Back in 2005, FedEx drivers filed the first of many misclassification lawsuits by drivers for that company. Now, as a whole new generation of employers is being accused of misclassifying their workers, the delivery company has proposed a settlement with its former independent contractor drivers. The lawsuits were combined in a single case in Indiana, and involved 12,000 drivers from 20 states. [More]
Was Uber trying to deliberately trick its drivers when it sent out a new driver agreement, or just trying to make its contract provisions clearer? While the company’s attorneys claim that the new driver contract wouldn’t actually preclude drivers still working for them from taking part in the California lawsuit or other lawsuits against them, the attorney for the affected drivers disagrees. [More]
A federal judge yesterday bench slapped the Recording Industry of America, calling a jury’s $675,000 verdict against file sharer Joel Tenenbaum both eye-popping and unconstitutional. The judge struck a strikingly populist tone in reducing the verdict to $67,500, arguing that the same legal reasoning that protects large corporations from excessive punitive damages also protects “ordinary people” like Tenenbaum.
Recalls are imprecise and never fully successful, but how can they be improved? Jeff Gelles of the Philadelphia Inquirer took a look at the recall problem with snow throwers manufactured by a company called MTD, and sold under Yard Machines, Troy-Bilt, and Craftsman brands. The snow throwers used plastic wheel rims which sometimes exploded, so in 2006 the company cooperated with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and announced a recall.
A woman who was allegedly raped while working for Halliburton/Kellogg Brown & Root in Iraq will have her civil claims heard in court, not by a company-selected arbitrator, thanks to a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Last month, the Minnesota Attorney General brought an oppressive arbitration regime to its knees. Nation Arbitration Forum handled over 200,000 arbitrations per year. But many of those cases will end up in the 50 states’ district courts, where consumers may fare no better.
A Boston jury yesterday ruled that file sharer Joel Tenenbaum would have to pay the Recording Industry of America $675,000 for sharing 30 copyrighted songs. The hefty award was all the more surprising because Tenenbaum was represented by a crack team of legal eagles from Harvard’s law school. The trial didn’t unfold nearly the way they planned…
The perils of forced arbitration and the need for the Arbitration Fairness Act were recently featured on an NPR piece. The story discusses the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, the former Halliburton employee who was gang raped in Iraq by her coworkers, then was sent to arbitration when she tried to sue her employer.
Most definitely copying what they’ve learned from the badass HBO show “The Wire,” law enforcement agencies are using wire taps to catch bad guys in the cleverest of ways.
Meet Michelle. We met Michelle at Arbitration Fairness Day and she told us about being forced into arbitration when she tried to get her poorly constructed home repaired. Now she’d like to share her story with you.
Two recent Supreme Court cases on federal pre-emption have made a mess of tort law, confusing and endangering consumers by holding that a patient who is injured by a dangerous drug can sue the manufacturer, but a patient injured by a dangerous medical device cannot. How this happened, and what to do about it, inside.
Mandatory binding arbitration agreements are bad for consumers for so many reasons that, unless you’re the victim of one, it’s hard to keep track of the various ways you can be screwed. So we’ve come up with this helpful illustration: a choose-your-own-adventure-styled trip through the arbitration process.
The Wall Street Journal and Ars Technica are reporting that the RIAA has announced a fairly dramatic change in its strategy to fight piracy.
A class-action lawsuit has been filed in California against Verizon and several third-party companies, alleging that they promoted illegal gambling by enticing customers to pay to enter contests in which there was an “infinitesimally” small chance of winning, reports RCRWireless. “The suit centers on 99-cent charges levied on wireless consumers who played contests associated with popular TV shows like ‘Deal or No Deal’ and ‘Sole Survivor.'” The plaintiffs claim that the contests were less promotional sweepstakes than “illegal lotteries designed to generate revenues far in excess of the value of the cash awarded.”
ber-lawyers. The CSR explained as he typed that he was listing Tony’s reason for canceling as: “Customer… lacks… the… courage… to… stay… with… us… due… to… litigation.” Tony’s letter to Vonage, after the jump:
Don’t try to sue the Chinese Poison Train. It won’t work. American victims of tainted Chinese products have found it nearly impossible to litigate against companies based in China. There are roadblocks at every step in the process: Americans can only sue Chinese companies that do business in the U.S.; phantom companies that exist only on paper refuse to hand over key documents; and, even if a consumer can win a default judgment, no treaty compels China to respect rulings from U.S. courts. From the Washington Post: