to the world – for example, the viewing of "Brokeback Mountain" or even "The Passion of the Christ." It is for this very reason that the Video Privacy Protection Act exists. The impetus for the law was the release of Robert Bork's video rental history during his Supreme Court nomination.
But did Netflix really "knowingly disclose" the personally identifying information of its customers, as required for a violation of the VPPA? The definition given by the Act of "personally identifying information" is "information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials."
This has been filed as a class action suit, seeking no less than $2,500 for each member; Netflix currently has over 2 million customers. This could prove to be an extremely costly lawsuit for what many consider to be a simple mistake. Legally, did Netflix make a good faith effort to preserve their customers' privacy? And from a public relations standpoint, can their customers forgive them if that effort wasn't good enough?
Source: Legalmatchmaker.com
Monday, January 25, 2010
Facebook: The Divorce Court Smoking Gun?
Letting the people in your life know about a divorce is now easier than ever; with the click of a mouse, someone's status on Facebook can go from "married" to "single" and broadcast the break-up to everyone they know. Though the online airing of dirty relationship laundry is nothing new for the younger crowd, demographics are shifting, and even for those in their 40's and beyond, divorces have suddenly become startlingly public.
However, with the dissolution of a marriage so often tied to heated court battles, online social networking sites have also become an increasingly common source of evidence. Divorce attorneys can find a huge amount of relevant information about the opposing side online: mentions of affairs, lavish purchases, or incriminating photographs. In some circumstances, online postings might even be used to show someone as an unfit parent in custody proceedings.
In essence, websites like Facebook can be evidentiary goldmines. One lawyer brought up a case where a mother assured the court that she had quit drinking – only to be caught in a lie when her MySpace page turned up dated photographs of her doing just that. And "cyber sleuths" know just how easy it can be to prove adultery in the digital age.
Though the ethical implications of accessing, for example, "friends-only" information on social networking sites is still under some debate, it is generally understood that information is only legally private when there is a "reasonable expectation" of privacy – which is arguably not the case even with high privacy settings. Not only can your own friends view your page, but anyone that they allow to view it; even Facebook warns in its privacy policy that anything disclosed may potentially become publicly available.
Of course, smart divorce attorneys today know not only how to find incriminating information, but also how to advise their clients to avoid these pitfalls. Maybe when we post information online, the first thing we should be asking is: would I want a judge to read this?
However, with the dissolution of a marriage so often tied to heated court battles, online social networking sites have also become an increasingly common source of evidence. Divorce attorneys can find a huge amount of relevant information about the opposing side online: mentions of affairs, lavish purchases, or incriminating photographs. In some circumstances, online postings might even be used to show someone as an unfit parent in custody proceedings.
In essence, websites like Facebook can be evidentiary goldmines. One lawyer brought up a case where a mother assured the court that she had quit drinking – only to be caught in a lie when her MySpace page turned up dated photographs of her doing just that. And "cyber sleuths" know just how easy it can be to prove adultery in the digital age.
Though the ethical implications of accessing, for example, "friends-only" information on social networking sites is still under some debate, it is generally understood that information is only legally private when there is a "reasonable expectation" of privacy – which is arguably not the case even with high privacy settings. Not only can your own friends view your page, but anyone that they allow to view it; even Facebook warns in its privacy policy that anything disclosed may potentially become publicly available.
Of course, smart divorce attorneys today know not only how to find incriminating information, but also how to advise their clients to avoid these pitfalls. Maybe when we post information online, the first thing we should be asking is: would I want a judge to read this?
Is There Trouble in Farmville? Lawsuit Alleges Scams in Facebook Games.
Facebook users are likely familiar with the ubiquitous Zynga even if they don't play the company's social games themselves. Reading the "feed" that contains updates from Facebook friends often contains a variety of messages concerning everyone else's gaming activities, keeping everyone in their lives up-to-date on what they're cooking in Cafe World or what they're growing in Farmville.
Zynga's games have become so popular, in fact, that the company has recently been featured in the New York Times, Time, Business Week, and The Economist, leaving some wondering if they are gearing up for going public. But as one analyst pointed out on the subject of potential "scammy offers" in the games, a tarnished brand could do serious damage to that possibility.
So is Zynga's number up? A recent lawsuit filed by a woman in Santa Cruz, California alleges that she lost $200 due to "deceptive ads" on the Facebook games. The plaintiff's attorney says that thousands of others could potentially be part of the class-action suit.
Though the games themselves are free, players can advance to higher levels and get more virtual cash by participating in trial offers or paying a fee. For example, $5 gets you 7,500 "farm coins" in the game Farmville. And the lawsuit's plaintiff claimed that she signed up for a free trial of green tea in exchange for in-game rewards for YoVille – but then ended up with $165 in charges for the products despite canceling the trial.
The suit is seeking over $5 million in compensation for a growing number of potential plaintiffs as the lawyers involved reach out to those who may have been scammed.
Facebook itself had pointed out that the ads in question come from third parties, but still discounted the lawsuit as frivolous. It should also be noted that the allegedly dishonest offers are coming from third parties rather than from Zynga itself; this sort of "free trial" offer is common all over the web. If these offers are scamming players, is Zynga responsible... or are they just being played as well?
Zynga's games have become so popular, in fact, that the company has recently been featured in the New York Times, Time, Business Week, and The Economist, leaving some wondering if they are gearing up for going public. But as one analyst pointed out on the subject of potential "scammy offers" in the games, a tarnished brand could do serious damage to that possibility.
So is Zynga's number up? A recent lawsuit filed by a woman in Santa Cruz, California alleges that she lost $200 due to "deceptive ads" on the Facebook games. The plaintiff's attorney says that thousands of others could potentially be part of the class-action suit.
Though the games themselves are free, players can advance to higher levels and get more virtual cash by participating in trial offers or paying a fee. For example, $5 gets you 7,500 "farm coins" in the game Farmville. And the lawsuit's plaintiff claimed that she signed up for a free trial of green tea in exchange for in-game rewards for YoVille – but then ended up with $165 in charges for the products despite canceling the trial.
The suit is seeking over $5 million in compensation for a growing number of potential plaintiffs as the lawyers involved reach out to those who may have been scammed.
Facebook itself had pointed out that the ads in question come from third parties, but still discounted the lawsuit as frivolous. It should also be noted that the allegedly dishonest offers are coming from third parties rather than from Zynga itself; this sort of "free trial" offer is common all over the web. If these offers are scamming players, is Zynga responsible... or are they just being played as well?
Deceptive Advertising? There's a Lawsuit for That.
Only about a month after a Verizon ad (see video below) first aired during Monday Night Football, AT&T filed a lawsuit claiming that their competitor's not-so-thinly-veiled jabs at AT&T's cellular coverage were misleading to the point of deceptive trade practice.
(video link -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU&feature=player_embedded
The ad parodied the popular "There's an App for That" iPhone commercial by pointing out that if you're wondering why some people have better cell phone coverage than others, "there's a map for that." The ad included images of maps of the United States with highlighted areas denoting 3G ("third generation") network coverage – red for Verizon and blue for AT&T. The vast amount of white space amidst the blue dots was intended to show that AT&T had inferior coverage.
AT&T's complaint was not that the maps were inaccurate, but that they implied that customers would be "out of touch" completely in the blank areas, which is not the case, as their normal cellular service is available even where 3G coverage is not.
However, an Atlanta federal judge apparently disagreed with this assessment, stating that he found no evidence of inaccuracy in the ads, and subsequently denied the request for an injunction that would halt the ads.
The issue here was one of perception, which is always tricky to prove legally - but of course, perception can be everything when it comes to branding, especially during the holiday shopping season. AT&T does have another shot in a hearing set for December 16, but stopping the ads at that point may be too late for any damage done. With Black Friday just a short time ago, Verizon has even rolled out another ad that gets into the holiday spirit – depicting the iPhone as the newest inhabitant of the island of misfit toys, thanks to that same spotty 3G map.
So were consumers really confused by the ad, or is Verizon right in claiming that AT&T is just litigating because "the truth hurts"? Considering the popularity of the iPhone for the past few holiday seasons, the answer might be in both companies' bottom lines come January.
(video link -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU&feature=player_embedded
The ad parodied the popular "There's an App for That" iPhone commercial by pointing out that if you're wondering why some people have better cell phone coverage than others, "there's a map for that." The ad included images of maps of the United States with highlighted areas denoting 3G ("third generation") network coverage – red for Verizon and blue for AT&T. The vast amount of white space amidst the blue dots was intended to show that AT&T had inferior coverage.
AT&T's complaint was not that the maps were inaccurate, but that they implied that customers would be "out of touch" completely in the blank areas, which is not the case, as their normal cellular service is available even where 3G coverage is not.
However, an Atlanta federal judge apparently disagreed with this assessment, stating that he found no evidence of inaccuracy in the ads, and subsequently denied the request for an injunction that would halt the ads.
The issue here was one of perception, which is always tricky to prove legally - but of course, perception can be everything when it comes to branding, especially during the holiday shopping season. AT&T does have another shot in a hearing set for December 16, but stopping the ads at that point may be too late for any damage done. With Black Friday just a short time ago, Verizon has even rolled out another ad that gets into the holiday spirit – depicting the iPhone as the newest inhabitant of the island of misfit toys, thanks to that same spotty 3G map.
So were consumers really confused by the ad, or is Verizon right in claiming that AT&T is just litigating because "the truth hurts"? Considering the popularity of the iPhone for the past few holiday seasons, the answer might be in both companies' bottom lines come January.
Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke
With the growth of online social networks has come a barrage of new ways to communicate with friends – or even enemies. One such method is a feature on the social networking site Facebook called a "poke." Receiving a poke from another Facebook user is both a simplistic and ambiguous message, as it conveys no other information than that it was sent.
However, simplistic or not, this is still a form of communication – which means that it is very likely enough to violate a restraining order. A Tennessee woman recently learned this lesson the hard way when she was arrested for allegedly violating an order of protection when she sent a Facebook poke.
Of course, the order of protection itself is fairly unambiguous, stipulating "no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner." As cyberstalking is becoming an increasingly prominent problem, not only with respect to strangers but also in domestic violence cases, judges are often quick to remind respondents that this includes electronic communication as well – no texts, no emails, and apparently, no pokes.
In Tennessee, violating an order of protection is a Class A misdemeanor, which means that the maximum jail sentence is 11 months and 29 days; it also carries a possible fine of up to $2,500.
Did the Tennessee woman in question realize that a "poke" would violate the order of protection? Perhaps this case is a reminder that changing technology can quickly affect legal issues; the number of ways that we are "otherwise communicating" with each other seems to increase every day.
However, simplistic or not, this is still a form of communication – which means that it is very likely enough to violate a restraining order. A Tennessee woman recently learned this lesson the hard way when she was arrested for allegedly violating an order of protection when she sent a Facebook poke.
Of course, the order of protection itself is fairly unambiguous, stipulating "no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner." As cyberstalking is becoming an increasingly prominent problem, not only with respect to strangers but also in domestic violence cases, judges are often quick to remind respondents that this includes electronic communication as well – no texts, no emails, and apparently, no pokes.
In Tennessee, violating an order of protection is a Class A misdemeanor, which means that the maximum jail sentence is 11 months and 29 days; it also carries a possible fine of up to $2,500.
Did the Tennessee woman in question realize that a "poke" would violate the order of protection? Perhaps this case is a reminder that changing technology can quickly affect legal issues; the number of ways that we are "otherwise communicating" with each other seems to increase every day.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Accused Mugger Exonerated by Facebook Alibi
When 19-year-old Rodney Bradford was arrested for a mugging at gunpoint in Brooklyn, he claimed that he was innocent – that he couldn’t have committed the crime, because at 11:50 a.m. when the robbery occurred he was at his father’s home in Harlem. Whereas the statements of his family may not have been as convincing, there was one witness to his alibi that the prosecutors found compelling: Facebook.
Bradford posted a status update on the social networking site at 11:49 a.m. When his lawyer brought this to the district attorney’s attention, Facebook was subpoenaed to verify that the update had indeed been sent from Harlem. Thus, what otherwise would have been just one of a number of seemingly unimportant updates became something critical – an alibi.
Though social networking activity has been included as evidence in criminal cases (for example, the burglar who logged onto Facebook on his victim’s computer), lawyers say that this seems to be the first instance of a Facebook message serving as an alibi. However, with use of the site becoming increasingly prevalent, this sort of legal issue use may be more common in the future.
It is of course conceivable that an Internet user could falsify whereabouts using a social networking site. The simplest way would be to give someone else one’s username and password to post an update from elsewhere. Whereas investigators can verify where an update comes from, verifying who was actually at the computer is a much more difficult problem.
So how much should law enforcement and prosecutors be weighing this type of evidence? With a society of increasingly sophisticated Internet users, technology is showing up more and more in the courtroom – but this means that it could possibly be misused as well.
Bradford posted a status update on the social networking site at 11:49 a.m. When his lawyer brought this to the district attorney’s attention, Facebook was subpoenaed to verify that the update had indeed been sent from Harlem. Thus, what otherwise would have been just one of a number of seemingly unimportant updates became something critical – an alibi.
Though social networking activity has been included as evidence in criminal cases (for example, the burglar who logged onto Facebook on his victim’s computer), lawyers say that this seems to be the first instance of a Facebook message serving as an alibi. However, with use of the site becoming increasingly prevalent, this sort of legal issue use may be more common in the future.
It is of course conceivable that an Internet user could falsify whereabouts using a social networking site. The simplest way would be to give someone else one’s username and password to post an update from elsewhere. Whereas investigators can verify where an update comes from, verifying who was actually at the computer is a much more difficult problem.
So how much should law enforcement and prosecutors be weighing this type of evidence? With a society of increasingly sophisticated Internet users, technology is showing up more and more in the courtroom – but this means that it could possibly be misused as well.
Net Neutrality: Does the Internet Need Saving?
This blog, like millions of other types of content on the Internet, is not provided by a large corporation. However, the speed of your connection is likely the same as when you surf over to a big corporate website. This is because in the United States there is generally network neutrality – meaning that Internet providers such as AT&T or Comcast don’t decide which websites go faster or slower. Some broadband companies have proposed changing this by charging content providers extra in return for their content having access to the fast lane in the information superhighway.
For the past five years or so there has been a lot of lobbying to Congress on both sides of the issue. Advocates of network neutrality want the government to step in and make rules against Internet providers implementing such changes. The issue is becoming more in the public eye as well, as organizations like the Save the Internet coalition have banded people together to speak out in favor of net neutrality.
So what is the latest on this hot button legal issue? At the end of October, the FCC proposed formal rules about net neutrality. The proposal is now open for public comment until March, at which point the FCC will decide whether to take action. For neutrality supporters, it seems like this is a step in the right direction.
However, a group of highly influential legal scholars (including Larry Lessig and Tim Wu, who have both famously supported net neutrality) wrote in a letter to the Chairman of the FCC that “ambiguity” in the proposed language might leave loopholes for broadband providers to exploit in order to skirt the rules. For example, the proposal states that any rules would allow for “reasonable” network management; without a definition of “reasonable,” Internet providers could possibly hang their hats on their long-standing argument that net neutrality would impede their ability to protect against malware and congestion.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers are already coming out against the FCC stepping in. A House Rep from Tennessee has introduced a bill that would prohibit the FCC from “needlessly imposing regulations on the Internet.”
How could a resolution of this issue affect you? Whereas it is often characterized as coming down to a battle between, for example, AT&T and Google, any changes in the speed or structure of the Internet will affect every user. For organizations like Save the Internet, the warning seems to be: when it comes to net neutrality, you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.
For the past five years or so there has been a lot of lobbying to Congress on both sides of the issue. Advocates of network neutrality want the government to step in and make rules against Internet providers implementing such changes. The issue is becoming more in the public eye as well, as organizations like the Save the Internet coalition have banded people together to speak out in favor of net neutrality.
So what is the latest on this hot button legal issue? At the end of October, the FCC proposed formal rules about net neutrality. The proposal is now open for public comment until March, at which point the FCC will decide whether to take action. For neutrality supporters, it seems like this is a step in the right direction.
However, a group of highly influential legal scholars (including Larry Lessig and Tim Wu, who have both famously supported net neutrality) wrote in a letter to the Chairman of the FCC that “ambiguity” in the proposed language might leave loopholes for broadband providers to exploit in order to skirt the rules. For example, the proposal states that any rules would allow for “reasonable” network management; without a definition of “reasonable,” Internet providers could possibly hang their hats on their long-standing argument that net neutrality would impede their ability to protect against malware and congestion.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers are already coming out against the FCC stepping in. A House Rep from Tennessee has introduced a bill that would prohibit the FCC from “needlessly imposing regulations on the Internet.”
How could a resolution of this issue affect you? Whereas it is often characterized as coming down to a battle between, for example, AT&T and Google, any changes in the speed or structure of the Internet will affect every user. For organizations like Save the Internet, the warning seems to be: when it comes to net neutrality, you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Former Sears Employee Receives $6.2M in Discrimination Suit
Sears Holdings Corp. has agreed to pay $6.2 million to a disabled worker after allegedly firing him illegally. This record settlement was the largest ever for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that investigates discrimination complaints and files lawsuits on behalf of victims.
Filed in 2004, the lawsuit stated that after John Bava was injured during the course of his job as a repair technician for Sears, the company fired him at the expiration of his workers’ compensation leave. At the age of 58, Bava fell down a flight of stairs at a customer’s home, injuring his back, knees, and wrist. He said that he only found out that he had been fired when his wife’s discount card was rejected.
EEOC released documents during discovery that pointed to hundreds of other employees who faced termination in similar situations; the agency alleged that Sears did not consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed these injured employees to return to their jobs.
As part of the settlement, a federal judge is requiring Sears to amend its workers’ compensation leave policy to ensure that it abides by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA was enacted in 1990. Title I of the act covers employment, and provides that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, termination, workers’ compensation, job training, and other aspects of employment.
Was Sears in the wrong when it came to firing Mr. Bava? At the very least, Sears seemed to think that it wasn’t worth the risk; the company spokesperson stated that the settlement was a way to avoid the time and expense of what could have been a lengthy litigation process.
Of course, it is possible that Mr. Bava’s case could provide precedent for future lawsuits that involve workers’ compensation leave. An attorney for EEOC noted in a statement that the settlement is a “bright line marker” for the fact that “inflexible leave policies” are a violation of federal law. But what constitutes “inflexible”? Could the alterations that Sears makes to its policies provide a benchmark for companies that want to do “just enough” to abide by the ADA? Given the publicity surrounding this case, now might be a good time to examine those company policies.
Filed in 2004, the lawsuit stated that after John Bava was injured during the course of his job as a repair technician for Sears, the company fired him at the expiration of his workers’ compensation leave. At the age of 58, Bava fell down a flight of stairs at a customer’s home, injuring his back, knees, and wrist. He said that he only found out that he had been fired when his wife’s discount card was rejected.
EEOC released documents during discovery that pointed to hundreds of other employees who faced termination in similar situations; the agency alleged that Sears did not consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed these injured employees to return to their jobs.
As part of the settlement, a federal judge is requiring Sears to amend its workers’ compensation leave policy to ensure that it abides by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA was enacted in 1990. Title I of the act covers employment, and provides that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, termination, workers’ compensation, job training, and other aspects of employment.
Was Sears in the wrong when it came to firing Mr. Bava? At the very least, Sears seemed to think that it wasn’t worth the risk; the company spokesperson stated that the settlement was a way to avoid the time and expense of what could have been a lengthy litigation process.
Of course, it is possible that Mr. Bava’s case could provide precedent for future lawsuits that involve workers’ compensation leave. An attorney for EEOC noted in a statement that the settlement is a “bright line marker” for the fact that “inflexible leave policies” are a violation of federal law. But what constitutes “inflexible”? Could the alterations that Sears makes to its policies provide a benchmark for companies that want to do “just enough” to abide by the ADA? Given the publicity surrounding this case, now might be a good time to examine those company policies.
Baby Einstein Not So Smart: Disney Offers Refunds Following Legal Threats
The Baby Einstein line of multimedia products, launched in 1997 and sold in 2000 to Disney, made lofty claims about how the developmental videos would “facilitate the development of the brain in infants.” However, in recent years the company has scaled back those promises considerably, in part due to allegations of false advertising. Particularly after the American Academy of Pediatrics discouraged television viewing in children under the age of two, there have been questions about whether the videos do more harm than good – and whether consumers have been misled.
In 2006, Disney dropped the term “educational” from the products’ marketing materials when the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) group filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), alleging false and deceptive advertising. The FTC is an independent government agency that promotes consumer protection.
Later that same year, academic studies surfaced revealing that baby videos like those in the Disney line could actually lead to a decrease in language acquisition for toddlers and infants. The FTC subsequently decided that the science was inconclusive, and since Disney had already watered down their marketing campaign (removing overt claims that the videos would improve child development), the agency took no action.
However, it was more recently when CCFC threatened Disney with a class-action lawsuit that the company took the step of offering refunds to customers. Disney is offering refunds or exchanges for any consumers “not satisfied” with their Baby Einstein DVDs that were purchased between June 5, 2004 and September 4, 2009.
Though Disney isn’t admitting any wrongdoing, this is a reminder that consumers are smart to be on their toes about potentially deceptive advertising. Though DVDs might be fairly harmless, something like drugs may not be.
In 2006, Disney dropped the term “educational” from the products’ marketing materials when the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) group filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), alleging false and deceptive advertising. The FTC is an independent government agency that promotes consumer protection.
Later that same year, academic studies surfaced revealing that baby videos like those in the Disney line could actually lead to a decrease in language acquisition for toddlers and infants. The FTC subsequently decided that the science was inconclusive, and since Disney had already watered down their marketing campaign (removing overt claims that the videos would improve child development), the agency took no action.
However, it was more recently when CCFC threatened Disney with a class-action lawsuit that the company took the step of offering refunds to customers. Disney is offering refunds or exchanges for any consumers “not satisfied” with their Baby Einstein DVDs that were purchased between June 5, 2004 and September 4, 2009.
Though Disney isn’t admitting any wrongdoing, this is a reminder that consumers are smart to be on their toes about potentially deceptive advertising. Though DVDs might be fairly harmless, something like drugs may not be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
