Prince Harry has reached a settlement with Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper, receiving a full apology over the lawsuit.

Prince Harry settles lawsuit, receives apology from Murdoch’s newspaper

Washington DC, United States
ABC News reached a legal settlement with United States President-elect Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit and agreed to pay $15 million as part of it which also ended the dispute around an interview in which anchor George Stephanopoulos was accused of defaming Trump.
The money paid out by ABC News will be transferred to a "Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for Plaintiff, as Presidents of the United States of America have established in the past", as per the settlement terms released on Saturday (Dec 14).
Another $1 million will be paid out by the defendants - identified as ABC, ABC News and Stephanopoulos - to the president-elect's counsel.
Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-20-trump-taps-loyalist-devin-nunes-for-key-intelligence-role-richard-grenell-named-special-envoy-784057">Trump 2.0: Trump taps loyalist Devin Nunes for key intelligence role; Richard Grenell named special envoy</a>
According to the settlement, a note will also be added by the network and the bottom of the online news article regarding this story which was published on March 10, 2024.
"ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March 10, 2024," the note will read.
In a statement, an ABC News spokesperson said the company was "pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing".
<h2>What was the defamation case about?</h2>
A lawsuit was filed by Trump against ABC and Stephanopoulos in Miami federal court after the anchor said various that Trump was “found liable for rape” while hosting a “This Week” interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, which was not true.
Watch: Top CEOs Threatened By Donald Trump Donating To His Inauguration Fund
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://cdn.thepublive.com/wion/static/kaltura_player/wion_video_player_iframe.html?thumbnail=wion/media/post_attachments/files/2024/12/14/1412_Trump_6pm_pkwo-1734186319-00000003.jpg&videourl=https://vodakm.zeenews.com/vod/WION/1412_Trump_6pm_pkwo_.mp4/index.m3u8&duration=173&tags=WION,wion news,World News,world news latest,viral" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
A jury in Manhattan had found Trump liable for sexually abusing his former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll at a department store in 1996 and later making defaming remarks against her while denying the allegations in his statements. The jury had ordered Trump to pay $5 million in May 2023.
In the complaint, the president-elect's lawyers alleged that Stephanopoulos “knowingly or recklessly made multiple false and disparaging statements regarding Plaintiff during ABC broadcasts."
During the interview, Stephanopoulos said that Trump "has been found liable for rape by a jury". However, the jury found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a civil case and did not find him liable for her alleged rape.
(With inputs from agencies)

The money paid as part of the settlement will get transferred to “a Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for” Trump



Washington DC, United States ABC News reached a legal settlement with United States President-elect Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit and agreed to pay $15 million as part of it which also ended the dispute around an interview in which anchor George Stephanopoulos was accused of defaming Trump. The money paid out by ABC News will be transferred to a "Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for Plaintiff, as Presidents of the United States of America have established in the past", as per the settlement terms released on Saturday (Dec 14). Another $1 million will be paid out by the defendants - identified as ABC, ABC News and Stephanopoulos - to the president-elect's counsel. Also Read: Trump 2.0: Trump taps loyalist Devin Nunes for key intelligence role; Richard Grenell named special envoy According to the settlement, a note will also be added by the network and the bottom of the online news article regarding this story which was published on March 10, 2024. "ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March 10, 2024," the note will read. In a statement, an ABC News spokesperson said the company was "pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing". What was the defamation case about? A lawsuit was filed by Trump against ABC and Stephanopoulos in Miami federal court after the anchor said various that Trump was “found liable for rape” while hosting a “This Week” interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, which was not true. Watch: Top CEOs Threatened By Donald Trump Donating To His Inauguration Fund A jury in Manhattan had found Trump liable for sexually abusing his former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll at a department store in 1996 and later making defaming remarks against her while denying the allegations in his statements. The jury had ordered Trump to pay $5 million in May 2023. In the complaint, the president-elect's lawyers alleged that Stephanopoulos “knowingly or recklessly made multiple false and disparaging statements regarding Plaintiff during ABC broadcasts." During the interview, Stephanopoulos said that Trump "has been found liable for rape by a jury". However, the jury found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a civil case and did not find him liable for her alleged rape. (With inputs from agencies)

ABC News settles defamation lawsuit with Donald Trump, agrees to pay $15mn

ABC News reached a legal settlement with United States President-elect Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit and agreed to pay $15 million as part of it which also ended the dispute around an interview in which anchor George Stephanopoulos was accused of defaming Trump.

The money paid out by ABC News will be transferred to a "Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for Plaintiff, as Presidents of the United States of America have established in the past", as per the settlement terms released on Saturday (Dec 14).

Another $1 million will be paid out by the defendants - identified as ABC, ABC News and Stephanopoulos - to the president-elect's counsel.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-20-trump-taps-loyalist-devin-nunes-for-key-intelligence-role-richard-grenell-named-special-envoy-784057">Trump 2.0: Trump taps loyalist Devin Nunes for key intelligence role;&nbsp;Richard Grenell named special envoy</a>

According to the settlement, a note will also be added by the network and the bottom of the online news article regarding this story which was published on March 10, 2024.

"ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March 10, 2024," the note will read.

In a statement, an ABC News spokesperson said the company was "pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing".

<h2>What was the defamation case about?</h2>

A lawsuit was filed by Trump against ABC and Stephanopoulos in Miami federal court after the anchor said various that Trump was “found liable for rape” while hosting a “This Week” interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, which was not true.

Watch:&nbsp;Top CEOs Threatened By Donald Trump Donating To His Inauguration Fund

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/top-ceos-threatened-by-donald-trump-donating-to-his-inauguration-fund-784012/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

A jury in Manhattan had found Trump liable for sexually abusing his former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll at a department store in 1996 and later making defaming remarks against her while denying the allegations in his statements. The jury had ordered Trump to pay $5 million in May 2023.

In the complaint, the president-elect's lawyers alleged that Stephanopoulos “knowingly or recklessly made multiple false and disparaging statements regarding Plaintiff during ABC broadcasts."

During the interview, Stephanopoulos said that Trump "has been found liable for rape by a jury". However, the jury found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a civil case and did not find him liable&nbsp;for her alleged rape.

(With inputs from agencies)

ABC News reached a legal settlement with United States President-elect Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit and agreed to pay $15 million as part of it which also ended the dispute around an interview in which anchor George Stephanopoulos was accused of defaming Trump.

ABC News reached a legal settlement with United States President-elect Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit and agreed to pay $15 million as part of it which also ended the dispute around an interview in which anchor George Stephanopoulos was accused of defaming Trump. The money paid out by ABC News will be transferred to a "Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for Plaintiff, as Presidents of the United States of America have established in the past", as per the settlement terms released on Saturday (Dec 14). Another $1 million will be paid out by the defendants - identified as ABC, ABC News and Stephanopoulos - to the president-elect's counsel. Also Read: Trump 2.0: Trump taps loyalist Devin Nunes for key intelligence role; Richard Grenell named special envoy According to the settlement, a note will also be added by the network and the bottom of the online news article regarding this story which was published on March 10, 2024. "ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March 10, 2024," the note will read. In a statement, an ABC News spokesperson said the company was "pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing". What was the defamation case about? A lawsuit was filed by Trump against ABC and Stephanopoulos in Miami federal court after the anchor said various that Trump was “found liable for rape” while hosting a “This Week” interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, which was not true. Watch: Top CEOs Threatened By Donald Trump Donating To His Inauguration Fund A jury in Manhattan had found Trump liable for sexually abusing his former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll at a department store in 1996 and later making defaming remarks against her while denying the allegations in his statements. The jury had ordered Trump to pay $5 million in May 2023. In the complaint, the president-elect's lawyers alleged that Stephanopoulos “knowingly or recklessly made multiple false and disparaging statements regarding Plaintiff during ABC broadcasts." During the interview, Stephanopoulos said that Trump "has been found liable for rape by a jury". However, the jury found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a civil case and did not find him liable for her alleged rape. (With inputs from agencies)

British pharmaceutical company GSK has agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle lawsuits alleging that its heart burn medication Zantac caused cancer. GSK has settled 80,000 Zantac lawsuit. Watch to know more.

Pharmaceutical Giant GSK Reaches Major Settlement

British pharmaceutical company GSK said on Wednesday that it has agreed to pay $2.3 billion to put an end to lawsuits in the United States alleging that its heartburn drug Zantac caused cancer.

British pharmaceutical company GSK said on Wednesday that it has agreed to pay $2.3 billion to put an end to lawsuits in the United States alleging that its heartburn drug Zantac caused cancer. "GSK today announced that it has reached agreements with 10 plaintiff firms who together represent 93 per cent (approximately 80,000) of the Zantac state court product liability cases pending against GSK," the company said in a statement. Under the agreement, whose terms are confidential, GSK will make an "aggregate payment of up to $2.2 billion" to resolve these cases, the statement added. The company also said on Wednesday that it had reached another agreement in principle to pay $70 million to settle a separate Zantac case with US laboratory Valisure -- which is still subject to final approval by the US Department of Justice. Also Read | ‘It needs to go’: Tim Walz calls for scrapping of electoral college system Class action and personal injury lawsuits have been filed in US courts after the Food and Drug Administration warned in 2019 that some ranitidine drugs, including Zantac, contained low levels of an environmental contaminant considered a probable carcinogen. However the pharmaceutical giant said it "has not admitted any liability" by settling the case as "the scientific consensus remains that there is no consistent or reliable evidence" that ranitidine is carcinogenic. Also Read | ‘Your behaviour not unnoticed,’ Philippines embarrasses China at ASEAN summit The over-the-counter treatment, known also by its non-commercial name ranitidine, was manufactured by several rivals, including the French group Sanofi and US drugmaker Pfizer, before it was withdrawn in 2019. In recent years, GSK has won several court cases on the issue in the United States, while signing several other settlements to avoid litigation. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Pharma company GSK agrees to pay $2.3bn in US settlements on lawsuits over Zantac cancer claims

Ever since Sean 'Diddy' Combs was named in multiple lawsuits on charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution many celebrities have been quietly distancing themselves from the music mogul. Now Texas-based lawyer Tony Buzbee has claimed that many celebs who have been linked to Diddy have been paying off victims.&nbsp;

Some celebrities implicated in the lawsuit involving the rapper's alleged 120 victims have reportedly avoided public exposure thanks to hush money.&nbsp;There has been much media coverage of Sean "Diddy" Combs and his past links with celebrities after his arrest.&nbsp; 
 
Following Diddy's arrest, all of his celebrity friendships have come under intense scrutiny, with many being accused of being part of the debauchery that reportedly occurred at the rapper's infamous parties. 
 
So far Diddy is the sole individual implicated in his federal sex crimes charges. Lawsuits filed by over 120 alleged victims may just lead Diddy to expose the names of other high-profile individuals connected to his crimes.&nbsp; 
 
This is why, perhaps, some of the celebrities have reportedly begun paying off victims to avoid being named publicly.&nbsp;

"In every single case, especially cases like this … because it's in the best interests of the victim, we attempt to resolve these matters without the filing of a public lawsuit, and we've done that already with a handful of individuals, many of which you've heard of before," the victims' lawyer Tony Buzbee said, as per a report on TMZ.&nbsp;

Buzbee refrained from revealing how many individuals were implicated. He did hint at the reason behind the delay in naming individuals who have opted to ignore his demand letters.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/saturday-night-live-takes-a-dig-at-sean-diddy-combs-and-his-sex-trafficking-case-765163">Saturday Night Live takes a dig at Sean 'Diddy' Combs and his sex trafficking case</a>

He said, "We want to make sure if we name individuals beyond Mr Combs that we have done our homework because it is going to create a firestorm, and we understand that."

Buzbee said that those who had just witnessed Diddy during his infamous 'Freak Offs' would also face legal consequences.

The attorney remarked, "If you were there in the room, participated, watched it happen, and didn't say anything or helped cover it up, in my view, you have a problem."

Of the victims now being represented by Buzbee, 25 claim they were minors at the time of the alleged abuse.&nbsp;

Ever since Sean 'Diddy' Combs was named in multiple lawsuits on charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution many celebrities have been quietly distancing themselves from the music mogul.

Ever since Sean 'Diddy' Combs was named in multiple lawsuits on charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution many celebrities have been quietly distancing themselves from the music mogul. Now Texas-based lawyer Tony Buzbee has claimed that many celebs who have been linked to Diddy have been paying off victims. Some celebrities implicated in the lawsuit involving the rapper's alleged 120 victims have reportedly avoided public exposure thanks to hush money. There has been much media coverage of Sean "Diddy" Combs and his past links with celebrities after his arrest. Following Diddy's arrest, all of his celebrity friendships have come under intense scrutiny, with many being accused of being part of the debauchery that reportedly occurred at the rapper's infamous parties. So far Diddy is the sole individual implicated in his federal sex crimes charges. Lawsuits filed by over 120 alleged victims may just lead Diddy to expose the names of other high-profile individuals connected to his crimes. This is why, perhaps, some of the celebrities have reportedly begun paying off victims to avoid being named publicly. "In every single case, especially cases like this … because it's in the best interests of the victim, we attempt to resolve these matters without the filing of a public lawsuit, and we've done that already with a handful of individuals, many of which you've heard of before," the victims' lawyer Tony Buzbee said, as per a report on TMZ. Buzbee refrained from revealing how many individuals were implicated. He did hint at the reason behind the delay in naming individuals who have opted to ignore his demand letters. Also read: Saturday Night Live takes a dig at Sean 'Diddy' Combs and his sex trafficking case He said, "We want to make sure if we name individuals beyond Mr Combs that we have done our homework because it is going to create a firestorm, and we understand that." Buzbee said that those who had just witnessed Diddy during his infamous 'Freak Offs' would also face legal consequences. The attorney remarked, "If you were there in the room, participated, watched it happen, and didn't say anything or helped cover it up, in my view, you have a problem." Of the victims now being represented by Buzbee, 25 claim they were minors at the time of the alleged abuse.

Sean 'Diddy' Combs' celebrity friends are paying off victims to avoid lawsuit, claims lawyer

A leading Indian insurance company has filed a lawsuit against messaging application telegram and has alleged hacker, this follows reports that the self- style hacker used telegram chatbots to expose sensitive personal information for medical records of star Health policy holders. Watch to know more.

Star Health Sues Telegram For Data Breach

A financial technology company, Tingo group, targeted by Hindenburg research, is in legal mess. A federal judge found Tingo group and its chief executive officer liable for fraud after the company failed to respond to a US securities and exchange commission (sec) lawsuit. The sec accused them of overstating financial results.

Hindenburg target Tingo fails to respond to sec fraud lawsuit

Anthropic, which is an artificial intelligence (AI) company backed by Amazon, faced a lawsuit for copyright infringement by notable authors. As reported by Reuters, Claude,the company’s AI chatbot has been accused of being trained with pirated works of writers/journalists.

Authors sue Amazon-backed Anthropic for copyright breach

A company accusing Starbucks of stealing its idea for coffee-flavoured lipstick and lip gloss has sued the coffee chain for a third time. 
&nbsp; 
Balmuccino filed its complaint on Friday in Manhattan federal court. Its leaders have included a sister-in-law of TV doctor Mehmet Oz.

The filing followed a Seattle federal judge's dismissal in July 2023 of an earlier version of the lawsuit on procedural grounds, the second such dismissal.

Seattle-based Starbucks had no immediate comment.

Balmuccino said it began developing coffee-flavoured lip balms in 2016 and pitched them at an October 2018 meeting in Starbucks' New York office, where it provided prototypes and other confidential information.

The Los Angeles-based company said Dr. Oz had brokered the meeting, during which he had called Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz to propose a potential joint venture.

Balmuccino said Starbucks "stole" its fully developed concept for lip balms by launching its "S'mores Frappuccino Sip Kit" in April 2019.

The kits included lipstick and gloss in four shades: Campfire Spark, Chocolicious Bliss, Graham Glam, and Marshmallow Glow.

Balmuccino said Starbucks did not pay it a premium for selling Sip Kits and is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

It said its lawsuit isn't too late because New York allows some plaintiffs to toll their statutes of limitation when they sue in the wrong forum and, "as here," a court finds it lacks jurisdiction.

Balmuccino originally sued Starbucks in Los Angeles in October 2019.

The case is Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,&nbsp;No.&nbsp;24-06214.

A company accusing Starbucks of stealing its idea for coffee-flavoured lipstick and lip gloss has sued the coffee chain for a third time. Balmuccino filed its complaint on Friday in Manhattan federal court.

A company accusing Starbucks of stealing its idea for coffee-flavoured lipstick and lip gloss has sued the coffee chain for a third time. Balmuccino filed its complaint on Friday in Manhattan federal court. Its leaders have included a sister-in-law of TV doctor Mehmet Oz. The filing followed a Seattle federal judge's dismissal in July 2023 of an earlier version of the lawsuit on procedural grounds, the second such dismissal. Seattle-based Starbucks had no immediate comment. Balmuccino said it began developing coffee-flavoured lip balms in 2016 and pitched them at an October 2018 meeting in Starbucks' New York office, where it provided prototypes and other confidential information. The Los Angeles-based company said Dr. Oz had brokered the meeting, during which he had called Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz to propose a potential joint venture. Balmuccino said Starbucks "stole" its fully developed concept for lip balms by launching its "S'mores Frappuccino Sip Kit" in April 2019. The kits included lipstick and gloss in four shades: Campfire Spark, Chocolicious Bliss, Graham Glam, and Marshmallow Glow. Balmuccino said Starbucks did not pay it a premium for selling Sip Kits and is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. It said its lawsuit isn't too late because New York allows some plaintiffs to toll their statutes of limitation when they sue in the wrong forum and, "as here," a court finds it lacks jurisdiction. Balmuccino originally sued Starbucks in Los Angeles in October 2019. The case is Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 24-06214.

Starbucks faces lawsuit over accusations of stealing the concept for coffee-flavoured lipstick

Disney claims that the man who subscribed to Disney+ can't sue them for the wrongful death of his wife as he agreed to the terms and conditions when he signed up for his account several years ago.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a lawsuit against Disney Parks and Resorts in February after his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died the previous year. He has claimed she had an allergic reaction after she consumed food at a restaurant in Disney Springs at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, United States.&nbsp;

In his complaint, Piccolo said that his wife and mother went to dine at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant at the resort in Orlando on October 5, last year. While ordering food, she asked the staff several times if the food contained any ingredients, to which she was allergic.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/ex-google-ceo-blames-work-from-home-for-company-losing-in-ai-race-netizens-school-him-750345">Ex-Google CEO blames 'work from home' for company losing in AI race. Netizens school him</a>

Tangsuan was extremely allergic to dairy and nuts. Even though the staff member assured the food would be "allergen-free", she suffered a severe allergic reaction which claimed her life the next day.

The autopsy revealed that her death was caused by anaphylaxis due to high levels of nuts and dairy in her body which led to an acute reaction.

In his lawsuit, Piccolo demanded damages over $50,000 and argued that it was a case of negligence by the waiter.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/musk-sacked-twitter-employee-for-failing-to-click-yes-now-gives-him-a-payout-of-750394">Musk sacked Twitter employee for failing to click 'yes', now gives him a payout of...</a>

However, Disney argued that the case should be dismissed&nbsp;and settled outside the court as Piccolo had subscribed for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019 and 2023, in which he agreed to the company's terms. The terms state that any disputes between the users and the company should be settled outside of court via arbitration.

“When you create a Disney+ or ESPN+ account, you also agree to the Walt Disney Company's Terms of Use, which govern your use of other Disney Services. The services include sites, software, applications, content, products and services, which include the Disney Parks and Resorts website," it said.

Disney argued that the terms include "all disputes" including the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, against which the lawsuit has been filed.

(With inputs from agencies)

Disney claims that the man who subscribed to Disney+ can't sue them for the wrongful death of his wife as he agreed to the terms and conditions when he signed up for his account several years ago.

Disney claims that the man who subscribed to Disney+ can't sue them for the wrongful death of his wife as he agreed to the terms and conditions when he signed up for his account several years ago. Jeffrey Piccolo filed a lawsuit against Disney Parks and Resorts in February after his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died the previous year. He has claimed she had an allergic reaction after she consumed food at a restaurant in Disney Springs at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, United States. In his complaint, Piccolo said that his wife and mother went to dine at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant at the resort in Orlando on October 5, last year. While ordering food, she asked the staff several times if the food contained any ingredients, to which she was allergic. Also read | Ex-Google CEO blames 'work from home' for company losing in AI race. Netizens school him Tangsuan was extremely allergic to dairy and nuts. Even though the staff member assured the food would be "allergen-free", she suffered a severe allergic reaction which claimed her life the next day. The autopsy revealed that her death was caused by anaphylaxis due to high levels of nuts and dairy in her body which led to an acute reaction. In his lawsuit, Piccolo demanded damages over $50,000 and argued that it was a case of negligence by the waiter. Also read | Musk sacked Twitter employee for failing to click 'yes', now gives him a payout of... However, Disney argued that the case should be dismissed and settled outside the court as Piccolo had subscribed for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019 and 2023, in which he agreed to the company's terms. The terms state that any disputes between the users and the company should be settled outside of court via arbitration. “When you create a Disney+ or ESPN+ account, you also agree to the Walt Disney Company's Terms of Use, which govern your use of other Disney Services. The services include sites, software, applications, content, products and services, which include the Disney Parks and Resorts website," it said. Disney argued that the terms include "all disputes" including the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, against which the lawsuit has been filed. (With inputs from agencies)

One month Disney+ subscription worth a life? Disney dismisses wrongful death lawsuit

The fight against climate change is moving to the courtroom. A new report reveals a surge in lawsuits targeting corporations for their role in global warming. Since the 2015 Paris agreement, over 230 "climate-aligned" lawsuits have been filed - with two-thirds filed just in the last three years.

Climate Change: Surge in climate lawsuits since Paris agreement

Apple is facing a proposed class action lawsuit. The complaint alleges the California based company paid over 12,000 female employees less than the male counterparts in similar roles. Watch in for more details!

Female employees sue Apple over pay bias

Eight former SpaceX employees have sued the rocket company and its CEO Elon Musk as they alleged that the latter gave orders for their sacking after they accused the company of tolerating sexual harassment in the workplace.&nbsp;

In 2022, the eight employees were&nbsp;fired after an “open letter” was circulated by them within SpaceX in which they alleged that Musk's “behaviour in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment", according to the lawsuit filed.&nbsp;

In the lawsuit, it was alleged that Musk “runs his company in the dark ages — treating women as sexual objects to be evaluated on their bra size, bombarding the workplace with lewd sexual banter, and offering the reprise to those who challenge the ‘Animal House’ environment that if they don’t like it they can seek employment elsewhere.”&nbsp;

According to the former employees, Musk's social media posts worked as an encouragement for the inappropriate work environment in the spacecraft company.&nbsp;

In the lawsuit, SpaceX's former engineers said that the posts were not just private rantings from the billionaire CEO. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/elon-musk-had-sex-with-former-spacex-intern-asked-employee-to-have-his-babies-report-731120">Elon Musk had sex with former SpaceX intern, asked employee to have his babies: Report</a>

Attorney Anne Shaver, who is representing the plaintiffs, said, "There was no separation on [Elon] Musk’s statements and the company’s statements. When employees raised concerns, they were told: ‘We can’t do anything. SpaceX is Elon, and Elon is SpaceX.’”

“Musk knowingly and purposefully created an unwelcome hostile work environment based upon his conduct of interjecting into the workplace vile sexual photographs, memes, and commentary that demeaned women and/or the LGBTQ+ community,” claimed the eight former employees in their lawsuit.&nbsp;

<h2>How did SpaceX react to the lawsuit?</h2>

SpaceX has not yet reacted to the lawsuit filed by its former employees. However, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, Gwynne Shotwell, did react&nbsp;to the previous Wall Street Journal report highlighting sexual abuse allegations made by some former employees. &nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;Elon Musk: AI to eliminate jobs

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/elon-musk-ai-to-eliminate-jobs-725197/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Shotwell, informed The Wall Street Journal, that their report painted “a completely misleading narrative” of the company and that “Elon is one of the best humans I know.”&nbsp;

She said that all complaints of harassment are fully investigated by SpaceX and appropriate actions are taken.

<h2>Musk's sexual posts become the focal point of complaint</h2>

In one of the posts which was highlighted in the complaint, Musk said to YouTube's former CEO Chad Hurley, “If you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.”

One time, Musk shared a picture of Bill Gates with a pregnant-looking stomach and wrote, “In case u need to lose a boner fast.” In a response to SpaceX competitors, he once posted that they “[c]an’t get it up (to orbit) lol.”

In another highlighted post, he said he was considering to make a university in Texas appear similar to MIT and proposed to call it “TITS".

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

Eight former SpaceX employees have sued the rocket company and its CEO Elon Musk as they alleged that the latter gave orders for their sacking after they accused the company of tolerating sexual harassment in the workplace.

Eight former SpaceX employees have sued the rocket company and its CEO Elon Musk as they alleged that the latter gave orders for their sacking after they accused the company of tolerating sexual harassment in the workplace. In 2022, the eight employees were fired after an “open letter” was circulated by them within SpaceX in which they alleged that Musk's “behaviour in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment", according to the lawsuit filed. In the lawsuit, it was alleged that Musk “runs his company in the dark ages — treating women as sexual objects to be evaluated on their bra size, bombarding the workplace with lewd sexual banter, and offering the reprise to those who challenge the ‘Animal House’ environment that if they don’t like it they can seek employment elsewhere.” According to the former employees, Musk's social media posts worked as an encouragement for the inappropriate work environment in the spacecraft company. In the lawsuit, SpaceX's former engineers said that the posts were not just private rantings from the billionaire CEO. Also Read: Elon Musk had sex with former SpaceX intern, asked employee to have his babies: Report Attorney Anne Shaver, who is representing the plaintiffs, said, "There was no separation on [Elon] Musk’s statements and the company’s statements. When employees raised concerns, they were told: ‘We can’t do anything. SpaceX is Elon, and Elon is SpaceX.’” “Musk knowingly and purposefully created an unwelcome hostile work environment based upon his conduct of interjecting into the workplace vile sexual photographs, memes, and commentary that demeaned women and/or the LGBTQ+ community,” claimed the eight former employees in their lawsuit. How did SpaceX react to the lawsuit? SpaceX has not yet reacted to the lawsuit filed by its former employees. However, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, Gwynne Shotwell, did react to the previous Wall Street Journal report highlighting sexual abuse allegations made by some former employees. Watch: Elon Musk: AI to eliminate jobs Shotwell, informed The Wall Street Journal, that their report painted “a completely misleading narrative” of the company and that “Elon is one of the best humans I know.” She said that all complaints of harassment are fully investigated by SpaceX and appropriate actions are taken. Musk's sexual posts become the focal point of complaint In one of the posts which was highlighted in the complaint, Musk said to YouTube's former CEO Chad Hurley, “If you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.” One time, Musk shared a picture of Bill Gates with a pregnant-looking stomach and wrote, “In case u need to lose a boner fast.” In a response to SpaceX competitors, he once posted that they “[c]an’t get it up (to orbit) lol.” In another highlighted post, he said he was considering to make a university in Texas appear similar to MIT and proposed to call it “TITS". (With inputs from agencies)

Former employees sue Elon Musk and Space X over alleged sexual harassment

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk filed a motion to dismiss his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman on Tuesday, which had accused them of forsaking the startup's initial objective of building artificial intelligence for the sake of humanity rather than profit.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Musk withdraws legal action without prejudice<o:p></o:p></h2>

According to a petition in the San Francisco Superior Court, Musk's attorneys requested that the California state court dismiss the action, which was filed in February, without citing a justification for the decision. On Wednesday, a Superior Court judge was slated to consider OpenAI's motion to dismiss the complaint.<o:p></o:p>

Musk's complaint was rejected without prejudice, which means he can file it again later.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Long-standing dispute over OpenAI’s mission<o:p></o:p></h2>

The lawsuit was the climax of Musk's long-standing resistance to OpenAI, a business he co-founded that has become a pioneer in generative AI thanks to significant funding from Microsoft. Musk, who started his artificial intelligence startup, xAI, in July, raised $6 billion in Series B fundraising in May, giving the company a post-money worth of $24 billion.<o:p></o:p>

Musk's lawsuit claimed that Altman and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman first approached him about starting an open-source, non-profit corporation. The startup, founded in 2015, is currently focusing on profitable ventures.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Allegations of breaching founding principles<o:p></o:p></h2>

Musk alleged in the lawsuit that OpenAI "set the founding agreement aflame" when it released its most powerful language model, GPT-4, last year. He requested a judicial order requiring OpenAI to make its research and technology publicly available, as well as prohibiting the business from exploiting its assets, including GPT-4, for the financial benefit of Microsoft and other partners.<o:p></o:p>

OpenAI responded in a court filing that Musk's action was based on illogical assertions and was a ruse to pursue his own AI goals. "Seeing the remarkable technological advances OpenAI has achieved, Musk now wants that success for himself," OpenAI's attorneys stated. Musk reacted in an April filing, claiming that OpenAI was attempting to "advance arguments that are based on disputed facts" beyond the scope of the complaint.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Future implications for AI development<o:p></o:p></h2>

The rejection of the claim without prejudice opens the door to future legal action, highlighting continued concerns in the fast-growing field of artificial intelligence. As Musk continues to develop his own AI enterprises, the industry will be watching to see how these disagreements and cooperation affect the future of AI innovation.<o:p></o:p>

(With inputs from Agencies)<o:p></o:p>

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk filed a motion to dismiss his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman on Tuesday, which had accused them of forsaking the startup's initial objective of building artificial intelligence for the sake of humanity rather than profit.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk filed a motion to dismiss his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman on Tuesday, which had accused them of forsaking the startup's initial objective of building artificial intelligence for the sake of humanity rather than profit. Musk withdraws legal action without prejudice According to a petition in the San Francisco Superior Court, Musk's attorneys requested that the California state court dismiss the action, which was filed in February, without citing a justification for the decision. On Wednesday, a Superior Court judge was slated to consider OpenAI's motion to dismiss the complaint. Musk's complaint was rejected without prejudice, which means he can file it again later. Long-standing dispute over OpenAI’s mission The lawsuit was the climax of Musk's long-standing resistance to OpenAI, a business he co-founded that has become a pioneer in generative AI thanks to significant funding from Microsoft. Musk, who started his artificial intelligence startup, xAI, in July, raised $6 billion in Series B fundraising in May, giving the company a post-money worth of $24 billion. Musk's lawsuit claimed that Altman and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman first approached him about starting an open-source, non-profit corporation. The startup, founded in 2015, is currently focusing on profitable ventures. Allegations of breaching founding principles Musk alleged in the lawsuit that OpenAI "set the founding agreement aflame" when it released its most powerful language model, GPT-4, last year. He requested a judicial order requiring OpenAI to make its research and technology publicly available, as well as prohibiting the business from exploiting its assets, including GPT-4, for the financial benefit of Microsoft and other partners. OpenAI responded in a court filing that Musk's action was based on illogical assertions and was a ruse to pursue his own AI goals. "Seeing the remarkable technological advances OpenAI has achieved, Musk now wants that success for himself," OpenAI's attorneys stated. Musk reacted in an April filing, claiming that OpenAI was attempting to "advance arguments that are based on disputed facts" beyond the scope of the complaint. Future implications for AI development The rejection of the claim without prejudice opens the door to future legal action, highlighting continued concerns in the fast-growing field of artificial intelligence. As Musk continues to develop his own AI enterprises, the industry will be watching to see how these disagreements and cooperation affect the future of AI innovation. (With inputs from Agencies)

Elon Musk drops lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman

Binance, a cryptocurrency exchange, seeks to dismiss most of a case filed in London and valued at up to £10 billion ($12.8 billion). The lawsuit claims that Binance and other exchanges collaborated to "delist" the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) cryptocurrency.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">BSV owners act<o:p></o:p></h2>

The complaint, which is being heard at London's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), was filed on behalf of more than 200,000 BSV owners. BSV Claims, a legal organization formed to prosecute the issue, claims that Binance, Kraken, and other exchanges committed anti-competitive behaviour by delisting BSV in 2019. This lawsuit, according to BSV Claims, resulted in a considerable reduction in BSV's value and hampered its ability to become a prominent cryptocurrency, with damages ranging up to £9 billion ($11.25 billion).<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Certification under the UK collective proceedings regime<o:p></o:p></h2>

BSV Claims' lawyers have stated that the exchanges are not opposing the case's certification under the UK's collective proceedings scheme, which is akin to the US class action system. Certification is simply the first step in this legal battle. However, Binance has requested that the CAT dismiss the aspect of the lawsuit involving BSV's apparent potential to become a "top tier" cryptocurrency. This section of the lawsuit focuses on those who retained BSV after it was delisted.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Legal arguments and responses<o:p></o:p></h2>

Brian Kennelly, representing Binance, contended that those who retained BSV did so voluntarily, claiming that they "could reasonably have sold it and reinvested it in comparable cryptocurrency." However, BSV Claims' lawyers argue that this issue justifies a trial alongside the remainder of the case.<o:p></o:p>

Binance has not commented on the ongoing dispute. Meanwhile, Kraken's spokesperson described the case as "baseless."<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Background and context<o:p></o:p></h2>

The decision by Binance, Kraken, and other exchanges to delist BSV in 2019 was influenced in part by statements made by Australian computer scientist Craig Wright. Wright, who has been linked to BSV, claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin's pseudonymous founder. Wright was found guilty of fabricating evidence to back up his accusations earlier this year in a different lawsuit. Wright intends to challenge the ruling.<o:p></o:p>

(With inputs from Agencies)

Binance, a cryptocurrency exchange, seeks to dismiss most of a case filed in London and valued at up to £10 billion ($12.8 billion). The lawsuit claims that Binance and other exchanges collaborated to "delist" the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) cryptocurrency.

Binance, a cryptocurrency exchange, seeks to dismiss most of a case filed in London and valued at up to £10 billion ($12.8 billion). The lawsuit claims that Binance and other exchanges collaborated to "delist" the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) cryptocurrency. BSV owners act The complaint, which is being heard at London's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), was filed on behalf of more than 200,000 BSV owners. BSV Claims, a legal organization formed to prosecute the issue, claims that Binance, Kraken, and other exchanges committed anti-competitive behaviour by delisting BSV in 2019. This lawsuit, according to BSV Claims, resulted in a considerable reduction in BSV's value and hampered its ability to become a prominent cryptocurrency, with damages ranging up to £9 billion ($11.25 billion). Certification under the UK collective proceedings regime BSV Claims' lawyers have stated that the exchanges are not opposing the case's certification under the UK's collective proceedings scheme, which is akin to the US class action system. Certification is simply the first step in this legal battle. However, Binance has requested that the CAT dismiss the aspect of the lawsuit involving BSV's apparent potential to become a "top tier" cryptocurrency. This section of the lawsuit focuses on those who retained BSV after it was delisted. Legal arguments and responses Brian Kennelly, representing Binance, contended that those who retained BSV did so voluntarily, claiming that they "could reasonably have sold it and reinvested it in comparable cryptocurrency." However, BSV Claims' lawyers argue that this issue justifies a trial alongside the remainder of the case. Binance has not commented on the ongoing dispute. Meanwhile, Kraken's spokesperson described the case as "baseless." Background and context The decision by Binance, Kraken, and other exchanges to delist BSV in 2019 was influenced in part by statements made by Australian computer scientist Craig Wright. Wright, who has been linked to BSV, claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin's pseudonymous founder. Wright was found guilty of fabricating evidence to back up his accusations earlier this year in a different lawsuit. Wright intends to challenge the ruling. (With inputs from Agencies)

Binance seeks to dismiss the majority of £10 billion London lawsuit

Visa Inc. and Mastercard Inc. have agreed to pay $197 million to resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by millions of consumers. The complaint accused financial payment companies of maintaining unreasonably high cash access costs.<o:p></o:p>

The plaintiffs' lawyers announced the potential settlement in a filing in federal court in Washington DC on Wednesday. The compensation applies to customers who have withdrawn money from bank-operated ATMs since 2007. Two more related class actions involving non-bank ATM users and firms who own independent ATMs are currently proceeding in the same court.<o:p></o:p>

The settlement needs to be approved by the court. Visa will contribute $104.6 million, while Mastercard will pay $92.8 million, according to the settlement papers. Previously, the case's bank defendants agreed to a $66 million settlement. Both Visa and Mastercard have denied any wrongdoing and have yet to reply to demands for comment.<o:p></o:p>

The plaintiffs' lawyers asserted that the settlement will "deliver immediate and assured relief" to the impacted consumers.<o:p></o:p>

The plaintiffs in the three connected actions claimed that Visa and Mastercard's ATM network rules caused them to pay excessive access fees. They were demanding more than $9 billion in damages.<o:p></o:p>

The settlement comes after the US Supreme Court rejected Visa and Mastercard's appeal in April. The firms had contested a lower court's decision to enable the plaintiffs to sue as a class. Visa and Mastercard argued that the judge did not perform a "rigorous analysis" before certifying the class actions.<o:p></o:p>

The proposed settlement class is projected to have at least 175 million members. Consumers will be able to object to the conditions of the settlement, including the settlement fund amount and any legal expenses granted.<o:p></o:p>

Visa and MasterCard are also involved in a second, ongoing legal case in Brooklyn federal court. The complaint contains charges that the corporations overcharged retailers and others for debit and credit card transactions.<o:p></o:p>

(With inputs from Reuters)<o:p></o:p>

Visa Inc. and Mastercard Inc. have agreed to pay $197 million to resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by millions of consumers. The complaint accused financial payment companies of maintaining unreasonably high cash access costs.

Visa Inc. and Mastercard Inc. have agreed to pay $197 million to resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by millions of consumers. The complaint accused financial payment companies of maintaining unreasonably high cash access costs. The plaintiffs' lawyers announced the potential settlement in a filing in federal court in Washington DC on Wednesday. The compensation applies to customers who have withdrawn money from bank-operated ATMs since 2007. Two more related class actions involving non-bank ATM users and firms who own independent ATMs are currently proceeding in the same court. The settlement needs to be approved by the court. Visa will contribute $104.6 million, while Mastercard will pay $92.8 million, according to the settlement papers. Previously, the case's bank defendants agreed to a $66 million settlement. Both Visa and Mastercard have denied any wrongdoing and have yet to reply to demands for comment. The plaintiffs' lawyers asserted that the settlement will "deliver immediate and assured relief" to the impacted consumers. The plaintiffs in the three connected actions claimed that Visa and Mastercard's ATM network rules caused them to pay excessive access fees. They were demanding more than $9 billion in damages. The settlement comes after the US Supreme Court rejected Visa and Mastercard's appeal in April. The firms had contested a lower court's decision to enable the plaintiffs to sue as a class. Visa and Mastercard argued that the judge did not perform a "rigorous analysis" before certifying the class actions. The proposed settlement class is projected to have at least 175 million members. Consumers will be able to object to the conditions of the settlement, including the settlement fund amount and any legal expenses granted. Visa and MasterCard are also involved in a second, ongoing legal case in Brooklyn federal court. The complaint contains charges that the corporations overcharged retailers and others for debit and credit card transactions. (With inputs from Reuters)

Visa and Mastercard settle ATM fee lawsuit for $197 million

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court restored an American Airlines pilot's case challenging the airline's failure to reimburse them for short-term military leave.

The 3rd United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia concluded unanimously, 3-0, that a reasonable jury may find short-term military leave equal to jury duty or bereavement leave, for which American Airlines pays.

The court's decision revives a class action case filed by pilots who took short-term military leave of 16 days or less from January 2013 to October 2021. These leaves averaged 3.3 days, compared to 1.8 days for jury duty and 2.7 days for bereavement leave. Pilots, on the other hand, took short-term military leave more frequently, averaging around 22 days per year, compared to about two days for jury duty and three days for bereavement leave.

Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman remarked that the lengths of these leaves were comparable, and pilots had little or no control over their timing. She said that jurors can see a shared purpose in military and jury duty leave, both of which are based on civic obligation.

The complaint was brought under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, which requires employees on military leave to receive the same benefits as normal employees.

The plaintiffs, led by James Scanlan, a former major general in the United States Air Force Reserve, and Carla Riner, a brigadier general in the Delaware Air National Guard, claimed that American Airlines' policies violated this legislation. American Airlines has declined to comment on the ruling.

Jon Taylor, representing the pilots, hailed the ruling, saying it confirmed Congress' aim that military personnel are not disadvantaged while serving their country. He was optimistic about the approaching trial.

While the appeals court agreed with American Airlines on the pilots' profit-sharing arrangement, the case was remanded to U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III in Philadelphia. In November 2022, Judge Bartle dismissed the claim. The lawsuit began in 2018.

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court restored an American Airlines pilot's case challenging the airline's failure to reimburse them for short-term military leave.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court restored an American Airlines pilot's case challenging the airline's failure to reimburse them for short-term military leave. The 3rd United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia concluded unanimously, 3-0, that a reasonable jury may find short-term military leave equal to jury duty or bereavement leave, for which American Airlines pays. The court's decision revives a class action case filed by pilots who took short-term military leave of 16 days or less from January 2013 to October 2021. These leaves averaged 3.3 days, compared to 1.8 days for jury duty and 2.7 days for bereavement leave. Pilots, on the other hand, took short-term military leave more frequently, averaging around 22 days per year, compared to about two days for jury duty and three days for bereavement leave. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman remarked that the lengths of these leaves were comparable, and pilots had little or no control over their timing. She said that jurors can see a shared purpose in military and jury duty leave, both of which are based on civic obligation. The complaint was brought under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, which requires employees on military leave to receive the same benefits as normal employees. The plaintiffs, led by James Scanlan, a former major general in the United States Air Force Reserve, and Carla Riner, a brigadier general in the Delaware Air National Guard, claimed that American Airlines' policies violated this legislation. American Airlines has declined to comment on the ruling. Jon Taylor, representing the pilots, hailed the ruling, saying it confirmed Congress' aim that military personnel are not disadvantaged while serving their country. He was optimistic about the approaching trial. While the appeals court agreed with American Airlines on the pilots' profit-sharing arrangement, the case was remanded to U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III in Philadelphia. In November 2022, Judge Bartle dismissed the claim. The lawsuit began in 2018. (With inputs from Reuters)

Fed appeals court revives American Airlines pilots' military pay suit

Hershey is facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that consumers were misled into believing that Reese’s peanut butter candies provided a higher level of accuracy than they did.

The lawsuit is a class action involving four Reese consumers from southern Florida who claimed to be "very disappointed" by the lack of colour in the candy products they bought in November 2022.

The plaintiffs—Nathan Vidal, Debra Kennick, Abdjul Martin, and Eduardo Granados—stated that they would not have bought the candies if they had known that there would be fewer "explicit carved out artistic designs" than what was shown on the packaging.

They highlighted differences between the advertised designs and the actual products, such as Halloween pumpkins that were supposed to have eyes and a mouth but were produced without them, and a football-shaped candy that looked like an egg because it lacked the expected stitches.

A lawsuit has been filed in the federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, seeking at least $5 million in damages.

The allegations involve nine types of Reese’s candies, including the Halloween and Christmas editions, as well as Reese’s Peanut Butter footballs and Reese’s Medals.

Responses from both Hershey and its legal representatives are still pending at the time of this writing.

A lawyer in Tampa, Florida filed a second lawsuit in December with a narrower scope compared to the previous one.

The case, which targeted a single defendant, was voluntarily dismissed yesterday.

Additionally, the lawyer has filed legal cases against Burger King and Taco Bell for serving food that did not match their advertising.

(With inputs from Reuters)

Hershey is facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that consumers were misled into believing that Reese’s peanut butter candies provided a higher level of accuracy than they did.

Hershey is facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that consumers were misled into believing that Reese’s peanut butter candies provided a higher level of accuracy than they did. The lawsuit is a class action involving four Reese consumers from southern Florida who claimed to be "very disappointed" by the lack of colour in the candy products they bought in November 2022. The plaintiffs—Nathan Vidal, Debra Kennick, Abdjul Martin, and Eduardo Granados—stated that they would not have bought the candies if they had known that there would be fewer "explicit carved out artistic designs" than what was shown on the packaging. They highlighted differences between the advertised designs and the actual products, such as Halloween pumpkins that were supposed to have eyes and a mouth but were produced without them, and a football-shaped candy that looked like an egg because it lacked the expected stitches. A lawsuit has been filed in the federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, seeking at least $5 million in damages. The allegations involve nine types of Reese’s candies, including the Halloween and Christmas editions, as well as Reese’s Peanut Butter footballs and Reese’s Medals. Responses from both Hershey and its legal representatives are still pending at the time of this writing. A lawyer in Tampa, Florida filed a second lawsuit in December with a narrower scope compared to the previous one. The case, which targeted a single defendant, was voluntarily dismissed yesterday. Additionally, the lawyer has filed legal cases against Burger King and Taco Bell for serving food that did not match their advertising. (With inputs from Reuters)

Hershey faces renewed lawsuit over misleading Reese's packaging

BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager is in hot water with a $20 million lawsuit filed by their former vice president, Hamdan Azhar.

He claims he got fired after speaking up about a colleague's shady dealings and being told to shut down a project that kept tabs on client discussions about sketchy investments, including in China.

Azhar, says that in March 2022, BlackRock told him to stop working on Trend Spotter, a tool he created, and hand over his projects to Rightpoint, where his former boss Tiffany Perkins-Munn's husband worked.

He says his persistent objections to a $2 million contract given to Rightpoint, which he called "shady business," got him fired two months later.

He started developing Trend Spotter in March 2021 during a company event and says it got a lot of attention and praise at BlackRock.

He argues that his firing was payback and not because of his work, as BlackRock claims. But a BlackRock spokesperson denies Azhar's claims, saying, "Trend Spotter was just for summarising client interactions for marketing. It didn't keep an eye on investments and had no compliance features."

Apart from BlackRock, the lawsuit also involves Perkins-Munn and Azhar's new boss, Riaz Hakkim.

Azhar says Hakkim refused to take his concerns about client discussions that Trend Spotter could have monitored seriously, which he thinks were important for BlackRock's public disclosures.

Despite BlackRock's stance, Azhar's lawyer, Subhan Tariq, points out that Azhar was being considered for a top role at BlackRock AI Labs, showing his value to the company.

This lawsuit comes at a time when the bipartisan House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party is looking into whether BlackRock and index provider MSCI helped funnel money into blacklisted Chinese companies.

The committee found that Wall Street directed $6.5 billion in 2023 into 63 Chinese companies flagged by the US government for supporting China's military or committing human rights abuses through index funds.

While not against the law, the committee has called for tighter controls on such investments, and BlackRock says it follows US laws.

Azhar, who joined BlackRock in February 2020 as head of data science for global marketing, is seeking $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages for breaking state labour laws.

Perkins-Munn works at JPMorgan Chase and Hakkim at Fidelity Investments. Neither company has responded to requests for comment.

(With inputs from Reuters)

BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager is in hot water with a $20 million lawsuit filed by their former vice president, Hamdan Azhar. He claims he got fired after speaking up about a colleague's shady dealings and being told to shut down a project that kept tabs on client discussions about sketchy investments, including in China.

BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager is in hot water with a $20 million lawsuit filed by their former vice president, Hamdan Azhar. He claims he got fired after speaking up about a colleague's shady dealings and being told to shut down a project that kept tabs on client discussions about sketchy investments, including in China. Azhar, says that in March 2022, BlackRock told him to stop working on Trend Spotter, a tool he created, and hand over his projects to Rightpoint, where his former boss Tiffany Perkins-Munn's husband worked. He says his persistent objections to a $2 million contract given to Rightpoint, which he called "shady business," got him fired two months later. He started developing Trend Spotter in March 2021 during a company event and says it got a lot of attention and praise at BlackRock. He argues that his firing was payback and not because of his work, as BlackRock claims. But a BlackRock spokesperson denies Azhar's claims, saying, "Trend Spotter was just for summarising client interactions for marketing. It didn't keep an eye on investments and had no compliance features." Apart from BlackRock, the lawsuit also involves Perkins-Munn and Azhar's new boss, Riaz Hakkim. Azhar says Hakkim refused to take his concerns about client discussions that Trend Spotter could have monitored seriously, which he thinks were important for BlackRock's public disclosures. Despite BlackRock's stance, Azhar's lawyer, Subhan Tariq, points out that Azhar was being considered for a top role at BlackRock AI Labs, showing his value to the company. This lawsuit comes at a time when the bipartisan House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party is looking into whether BlackRock and index provider MSCI helped funnel money into blacklisted Chinese companies. The committee found that Wall Street directed $6.5 billion in 2023 into 63 Chinese companies flagged by the US government for supporting China's military or committing human rights abuses through index funds. While not against the law, the committee has called for tighter controls on such investments, and BlackRock says it follows US laws. Azhar, who joined BlackRock in February 2020 as head of data science for global marketing, is seeking $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages for breaking state labour laws. Perkins-Munn works at JPMorgan Chase and Hakkim at Fidelity Investments. Neither company has responded to requests for comment. (With inputs from Reuters)

BlackRock faces $20 million lawsuit from whistleblowing ex-Vice President

Megan Thee Stallion has landed herself in legal trouble as a former cameraman has accused her of harassment. The hip-hop star has been accused of creating a 'hostile, abusive work environment." 
 
The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, names Megan Pete (the rapper’s real name)and Megan Thee Stallion Entertainment, Inc., Hot Girl Touring, LLC, and Roc Nation as defendants. 
 
The lawsuit claims the star and the company have violated several labour codes and alleges that the cameraman was not properly compensated for his work. 
 
According to the complaint, cameraman Emilio Garcia, was hired in July 2018 and misclassified as an independent contractor. This misclassification denied him protections under California law, including health care and overtime pay. 
 
In August 2022, Roc Nation changed its compensation structure to a pay-per-task system, but Garcia alleges that time expectations and demands remained the same even though the pay decreased significantly. He also claims that Megan prohibited him from working with other clients.

One particularly disturbing incident mentioned in the complaint occurred during a night out in Ibiza, Spain, in June 2022. 
 
Garcia alleges that while riding in an SUV with three other women, Megan and one of the women were “having sex right beside” him. 
 
The ex-cameraman claims that he “could not get out of the car as it was both moving and he was in the middle of nowhere in a foreign country” and felt “embarrassed, mortified, and offended throughout the whole ordeal.”

“I felt uncomfortable. I was kind of frozen, and I was shocked. At kind of just be the overall audacity to do this right, right beside me,” Garcia told NBC News.

Garcia also accuses Megan of fat-shaming him. He claims that she called him a “fat bitch” and told him to “spit (his) food out” because “you don’t need to be eating ”.

He expressed, “To hear someone who advocates about loving your body tell me this thing. I felt degraded.”

Garcia’s employment with Roc Nation was terminated in June 2023, which he believes was retaliation for voicing complaints about labour and wage violations.

Megan Thee Stallion has landed herself in legal trouble as a former cameraman has accused her of harassment. The hip-hop star has been accused of creating a 'hostile, abusive work environment.

Megan Thee Stallion has landed herself in legal trouble as a former cameraman has accused her of harassment. The hip-hop star has been accused of creating a 'hostile, abusive work environment." The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, names Megan Pete (the rapper’s real name)and Megan Thee Stallion Entertainment, Inc., Hot Girl Touring, LLC, and Roc Nation as defendants. The lawsuit claims the star and the company have violated several labour codes and alleges that the cameraman was not properly compensated for his work. According to the complaint, cameraman Emilio Garcia, was hired in July 2018 and misclassified as an independent contractor. This misclassification denied him protections under California law, including health care and overtime pay. In August 2022, Roc Nation changed its compensation structure to a pay-per-task system, but Garcia alleges that time expectations and demands remained the same even though the pay decreased significantly. He also claims that Megan prohibited him from working with other clients. One particularly disturbing incident mentioned in the complaint occurred during a night out in Ibiza, Spain, in June 2022. Garcia alleges that while riding in an SUV with three other women, Megan and one of the women were “having sex right beside” him. The ex-cameraman claims that he “could not get out of the car as it was both moving and he was in the middle of nowhere in a foreign country” and felt “embarrassed, mortified, and offended throughout the whole ordeal.” “I felt uncomfortable. I was kind of frozen, and I was shocked. At kind of just be the overall audacity to do this right, right beside me,” Garcia told NBC News. Garcia also accuses Megan of fat-shaming him. He claims that she called him a “fat bitch” and told him to “spit (his) food out” because “you don’t need to be eating ”. He expressed, “To hear someone who advocates about loving your body tell me this thing. I felt degraded.” Garcia’s employment with Roc Nation was terminated in June 2023, which he believes was retaliation for voicing complaints about labour and wage violations.

Megan Thee Stallion accused of workplace harassment by former cameraman

An Italian court has approved a new defamation lawsuit filed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni against a historian who referred to her as a "neo-Nazi at heart".

Luciano Canfora, an 81-year-old leftist classicist, made the statement during a school debate in Bari, Italy, in April 2022, prior to Meloni assuming office following a big electoral victory by her party, Brothers of Italy. The trial is scheduled to begin on October 7.

<h2>Past instances</h2>

Previously, Meloni successfully sued journalist Roberto Saviano for slamming&nbsp;her immigration policies in December 2020, resulting in a suspended fine of $1,063.

She has also filed a lawsuit against the lead singer of the British rock band Placebo for calling&nbsp;her&nbsp;"racist" and "fascist" during a performance in Italy in July 2023.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/giorgia-meloni-sues-father-son-duo-aged-40-and-73-over-pornographic-deepfake-seeks-eu100000-in-damages-702610">Also read |&nbsp;Giorgia Meloni sues father-son duo over pornographic deepfake</a>

Meloni shared a video of Canfora's remarks on Facebook, condemning them as "unacceptable" and akin to "propaganda" targeted at young students.

In anticipation of the court hearing in Bari, Canfora, a former professor renowned in Italy for his expertise in Greek and Latin philology, remained steadfast in his position. He explained that by using the term "neo-Nazi," he intended to evoke certain ideological tendencies rather than directly accusing Meloni of criminal actions.

Canfora pointed to Meloni's own words in her autobiography, where she acknowledged aligning herself with post-war far-right figures like Giorgio Almirante, a co-founder of the now-defunct Italian Social Movement (MSI) and a supporter of Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime.

Also watch |&nbsp;Artificial intelligence to be key G7 issue for Italy: Giorgia Meloni

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/artificial-intelligence-to-be-key-g7-issue-for-italy-giorgia-meloni-676743/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Despite this, Meloni stated upon assuming office that she never supported undemocratic regimes, including Fascism.

Many&nbsp;Italian and foreign intellectuals have rallied behind Canfora, with publications like the French newspaper Liberation organising a petition in his support.

(With inputs from agencies)

An Italian court has approved a new defamation lawsuit filed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni against a historian who referred to her as a "neo-Nazi at heart". Luciano Canfora, an 81-year-old leftist classicist, made the statement during a school debate in Bari, Italy, in April 2022, prior to Meloni assuming office following a big electoral victory by her party, Brothers of Italy.

An Italian court has approved a new defamation lawsuit filed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni against a historian who referred to her as a "neo-Nazi at heart". Luciano Canfora, an 81-year-old leftist classicist, made the statement during a school debate in Bari, Italy, in April 2022, prior to Meloni assuming office following a big electoral victory by her party, Brothers of Italy. The trial is scheduled to begin on October 7. Past instances Previously, Meloni successfully sued journalist Roberto Saviano for slamming her immigration policies in December 2020, resulting in a suspended fine of $1,063. She has also filed a lawsuit against the lead singer of the British rock band Placebo for calling her "racist" and "fascist" during a performance in Italy in July 2023. Also read | Giorgia Meloni sues father-son duo over pornographic deepfake Meloni shared a video of Canfora's remarks on Facebook, condemning them as "unacceptable" and akin to "propaganda" targeted at young students. In anticipation of the court hearing in Bari, Canfora, a former professor renowned in Italy for his expertise in Greek and Latin philology, remained steadfast in his position. He explained that by using the term "neo-Nazi," he intended to evoke certain ideological tendencies rather than directly accusing Meloni of criminal actions. Canfora pointed to Meloni's own words in her autobiography, where she acknowledged aligning herself with post-war far-right figures like Giorgio Almirante, a co-founder of the now-defunct Italian Social Movement (MSI) and a supporter of Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime. Also watch | Artificial intelligence to be key G7 issue for Italy: Giorgia Meloni Despite this, Meloni stated upon assuming office that she never supported undemocratic regimes, including Fascism. Many Italian and foreign intellectuals have rallied behind Canfora, with publications like the French newspaper Liberation organising a petition in his support. (With inputs from agencies)

Italy PM Giorgia Meloni sues historian for calling her ‘neo-Nazi at heart’

Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta are facing a $4.5-billion lawsuit from four Ontario school boards for allegedly hurting students, interfering with their learning, and harming their mental health, leaving educators to “manage the fallout,” according to a local news report.

All four cases were separately filed by the public boards of Toronto, Peel, Ottawa, and the Toronto Catholic Board and are represented by Neinstein LLP.&nbsp;

<h2>Why are the school boards suing Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta?</h2>

Social media apps are designed for compulsive use (and) have rewired the way children think, behave, and learn,&nbsp;say their statements of claim. The plaintiff's statement of claim also says that the social media companies have knowingly and negligently disrupted and fundamentally changed the school, learning, and teaching climate.

Colleen Russell-Rawlins, director of education at the Toronto District School Board, told the Toronto Star, "We're managing mental health challenges, loneliness and … discrimination — the slurs that we're seeing students use, some of that emanates from what's on social media."

"The defendants knew, or ought to have known, that their negligent conduct seriously and negatively impacts the student population by causing maladaptive brain development, compulsive use, disrupted sleep patterns, behavioural dysregulation, learning and attention impairment, and other serious issues that impact the school, learning, and teaching climate," the statements of claim reads.

<h2>Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta face lawsuits in the U.S</h2>

Over 500 school districts in the U.S. have launched similar cases now against these platforms. In January 2024, CEOs of Meta, TikTok, and X among other companies testified in a US court hearing. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who chairs the committee said, “They’re responsible for many of the dangers our children face online. Their design choices, their failures to adequately invest in trust and safety, their constant pursuit of engagement and profit over basic safety have all put our kids and grandkids at risk.”

On March 25, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that bans children under the age of 14 from social media platforms. The bill also requires children aged 14 and 15 to get parental consent for using social media platforms.

 
&nbsp;

Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta are facing a $4.5-billion lawsuit from four Ontario school boards for allegedly hurting students, interfering with their learning, and harming their mental health, leaving educators to “manage the fallout,” according to a local news report.

Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta are facing a $4.5-billion lawsuit from four Ontario school boards for allegedly hurting students, interfering with their learning, and harming their mental health, leaving educators to “manage the fallout,” according to a local news report. All four cases were separately filed by the public boards of Toronto, Peel, Ottawa, and the Toronto Catholic Board and are represented by Neinstein LLP. Why are the school boards suing Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta? Social media apps are designed for compulsive use (and) have rewired the way children think, behave, and learn, say their statements of claim. The plaintiff's statement of claim also says that the social media companies have knowingly and negligently disrupted and fundamentally changed the school, learning, and teaching climate. Colleen Russell-Rawlins, director of education at the Toronto District School Board, told the Toronto Star, "We're managing mental health challenges, loneliness and … discrimination — the slurs that we're seeing students use, some of that emanates from what's on social media." "The defendants knew, or ought to have known, that their negligent conduct seriously and negatively impacts the student population by causing maladaptive brain development, compulsive use, disrupted sleep patterns, behavioural dysregulation, learning and attention impairment, and other serious issues that impact the school, learning, and teaching climate," the statements of claim reads. Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta face lawsuits in the U.S Over 500 school districts in the U.S. have launched similar cases now against these platforms. In January 2024, CEOs of Meta, TikTok, and X among other companies testified in a US court hearing. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who chairs the committee said, “They’re responsible for many of the dangers our children face online. Their design choices, their failures to adequately invest in trust and safety, their constant pursuit of engagement and profit over basic safety have all put our kids and grandkids at risk.” On March 25, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that bans children under the age of 14 from social media platforms. The bill also requires children aged 14 and 15 to get parental consent for using social media platforms.

Canada school boards file $4.5 billion lawsuit against Snapchat, TikTok, Meta for 'deliberately' harming kids

Six couples in Japan have taken legal action against the government, aiming to secure the right to maintain separate surnames after marriage.

Timed to coincide with International Women's Day, the lawsuit challenges laws established since the 19th century, which mandate that married couples must adopt either the husband's or the wife's surname, with approximately 95 per cent&nbsp;choosing the husband's.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sharp-surge-in-female-genital-mutilation-cases-latest-data-shows-698099">Sharp surge in female genital mutilation cases, latest data shows</a>

Advocates argue that beyond the bureaucratic challenges of altering names on official documents, this practice hampers the careers of women and impacts various rights related to children, inheritance, and taxation.

One plaintiff, a 50-year-old woman who chose to remain anonymous, shared her experience of living with her partner for 17 years and raising a teenage daughter without formal marriage.

Both partners resisted changing their surnames, but the absence of legal marriage creates potential complications, such as challenges in becoming a legal heir or consenting to medical procedures.

Another couple, Yukio Koike, 66, and Yukari Uchiyama, 56, opted for repeated marriages and divorces for each of their three children to secure joint custody rights while respecting individual identities.

Filed in the Tokyo District Court and Sapporo, the lawsuit seeks a declaration of the government's failure to amend the law as illegal, along with compensation of ¥500,000 ($3,400) per plaintiff.

Lead lawyer Makiko Terahara highlighted the unique trade-off relationship in Japan, where choosing a surname during marriage necessitates giving up the other.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-92-rupert-murdoch-plans-his-fifth-wedding-with-molecular-biologist-elena-zhukova-697986">At 92, Rupert Murdoch plans his fifth wedding, this time with molecular biologist Elena Zhukova</a>

While Japan's Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the existing law, it has encouraged lawmakers to explore more flexible alternatives in response to growing demands for change.

Advocates for maintaining the current laws argue that a single family name is vital for fostering family ties, and view&nbsp;efforts to revise these rules as an assault on traditional values. Recent support for introducing the option of separate surnames has emerged, with Masakazu Tokura, head of Japan's influential business lobby Keidanren, expressing support for the change.

The debate reflects a broader societal shift and increasing calls for flexibility in Japan's traditional approach to marital naming conventions.

(With inputs from agencies)

Six couples in Japan have taken legal action against the government, aiming to secure the right to maintain separate surnames after marriage. Timed to coincide with International Women's Day, the lawsuit challenges laws established since the 19th century, which mandate that married couples must adopt either the husband's or the wife's surname, with approximately 95 per cent choosing the husband's.

Six couples in Japan have taken legal action against the government, aiming to secure the right to maintain separate surnames after marriage. Timed to coincide with International Women's Day, the lawsuit challenges laws established since the 19th century, which mandate that married couples must adopt either the husband's or the wife's surname, with approximately 95 per cent choosing the husband's. Also read: Sharp surge in female genital mutilation cases, latest data shows Advocates argue that beyond the bureaucratic challenges of altering names on official documents, this practice hampers the careers of women and impacts various rights related to children, inheritance, and taxation. One plaintiff, a 50-year-old woman who chose to remain anonymous, shared her experience of living with her partner for 17 years and raising a teenage daughter without formal marriage. Both partners resisted changing their surnames, but the absence of legal marriage creates potential complications, such as challenges in becoming a legal heir or consenting to medical procedures. Another couple, Yukio Koike, 66, and Yukari Uchiyama, 56, opted for repeated marriages and divorces for each of their three children to secure joint custody rights while respecting individual identities. Filed in the Tokyo District Court and Sapporo, the lawsuit seeks a declaration of the government's failure to amend the law as illegal, along with compensation of ¥500,000 ($3,400) per plaintiff. Lead lawyer Makiko Terahara highlighted the unique trade-off relationship in Japan, where choosing a surname during marriage necessitates giving up the other. Also read: At 92, Rupert Murdoch plans his fifth wedding, this time with molecular biologist Elena Zhukova While Japan's Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the existing law, it has encouraged lawmakers to explore more flexible alternatives in response to growing demands for change. Advocates for maintaining the current laws argue that a single family name is vital for fostering family ties, and view efforts to revise these rules as an assault on traditional values. Recent support for introducing the option of separate surnames has emerged, with Masakazu Tokura, head of Japan's influential business lobby Keidanren, expressing support for the change. The debate reflects a broader societal shift and increasing calls for flexibility in Japan's traditional approach to marital naming conventions. (With inputs from agencies)

Japanese couples file lawsuit to pursue separate surnames in rare break from tradition

lawsuit

Lawsuit, News on Lawsuit, stories on Lawsuit, articles on Lawsuit, Lawsuit stories at Wion, Lawsuit news, Lawsuit latest news