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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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

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

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?

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?