Deceptive Advertising? There’s a Lawsuit for That.

Only about a month after a Verizon ad (see video below) first aired during Monday Night Football, AT&T filed a lawsuit claiming that their competitor’s not-so-thinly-veiled jabs at AT&T’s cellular coverage were misleading to the point of deceptive trade practice.

(video link — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU&feature=player_embedded

The ad parodied the popular “There’s an App for That” iPhone commercial by pointing out that if you’re wondering why some people have better cell phone coverage than others, “there’s a map for that.” The ad included images of maps of the United States with highlighted areas denoting 3G (“third generation”) network coverage – red for Verizon and blue for AT&T. The vast amount of white space amidst the blue dots was intended to show that AT&T had inferior coverage.

AT&T’s complaint was not that the maps were inaccurate, but that they implied that customers would be “out of touch” completely in the blank areas, which is not the case, as their normal cellular service is available even where 3G coverage is not.

However, an Atlanta federal judge apparently disagreed with this assessment, stating that he found no evidence of inaccuracy in the ads, and subsequently denied the request for an injunction that would halt the ads.

The issue here was one of perception, which is always tricky to prove legally – but of course, perception can be everything when it comes to branding, especially during the holiday shopping season. AT&T does have another shot in a hearing set for December 16, but stopping the ads at that point may be too late for any damage done. With Black Friday just a short time ago, Verizon has even rolled out another ad that gets into the holiday spirit – depicting the iPhone as the newest inhabitant of the island of misfit toys, thanks to that same spotty 3G map.

So were consumers really confused by the ad, or is Verizon right in claiming that AT&T is just litigating because “the truth hurts”? Considering the popularity of the iPhone for the past few holiday seasons, the answer might be in both companies’ bottom lines come January.

Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

With the growth of online social networks has come a barrage of new ways to communicate with friends – or even enemies. One such method is a feature on the social networking site Facebook called a “poke.” Receiving a poke from another Facebook user is both a simplistic and ambiguous message, as it conveys no other information than that it was sent.

However, simplistic or not, this is still a form of communication – which means that it is very likely enough to violate a restraining order. A Tennessee woman recently learned this lesson the hard way when she was arrested for allegedly violating an order of protection when she sent a Facebook poke.

Of course, the order of protection itself is fairly unambiguous, stipulating “no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner.” As cyberstalking is becoming an increasingly prominent problem, not only with respect to strangers but also in domestic violence cases, judges are often quick to remind respondents that this includes electronic communication as well – no texts, no emails, and apparently, no pokes.

In Tennessee, violating an order of protection is a Class A misdemeanor, which means that the maximum jail sentence is 11 months and 29 days; it also carries a possible fine of up to $2,500.

Did the Tennessee woman in question realize that a “poke” would violate the order of protection? Perhaps this case is a reminder that changing technology can quickly affect legal issues; the number of ways that we are “otherwise communicating” with each other seems to increase every day.

Accused Mugger Exonerated by Facebook Alibi

When 19-year-old Rodney Bradford was arrested for a mugging at gunpoint in Brooklyn, he claimed that he was innocent – that he couldn’t have committed the crime, because at 11:50 a.m. when the robbery occurred he was at his father’s home in Harlem. Whereas the statements of his family may not have been as convincing, there was one witness to his alibi that the prosecutors found compelling: Facebook.

Bradford posted a status update on the social networking site at 11:49 a.m. When his lawyer brought this to the district attorney’s attention, Facebook was subpoenaed to verify that the update had indeed been sent from Harlem. Thus, what otherwise would have been just one of a number of seemingly unimportant updates became something critical – an alibi.

Though social networking activity has been included as evidence in criminal cases (for example, the burglar who logged onto Facebook on his victim’s computer), lawyers say that this seems to be the first instance of a Facebook message serving as an alibi. However, with use of the site becoming increasingly prevalent, this sort of legal issue use may be more common in the future.

It is of course conceivable that an Internet user could falsify whereabouts using a social networking site. The simplest way would be to give someone else one’s username and password to post an update from elsewhere. Whereas investigators can verify where an update comes from, verifying who was actually at the computer is a much more difficult problem.

So how much should law enforcement and prosecutors be weighing this type of evidence? With a society of increasingly sophisticated Internet users, technology is showing up more and more in the courtroom – but this means that it could possibly be misused as well.

Net Neutrality: Does the Internet Need Saving?

This blog, like millions of other types of content on the Internet, is not provided by a large corporation. However, the speed of your connection is likely the same as when you surf over to a big corporate website. This is because in the United States there is generally network neutrality – meaning that Internet providers such as AT&T or Comcast don’t decide which websites go faster or slower. Some broadband companies have proposed changing this by charging content providers extra in return for their content having access to the fast lane in the information superhighway.

For the past five years or so there has been a lot of lobbying to Congress on both sides of the issue. Advocates of network neutrality want the government to step in and make rules against Internet providers implementing such changes. The issue is becoming more in the public eye as well, as organizations like the Save the Internet coalition have banded people together to speak out in favor of net neutrality.

So what is the latest on this hot button legal issue? At the end of October, the FCC proposed formal rules about net neutrality. The proposal is now open for public comment until March, at which point the FCC will decide whether to take action. For neutrality supporters, it seems like this is a step in the right direction.

However, a group of highly influential legal scholars (including Larry Lessig and Tim Wu, who have both famously supported net neutrality) wrote in a letter to the Chairman of the FCC that “ambiguity” in the proposed language might leave loopholes for broadband providers to exploit in order to skirt the rules. For example, the proposal states that any rules would allow for “reasonable” network management; without a definition of “reasonable,” Internet providers could possibly hang their hats on their long-standing argument that net neutrality would impede their ability to protect against malware and congestion.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers are already coming out against the FCC stepping in. A House Rep from Tennessee has introduced a bill that would prohibit the FCC from “needlessly imposing regulations on the Internet.”

How could a resolution of this issue affect you? Whereas it is often characterized as coming down to a battle between, for example, AT&T and Google, any changes in the speed or structure of the Internet will affect every user. For organizations like Save the Internet, the warning seems to be: when it comes to net neutrality, you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.

Former Sears Employee Receives $6.2M in Discrimination Suit

Sears Holdings Corp. has agreed to pay $6.2 million to a disabled worker after allegedly firing him illegally. This record settlement was the largest ever for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that investigates discrimination complaints and files lawsuits on behalf of victims.

Filed in 2004, the lawsuit stated that after John Bava was injured during the course of his job as a repair technician for Sears, the company fired him at the expiration of his workers’ compensation leave. At the age of 58, Bava fell down a flight of stairs at a customer’s home, injuring his back, knees, and wrist. He said that he only found out that he had been fired when his wife’s discount card was rejected.

EEOC released documents during discovery that pointed to hundreds of other employees who faced termination in similar situations; the agency alleged that Sears did not consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed these injured employees to return to their jobs.

As part of the settlement, a federal judge is requiring Sears to amend its workers’ compensation leave policy to ensure that it abides by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA was enacted in 1990. Title I of the act covers employment, and provides that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, termination, workers’ compensation, job training, and other aspects of employment.

Was Sears in the wrong when it came to firing Mr. Bava? At the very least, Sears seemed to think that it wasn’t worth the risk; the company spokesperson stated that the settlement was a way to avoid the time and expense of what could have been a lengthy litigation process.

Of course, it is possible that Mr. Bava’s case could provide precedent for future lawsuits that involve workers’ compensation leave. An attorney for EEOC noted in a statement that the settlement is a “bright line marker” for the fact that “inflexible leave policies” are a violation of federal law. But what constitutes “inflexible”? Could the alterations that Sears makes to its policies provide a benchmark for companies that want to do “just enough” to abide by the ADA? Given the publicity surrounding this case, now might be a good time to examine those company policies.

Baby Einstein Not So Smart: Disney Offers Refunds Following Legal Threats

The Baby Einstein line of multimedia products, launched in 1997 and sold in 2000 to Disney, made lofty claims about how the developmental videos would “facilitate the development of the brain in infants.” However, in recent years the company has scaled back those promises considerably, in part due to allegations of false advertising. Particularly after the American Academy of Pediatrics discouraged television viewing in children under the age of two, there have been questions about whether the videos do more harm than good – and whether consumers have been misled.

In 2006, Disney dropped the term “educational” from the products’ marketing materials when the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) group filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), alleging false and deceptive advertising. The FTC is an independent government agency that promotes consumer protection.

Later that same year, academic studies surfaced revealing that baby videos like those in the Disney line could actually lead to a decrease in language acquisition for toddlers and infants. The FTC subsequently decided that the science was inconclusive, and since Disney had already watered down their marketing campaign (removing overt claims that the videos would improve child development), the agency took no action.

However, it was more recently when CCFC threatened Disney with a class-action lawsuit that the company took the step of offering refunds to customers. Disney is offering refunds or exchanges for any consumers “not satisfied” with their Baby Einstein DVDs that were purchased between June 5, 2004 and September 4, 2009.

Though Disney isn’t admitting any wrongdoing, this is a reminder that consumers are smart to be on their toes about potentially deceptive advertising. Though DVDs might be fairly harmless, something like drugs may not be.

“The Hills” Stars Stalker is Out of Jail But Restrained

Audrina Patridge, one of the stars of MTV’s reality show “The Hills,” reported an alledged stalking last month to Los Angeles police. Twenty-four-year-old Zachary Loring appeared at her home numerous times and also gave her a packet of letters and drawings, including an illustration of a woman being strangled.

Loring first appeared at Patridge’s home on August 26 and returned over a period of several days. He was arrested on August 30 and released from custody a day later. A judge subsequently granted Patridge a restraining order against the alleged stalker. However, the order was served to Loring while he was in jail yet again, after being arrested a week later on unrelated charges – two outstanding warrants that were issued when he failed to appear at court-ordered anger management classes.

Loring has since been released again, under the condition that he finishes the classes as ordered. Out of jail, he can now go wherever he likes – as long as it is at least 100 feet away from Patridge.

However, Patridge has had more trouble recently than just Loring. Another man, 18-year-old Nicholas Prugo, was recently arrested on suspicion of burglary, in connection with break-ins at the home of Patridge as well as actress Lindsey Lohan.

Patridge’s attorney has noted that she is traveling temporarily, as she fears for her safety in LA. This may be understandable, as stalking has been a persistent problem in Hollywood. In fact, California was the first state to criminalize stalking in 1990 after a number of high-profile cases. The most well-known of these is the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by an obsessed fan who stalked her for three years leading up to her untimely death.

Every state now lists stalking as a crime. A government report released earlier this year estimates that approximately 14 out of 1000 adults is a victim of stalking – over 3 million during a 12-month period.

Lawsuits Mounting in Zinc Poisoning from Denture Cream

Lawsuits are mounting as consumers who have been using denture cream for years, or even decades, are being diagnosed with severely debilitating neurological disorders. PoliGrip lawyers have already filed several individual and class action lawsuits against the large drug corporation GlaxoSmithKline, makers of the Super PoliGrip product line. Unfortunately, users of their major competitor Fixodent, from Proctor & Gamble, are being diagnosed with painful diseases and maladies as well. Although the companies have reaffirmed that their products are safe for daily use, some believe that they may lead many people to spend the rest of their lives in constant pain, unable to walk or hold objects in their hands.

Victims of denture cream injury allege that both GlaxoSmithKline and Proctor & Gamble failed consumers in several ways by:

* Not adequately warning customers about potential risks
* Not adequately examining the dangers associated with regular use over time
* Not properly labeling products about the existence of metallic ingredients

Even though they still claim that proper use is not dangerous, both companies have responded to these accusations on their websites, and have agreed to create packaging and labeling that warns users about possible risks associated with what they call “overuse.” They claim that their lines of denture cream adhesive are only dangerous if too much paste is applied to the dentures.

The problem is that many people cannot afford to purchase dental prosthetics that fit properly. Since they have less money to spend on their teeth, they have older, worn dentures that slip or slide around in the mouth when they talk or eat. The cheapest solution to the problem is to use a thicker layer of denture adhesive. Some victims have used up to three tubes of product per week for years, thinking that it was a safe, cheap alternative to an expensive new oral corrective device.

But none of the victims thought for a moment that using their dental bonding agent would eventually lead to a painful denture cream side effect. In fact, The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t even require the companies to label their packaging to warn users that regular use may eventually cause illness.

This is especially troubling since a 2008 study published in the Journal of Neurology positively linked zinc, a major ingredient of the adhesives, to the PoliGrip nerve damage and Fixodent side effects.

Fixodent denture cream, as well as in Super PoliGrip, includes zinc as a major ingredient for two reasons. First, it is a binding agent, so it helps hold dentures in place. But it also contains odor-controlling properties, which is excellent for maintaining fresh breath for users.

The study published in the Journal of Neurology shows that zinc can seep from the paste into the gums, where it is absorbed into the blood stream. It is important to note that the human body needs zinc. However, the amount required is very small and can be obtained readily from a proper diet. This amount, when kept in proper balance, helps keep the immune system operating effectively.

But too much of anything in the body has negative effects, and regular use of the denture creams may allow too much of the metal into the body, causing zinc toxicity. Obvious symptoms include:

- Numbness in extremities, especially legs
- Tingling in extremities, especially legs
- Loss of balance
- Loss of feeling or sensation
- Unexplained pain anywhere in the body
- Decreased or shrunken walking stride
- Increased falling or stumbling
- Loss of strength in legs or feet

Over time, as the substance accumulates in the body, victims start to show signs of a zinc overdose, which includes the neurological problems listed above.

Although it can be effectively treated if caught early, zinc poisoning can be a life-long battle with pain for discomfort. The symptoms vary in severity, with some people saying it feels like they are wearing an invisible glove or sock, while others spend the rest of their lives in wheelchairs, unable to walk.

Either way, if your doctor determines that you are exhibiting the symptoms above, and that they may be the result of using denture cream, contact a lawyer immediately. You may be able to pursue a personal or class action lawsuit against the company that made your dental adhesive.

“Balloon Boy” Drama Could Land Family in Court

Two decades ago, the world watched as rescuers worked for days to free 18-month old Jessica McClure (from then known as “Baby Jessica”) from the bottom of a well. At the time, CNN was a relatively new news outlet, and their around-the-clock coverage of the event contributed to the market niche that the network formed for itself. However, the “media circus” of the event also prompted some criticism.

Now, twenty-two years later almost to the day, the world watched again, fearing for the life of a six-year-old boy as a giant balloon floated for fifty miles – only to discover that the “Balloon Boy,” as the media dubbed him, was not actually inside. The sheriff in Larimer County, Colorado where the family lives has since called the incident a “hoax,” alleging that the entire event was staged. It turns out that the family may have learned something from Baby Jessica and similar situations that followed – that a child in trouble is a very good way to get media attention. In fact, a researcher has come forward stating that he helped the boy’s parents develop a plan for a reality TV show earlier this year, a plan that may have included “drumming up media interest” with a launched weather balloon.

The sheriff stated in a press conference on Sunday that he expects to file charges in the case. So what legal trouble could the family be in if the allegations of a hoax are true? The potential charges mentioned include conspiracy, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempting to influence a public servant. These are all felonies, though the sheriff also says that he will recommend a charge of filing a false police report, a misdemeanor.

Both of the felony charges would be somewhat unusual applications of the laws; for example, contributing to the delinquency of a minor typically involves situations like keeping a child out of school or allowing a child to be involved in the sale or use of drugs. If the allegations of a hoax are proven true, should the family face criminal charges? What about restitution to the government for the expense of a rescue attempt? After all, it was more than just the public who were “taken for a ride” in this situation; the authorities may have been as well.Both of the felony charges would be somewhat unusual applications of the laws; for example, contributing to the delinquency of a minor typically involves situations like keeping a child out of school or allowing a child to be involved in the sale or use of drugs. If the allegations of a hoax are proven true, should the family face criminal charges? What about restitution to the government for the expense of a rescue attempt? After all, it was more than just the public who were “taken for a ride” in this situation; the authorities may have been as well.

Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

With the growth of online social networks has come a barrage of new ways to communicate with friends – or even enemies. One such method is a feature on the social networking site Facebook called a “poke.” Receiving a poke from another Facebook user is both a simplistic and ambiguous message, as it conveys no other information than that it was sent.

However, simplistic or not, this is still a form of communication – which means that it is very likely enough to violate a restraining order. A Tennessee woman recently learned this lesson the hard way when she was arrested for allegedly violating an order of protection when she sent a Facebook poke.

Of course, the order of protection itself is fairly unambiguous, stipulating “no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner.” As cyberstalking is becoming an increasingly prominent problem, not only with respect to strangers but also in domestic violence cases, judges are often quick to remind respondents that this includes electronic communication as well – no texts, no emails, and apparently, no pokes.

In Tennessee, violating an order of protection is a Class A misdemeanor, which means that the maximum jail sentence is 11 months and 29 days; it also carries a possible fine of up to $2,500.

Did the Tennessee woman in question realize that a “poke” would violate the order of protection? Perhaps this case is a reminder that changing technology can quickly affect legal issues; the number of ways that we are “otherwise communicating” with each other seems to increase every day.
Bookmark and Share.