20 hours ago
Three cryptocurrency investors filed a federal lawsuit against Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) on July 24. They allege they lost a combined $1.8 million in Bitcoin through a fake wallet app listed on the App Store.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It accuses Apple of failing to adequately review and monitor apps distributed through its platform.
Apple recently overtook Nvidia to become the world's largest public company by market capitalization. Its valuation stood at about $4.989 trillion at the time of writing.
Related: Cheaper Amazon cloud rival files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
The plaintiffs said they trusted the fake app because Apple markets the App Store as:
#Apple #store #filed #Bitcoin
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It accuses Apple of failing to adequately review and monitor apps distributed through its platform.
Apple recently overtook Nvidia to become the world's largest public company by market capitalization. Its valuation stood at about $4.989 trillion at the time of writing.
Related: Cheaper Amazon cloud rival files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
The plaintiffs said they trusted the fake app because Apple markets the App Store as:
#Apple #store #filed #Bitcoin
5 days ago
(The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of FreightWaves or its affiliates.)
The Supreme Court's Montgomery decision changed the litigation landscape for the trucking industry. Although the case addressed a negligent selection claim against a freight broker, plaintiffs will not limit their investigations to the broker's carrier qualification file. They will examine the full chain of decisions that placed a particular truck and driver on the road.
That means reviewing the shipper's conduct as well. Plaintiffs will ask who selected the broker, what the shipper required of the broker's carrier selection process, which carrier was approved, which truck arrived, what facility personnel observed, and why the freight was released.
Montgomery did not create a new cause of action against shippers. It did, however, reinforce that transportation safety decisions may be tested under state negligence law. Shippers should expect increased scrutiny when their own conduct contributed to an unsafe transportation arrangement.
The broker may select and approve the motor carrier, but the shipper controls the freight at pickup. The shipper can see the truck, verify the carrier information, confirm the driver, review the paperwork, and decide whether the goods will be released. The shipper is not expected to repeat the broker's entire carrier vetting process. Its responsibility is more focused: confirm that the carrier, driver, and equipment arriving at the facility match the transportation **** ignment.
#freight #Transportation #montgomery #plaintiffs
The Supreme Court's Montgomery decision changed the litigation landscape for the trucking industry. Although the case addressed a negligent selection claim against a freight broker, plaintiffs will not limit their investigations to the broker's carrier qualification file. They will examine the full chain of decisions that placed a particular truck and driver on the road.
That means reviewing the shipper's conduct as well. Plaintiffs will ask who selected the broker, what the shipper required of the broker's carrier selection process, which carrier was approved, which truck arrived, what facility personnel observed, and why the freight was released.
Montgomery did not create a new cause of action against shippers. It did, however, reinforce that transportation safety decisions may be tested under state negligence law. Shippers should expect increased scrutiny when their own conduct contributed to an unsafe transportation arrangement.
The broker may select and approve the motor carrier, but the shipper controls the freight at pickup. The shipper can see the truck, verify the carrier information, confirm the driver, review the paperwork, and decide whether the goods will be released. The shipper is not expected to repeat the broker's entire carrier vetting process. Its responsibility is more focused: confirm that the carrier, driver, and equipment arriving at the facility match the transportation **** ignment.
#freight #Transportation #montgomery #plaintiffs
6 days ago
By Daniel Wiessner
July 22 (Reuters) - A novel lawsuit claiming that Meta Platforms relied on discriminatory AI tools to select employees for layoffs highlights the problems workers face in suing employers over the new technology, including proving how it was actually used.
The case helps illustrate why a widely predicted wave of employment lawsuits over AI use has yet to arrive. Legal experts say workers often have little understanding of how AI systems are used in the workplace and many have also signed away their right to sue in court, agreeing instead to resolve workplace disputes through a private process called arbitration that can keep such claims from ever being tested publicly.
In a ruling last week declining to block Meta from finalizing the terminations of 26 people who sued, U.S. District Judge William Orrick identified a fundamental obstacle for plaintiffs who allege that AI discriminated against them: "they were not in the rooms where it happened."
That means workers like the Meta employees, who claim they were targeted for layoffs because they have disabilities or took medical or family leave, often cannot muster the evidence of wrongdoing necessary to quickly secure a win in court.
#meta #court
July 22 (Reuters) - A novel lawsuit claiming that Meta Platforms relied on discriminatory AI tools to select employees for layoffs highlights the problems workers face in suing employers over the new technology, including proving how it was actually used.
The case helps illustrate why a widely predicted wave of employment lawsuits over AI use has yet to arrive. Legal experts say workers often have little understanding of how AI systems are used in the workplace and many have also signed away their right to sue in court, agreeing instead to resolve workplace disputes through a private process called arbitration that can keep such claims from ever being tested publicly.
In a ruling last week declining to block Meta from finalizing the terminations of 26 people who sued, U.S. District Judge William Orrick identified a fundamental obstacle for plaintiffs who allege that AI discriminated against them: "they were not in the rooms where it happened."
That means workers like the Meta employees, who claim they were targeted for layoffs because they have disabilities or took medical or family leave, often cannot muster the evidence of wrongdoing necessary to quickly secure a win in court.
#meta #court
11 days ago
President Donald Trump's brazenly corrupt "settlement" of his lawsuit against the IRS included a jaw-dropping order in which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche purported to shield him and his family from liability for tax violations and any other federal offenses they may have committed prior to May 19. During his confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Blanche, who is seeking Senate approval of his nomination as attorney general, repeatedly misrepresented the scope and nature of that sweeping immunity deal.
In response to questions from Sen. Richard Durbin (D–Ill.), Blanche preposterously claimed his promise of protection was "typical" of settlements between the IRS and taxpayers. "This type of settlement is done regularly," he said. "When we enter into settlements like that, we do it with all kinds of people. It's not just President Trump. It doesn't make any of those individuals above the law."
Blanche was referring to settlements of tax disputes. That comparison is inapt for several reasons.
First, Trump's lawsuit, which was joined by two of his sons and the Trump Organization, did not involve a dispute about tax liability. It alleged damages caused by an IRS contractor's illegal disclosure of the plaintiffs' tax returns, an issue that has nothing to do with the question of whether they owe the IRS money.
Second, even in cases that do involve alleged tax violations, it is not "typical" for settlements to include a promise that the IRS will never pursue any other claims based on past returns. After Blanche revealed his order, former IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel told the **** ociated Press he was not aware of any previous cases in which the IRS had agreed to "permanently forgo examination of previously filed tax returns for a specific person or business."
In response to questions from Sen. Richard Durbin (D–Ill.), Blanche preposterously claimed his promise of protection was "typical" of settlements between the IRS and taxpayers. "This type of settlement is done regularly," he said. "When we enter into settlements like that, we do it with all kinds of people. It's not just President Trump. It doesn't make any of those individuals above the law."
Blanche was referring to settlements of tax disputes. That comparison is inapt for several reasons.
First, Trump's lawsuit, which was joined by two of his sons and the Trump Organization, did not involve a dispute about tax liability. It alleged damages caused by an IRS contractor's illegal disclosure of the plaintiffs' tax returns, an issue that has nothing to do with the question of whether they owe the IRS money.
Second, even in cases that do involve alleged tax violations, it is not "typical" for settlements to include a promise that the IRS will never pursue any other claims based on past returns. After Blanche revealed his order, former IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel told the **** ociated Press he was not aware of any previous cases in which the IRS had agreed to "permanently forgo examination of previously filed tax returns for a specific person or business."
12 days ago
By Daniel Wiessner
July 17 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday rejected a bid by 26 employees of Meta Platforms to block the tech giant from laying them off while they pursue claims that they were targeted for job cuts by the company's AI-powered tools because they have disabilities or took medical leave.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick in Oakland, California, in a written order said he would not stop Meta from carrying out the layoffs beginning July 22 while the merits of the workers' novel legal claims are decided in private arbitration.
The judge said the workers could not show that losing their jobs amounted to the "irreparable harm" required for him to issue an emergency order blocking the layoffs.
Meta and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company has denied wrongdoing and said that decisions involving the layoffs were made by humans.
July 17 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday rejected a bid by 26 employees of Meta Platforms to block the tech giant from laying them off while they pursue claims that they were targeted for job cuts by the company's AI-powered tools because they have disabilities or took medical leave.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick in Oakland, California, in a written order said he would not stop Meta from carrying out the layoffs beginning July 22 while the merits of the workers' novel legal claims are decided in private arbitration.
The judge said the workers could not show that losing their jobs amounted to the "irreparable harm" required for him to issue an emergency order blocking the layoffs.
Meta and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company has denied wrongdoing and said that decisions involving the layoffs were made by humans.
18 days ago
A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld an Illinois ban on semiautomatic weapons, keeping in place a law passed largely in response to a deadly Independence Day parade shooting.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturns a lower court decision that found the ban unconstitutional. The 2-1 appellate decision found that the Illinois law does not violate the Second Amendment, and its restrictions are "consistent with the principles that underpin our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation."
"Whether to adopt them is thus a decision reposed in our elected representatives, and we reverse," the appeals court said.
The majority opinion also pushes back on claims made by the plaintiffs that semiautomatic weapons are not at fault for mass shootings.
"The undisputed record evidence undercuts that claim, showing that the presence of ******* ault weapons and large-capacity magazines is strongly correlated with the severity of the societal problem," the opinion states.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturns a lower court decision that found the ban unconstitutional. The 2-1 appellate decision found that the Illinois law does not violate the Second Amendment, and its restrictions are "consistent with the principles that underpin our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation."
"Whether to adopt them is thus a decision reposed in our elected representatives, and we reverse," the appeals court said.
The majority opinion also pushes back on claims made by the plaintiffs that semiautomatic weapons are not at fault for mass shootings.
"The undisputed record evidence undercuts that claim, showing that the presence of ******* ault weapons and large-capacity magazines is strongly correlated with the severity of the societal problem," the opinion states.
21 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to block Texas from enforcing a state law that requires apps stores to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors seeking to download apps or make in-app purchases on mobile phones.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a pair of one-sentence orders, denied petitions by plaintiffs who claim that the Texas App Store Accountability Act violates users' constitutional rights to free speech.
Last month, a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law can take effect. The panel suspended a district court's ruling last December that the law is unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs suing to block the law include the Computer & Communications Industry ***** ociation and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is a defendant in both cases.
Plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the law impermissibly seeks to limit access to content protected by the First Amendment, including news and educational material.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a pair of one-sentence orders, denied petitions by plaintiffs who claim that the Texas App Store Accountability Act violates users' constitutional rights to free speech.
Last month, a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law can take effect. The panel suspended a district court's ruling last December that the law is unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs suing to block the law include the Computer & Communications Industry ***** ociation and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is a defendant in both cases.
Plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the law impermissibly seeks to limit access to content protected by the First Amendment, including news and educational material.
28 days ago
An Iranian political scientist once accused by the feds of working as an unregistered influence agent for Tehran has filed a $1 billion lawsuit against FIFA, ******* ociation president Gianni Infantino, and an unknown number of anonymous FIFA officials after the nation's World Cup team was eliminated from competition by a controversial on-field call.
Lotfolah Kaveh Afrasiabi, who, among other things, served as an official adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiation team when talks were underway with former president Barack Obama, is petitioning for class-action status on behalf of up to 91 million "Iranian nationals and/or Iranian-Americans who supported the Iran football national team and who were emotionally scarred by the flagrant discrimination against their beloved team," according to a civil complaint filed June 30 in federal court.
In it, the 68-year-old Afrasiabi takes issue with FIFA's "double standard, hypocrisy and outright discrimination" against the Iranian squad, which was stripped of a game-winning goal last weekend against Egypt following a video review that determined the scoring player had been offside. As a result of the 1-1 tie, Egypt advanced to the tournament's knock-out stage for the first time ever, while Iran was sent home.
Afrasiabi's complaint contends there exists "[c]lear and incontrovertible" proof that FIFA's "VAR" system, or, Video ******* istant Referee, made an "erroneous" decision "deliberately designed to deprive Iran of victory" in the June 26 match. The move to invalidate the goal by centre-back Shoja Khalilzadeh was immediately "slammed by the Fox Sports commentator [Zlatan] Ibrahimovic as a 'theft' requiring FIFA's apology to Iran, in light of the clear evidence that an Egyptian defender was well behind the Iranian players," according to the complaint.
"In effect, Defendants' actions complained of herein convinced the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated that Iran was 'robbed' of victory and the chance for advancing to the knock-off stage of the World Cup, thus creating a traumatic experience of victimization on their part," the complaint states.
Lotfolah Kaveh Afrasiabi, who, among other things, served as an official adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiation team when talks were underway with former president Barack Obama, is petitioning for class-action status on behalf of up to 91 million "Iranian nationals and/or Iranian-Americans who supported the Iran football national team and who were emotionally scarred by the flagrant discrimination against their beloved team," according to a civil complaint filed June 30 in federal court.
In it, the 68-year-old Afrasiabi takes issue with FIFA's "double standard, hypocrisy and outright discrimination" against the Iranian squad, which was stripped of a game-winning goal last weekend against Egypt following a video review that determined the scoring player had been offside. As a result of the 1-1 tie, Egypt advanced to the tournament's knock-out stage for the first time ever, while Iran was sent home.
Afrasiabi's complaint contends there exists "[c]lear and incontrovertible" proof that FIFA's "VAR" system, or, Video ******* istant Referee, made an "erroneous" decision "deliberately designed to deprive Iran of victory" in the June 26 match. The move to invalidate the goal by centre-back Shoja Khalilzadeh was immediately "slammed by the Fox Sports commentator [Zlatan] Ibrahimovic as a 'theft' requiring FIFA's apology to Iran, in light of the clear evidence that an Egyptian defender was well behind the Iranian players," according to the complaint.
"In effect, Defendants' actions complained of herein convinced the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated that Iran was 'robbed' of victory and the chance for advancing to the knock-off stage of the World Cup, thus creating a traumatic experience of victimization on their part," the complaint states.
28 days ago
Almost every phone and laptop runs on memory chips called DRAM. A US lawsuit says the three firms that make almost all of them keep prices high by limiting supply.
This is not the first accusation against them. Days later, the same firms unveiled a $650 billion spending plan and blamed the shortage on the AI boom.
In 2005, Samsung admitted it fixed memory prices and paid a $300 million fine. It was the second-biggest penalty of its kind in US history. Some bosses went to prison. The new lawsuit says the companies later reinstated those same people in their jobs.
The new case is in a California federal court. The buyers suing include 14 people and three small computer shops. One of their law firms, Hagens Berman, won the payout from the original case years ago.
Here is the trick the lawsuit describes. Chips made for AI computers sell for far more than ordinary memory. Plaintiffs say the firms shifted factories toward AI memory chips and let everyday supplies run short. Ordinary memory prices then jumped about 700% in four years.
This is not the first accusation against them. Days later, the same firms unveiled a $650 billion spending plan and blamed the shortage on the AI boom.
In 2005, Samsung admitted it fixed memory prices and paid a $300 million fine. It was the second-biggest penalty of its kind in US history. Some bosses went to prison. The new lawsuit says the companies later reinstated those same people in their jobs.
The new case is in a California federal court. The buyers suing include 14 people and three small computer shops. One of their law firms, Hagens Berman, won the payout from the original case years ago.
Here is the trick the lawsuit describes. Chips made for AI computers sell for far more than ordinary memory. Plaintiffs say the firms shifted factories toward AI memory chips and let everyday supplies run short. Ordinary memory prices then jumped about 700% in four years.
28 days ago
With an injunction hearing coming up Wednesday, the NCAA has filed a response in an eligibility lawsuit regarding the age-based eligibility model. It also includes an affidavit from the commissioners of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and Big East conferences.
The suit was filed in Ohio after the NCAA unanimously approved the age-based eligibility model. Xavier’s Filip Borovicanin and Cincinnati’s MJ Collins are among the 15 athletes listed as plaintiffs. A judge denied a request for a temporary restraining order, but set a hearing for a preliminary injunction for July 1.
[ $19.99 gets you a FULL year of On3 | Rivals national coverage ]
Ahead of the hearing, the NCAA filed its response, and the conference commissioners defended the decision not to “grandfather” athletes who would have another year under the age-based model. They cited the need to protect incoming athletes and their roster spots in their decision.
“The downstream effects of granting an additional year of eligibility would, without question, harm college sports across the country,” the affidavit reads, in part. “If a court were to allow Plaintiffs and similarly situated student-athletes to compete during the 2026-27 academic year, immediate and significant uncertainty in the collegiate athletic landscape necessarily follows.
The suit was filed in Ohio after the NCAA unanimously approved the age-based eligibility model. Xavier’s Filip Borovicanin and Cincinnati’s MJ Collins are among the 15 athletes listed as plaintiffs. A judge denied a request for a temporary restraining order, but set a hearing for a preliminary injunction for July 1.
[ $19.99 gets you a FULL year of On3 | Rivals national coverage ]
Ahead of the hearing, the NCAA filed its response, and the conference commissioners defended the decision not to “grandfather” athletes who would have another year under the age-based model. They cited the need to protect incoming athletes and their roster spots in their decision.
“The downstream effects of granting an additional year of eligibility would, without question, harm college sports across the country,” the affidavit reads, in part. “If a court were to allow Plaintiffs and similarly situated student-athletes to compete during the 2026-27 academic year, immediate and significant uncertainty in the collegiate athletic landscape necessarily follows.
1 month ago
The attorney who helped persuade the Supreme Court to strike down Hawaii's private-property concealed-carry restriction on Thursday criticized the state's reliance on a Reconstruction-era Black Code to defend the law.
In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the Court held that Hawaii cannot require licensed gun owners to obtain express permission before carrying firearms onto private property open to the public. Gun-rights challengers dubbed the policy the "vampire rule" because lawful gun owners had to be "invited in" before entering businesses while armed.
"It is disgraceful that any state would rely on a law specifically aimed at taking away the Second Amendment rights or any constitutional right of Black Americans as it was at that time," attorney Kevin O'Grady, who represented the plaintiffs, told Fox News Digital.
"And it's not surprising, however, that Hawaii would rely on it as they are diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment. We fully expected that the Supreme Court would identify that as the kind of law that one absolutely should not look to determine whether or not something is constitutional because this is the perfect example of something which is not constitutional."
Supreme Court Hands Second Amendment Win To Concealed Carry Holders In Blue State Gun Control Case
In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the Court held that Hawaii cannot require licensed gun owners to obtain express permission before carrying firearms onto private property open to the public. Gun-rights challengers dubbed the policy the "vampire rule" because lawful gun owners had to be "invited in" before entering businesses while armed.
"It is disgraceful that any state would rely on a law specifically aimed at taking away the Second Amendment rights or any constitutional right of Black Americans as it was at that time," attorney Kevin O'Grady, who represented the plaintiffs, told Fox News Digital.
"And it's not surprising, however, that Hawaii would rely on it as they are diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment. We fully expected that the Supreme Court would identify that as the kind of law that one absolutely should not look to determine whether or not something is constitutional because this is the perfect example of something which is not constitutional."
Supreme Court Hands Second Amendment Win To Concealed Carry Holders In Blue State Gun Control Case
1 month ago
By Jonathan Stempel
June 24 (Reuters) - A business controlled by the American billionaire Ira Rennert reached a $150 million settlement in the United States with 1,373 Peruvians who claimed they were poisoned by lead and other toxic substances while growing up near a Peruvian smelter, lawyers for the plaintiffs said on Wednesday.
The settlement with Doe Run Resources, part of Rennert's New York-based holding company Renco Group, was announced in St. Louis federal court on Tuesday, when the first of four so-called bellwether trials in the 19-year-old case was scheduled to begin.
• Doe Run and the other defendants did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to settle, the plaintiffs' lawyer Jerome Schlichter said in a phone interview.
• The plaintiffs accused Doe Run of releasing lead, ***** nic, cadmium and other hazardous substances from a smelter in La Oroya, Peru, which a subsidiary purchased in 1997.
June 24 (Reuters) - A business controlled by the American billionaire Ira Rennert reached a $150 million settlement in the United States with 1,373 Peruvians who claimed they were poisoned by lead and other toxic substances while growing up near a Peruvian smelter, lawyers for the plaintiffs said on Wednesday.
The settlement with Doe Run Resources, part of Rennert's New York-based holding company Renco Group, was announced in St. Louis federal court on Tuesday, when the first of four so-called bellwether trials in the 19-year-old case was scheduled to begin.
• Doe Run and the other defendants did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to settle, the plaintiffs' lawyer Jerome Schlichter said in a phone interview.
• The plaintiffs accused Doe Run of releasing lead, ***** nic, cadmium and other hazardous substances from a smelter in La Oroya, Peru, which a subsidiary purchased in 1997.
1 month ago
This weekend's exhibition fight in Greence between Floyd Mayweather and Mike Zambidis appears to be officially off, as ESPN cites federal court records that indicate company CSI, who holds contracts with Mayweather for two other fights, filed for an emergency injunction in the Southern District of New York to prevent this particular event from happening.
"Because Plaintiffs' Motion remains pending without a ruling, the Mayweather-Zambidis event will no longer proceed in Athens, Greece as planned on Saturday evening," attorney Melissa Glass wrote in a letter to the court. "Plaintiffs' commencement of this action and filing of the Motion, as well as their legal threats domestically and in Greece, have effectively stopped any promotion or distribution plans for the event and halted ticket sales."
The fight could potentially be rescheduled depending on a final ruling of the injunction request, but at least for the time being things will be put on hold. There is plenty of litigation to be had in this case, however, as promoters for this Zambidis event claim significant financial harm over money they've already invested in this event and that much of it will not be recoverable.
So while it remains to be seen where this all goes from here, what we do know is that Floyd won't be making an appearance in the ring, as DAZN has also dropped the event from its schedule.
"Because Plaintiffs' Motion remains pending without a ruling, the Mayweather-Zambidis event will no longer proceed in Athens, Greece as planned on Saturday evening," attorney Melissa Glass wrote in a letter to the court. "Plaintiffs' commencement of this action and filing of the Motion, as well as their legal threats domestically and in Greece, have effectively stopped any promotion or distribution plans for the event and halted ticket sales."
The fight could potentially be rescheduled depending on a final ruling of the injunction request, but at least for the time being things will be put on hold. There is plenty of litigation to be had in this case, however, as promoters for this Zambidis event claim significant financial harm over money they've already invested in this event and that much of it will not be recoverable.
So while it remains to be seen where this all goes from here, what we do know is that Floyd won't be making an appearance in the ring, as DAZN has also dropped the event from its schedule.
1 month ago
Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) ranks as the Best Data Center Stocks That Are Cheaper Than the S&P 500. Although the stock has declined roughly 21% on a year-to-date basis over macroeconomic concerns and massive AI capital expenditure forecasts, the Street expects more than 44% upside over the next 12 months.
Recently, on June 15, Reuters reported that Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) is facing a lawsuit from the shareholders accusing the company of securities fraud, with plaintiffs claiming it concealed slowing growth in its Azure cloud business and downplayed the cost of its AI infrastructure buildout.
According to Reuters, the case was filed in Seattle federal court and was followed by a 10% single-day drop in Microsoft's stock on January 29, which wiped out roughly $357 billion in market value. The trigger for the lawsuit was the company's fiscal second-quarter earnings, which showed Azure revenue growth slipping to 39% from 40% the prior quarter, with a further projected slowdown to 37%–38%. Moreover, the capital spending also came in at $37.5 billion, up 66% year-over-year and above **** yst expectations.
The lawsuit alleges Microsoft failed to adequately disclose that AI-related investments, including its Copilot chatbot and OpenAI partnership, were straining resources and constraining Azure's growth capacity. Microsoft has called the claims "without merit" and says it will vigorously defend itself.
That said, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating on Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) with a $540 price target on June 4. The firm highlighted that the company has launched seven new self-built AI models designed for fine-tuning and cost optimization. TD Cowen sees this as a meaningful shift in how Microsoft approaches AI development. The firm also noted that these models will reduce the company's dependency on external frontier labs for AI capabilities.
Recently, on June 15, Reuters reported that Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) is facing a lawsuit from the shareholders accusing the company of securities fraud, with plaintiffs claiming it concealed slowing growth in its Azure cloud business and downplayed the cost of its AI infrastructure buildout.
According to Reuters, the case was filed in Seattle federal court and was followed by a 10% single-day drop in Microsoft's stock on January 29, which wiped out roughly $357 billion in market value. The trigger for the lawsuit was the company's fiscal second-quarter earnings, which showed Azure revenue growth slipping to 39% from 40% the prior quarter, with a further projected slowdown to 37%–38%. Moreover, the capital spending also came in at $37.5 billion, up 66% year-over-year and above **** yst expectations.
The lawsuit alleges Microsoft failed to adequately disclose that AI-related investments, including its Copilot chatbot and OpenAI partnership, were straining resources and constraining Azure's growth capacity. Microsoft has called the claims "without merit" and says it will vigorously defend itself.
That said, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating on Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) with a $540 price target on June 4. The firm highlighted that the company has launched seven new self-built AI models designed for fine-tuning and cost optimization. TD Cowen sees this as a meaningful shift in how Microsoft approaches AI development. The firm also noted that these models will reduce the company's dependency on external frontier labs for AI capabilities.
1 month ago
As President Donald Trump's lawyers tell it, there is "no evidence" that the May 18 "settlement" of his lawsuit against the IRS, which included huge favors for him, his family, and his supporters, was a product of collusion. That position is hard to take seriously, since both sides in the lawsuit were represented by attorneys who worked for Trump, and the president himself has described the cozy arrangement as "a settlement with myself."
In a June 12 brief ordered by Kathleen Williams, the federal judge in Florida who oversaw Trump v. IRS, the president's lawyers improbably maintained that the "settlement" was business as usual at the Department of Justice (DOJ). That brief "only underscores the need to investigate whether the parties have perpetrated a fraud on this Court and corrupted the integrity of the judicial process," 35 former federal judges argue in a response filed on Friday.
Trump sued the IRS on January 29, claiming that an IRS contractor's illegal disclosure of his tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. In addition to offering a plainly preposterous estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump missed the statutory deadline for filing such claims. And even if he had filed his lawsuit on time, he would have faced the challenge of arguing that the contractor qualified as an "officer or employee of the United States"—a point that the DOJ has disputed in other cases involving similar claims.
Despite those manifest legal weaknesses, the DOJ never contested Trump's claims, in sharp contrast with the way it has handled lawsuits against the IRS by plaintiffs who were not the president. That failure underlined the blatant conflicts of interest created by the case, which pitted Trump against an agency he oversees, represented by DOJ lawyers who serve at his pleasure. Further compromising the DOJ's ability to represent the IRS, an executive order that Trump issued in February 2025 bars the government's lawyers from taking legal positions that contradict the president's.
The situation was so bizarre that Williams questioned whether the case involved a genuine controversy between adverse parties, as required for the lawsuit to proceed. But two days before the deadline for briefing on that crucial issue, Trump dropped his lawsuit, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a "settlement agreement" that promised $1.8 billion in taxpayer money for an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" designed to benefit Trump's friends and followers. The next day, Blanche revealed an addendum that purports to shield Trump and his family from liability for tax violations and any other federal offenses they might have committed prior to May 19.
In a June 12 brief ordered by Kathleen Williams, the federal judge in Florida who oversaw Trump v. IRS, the president's lawyers improbably maintained that the "settlement" was business as usual at the Department of Justice (DOJ). That brief "only underscores the need to investigate whether the parties have perpetrated a fraud on this Court and corrupted the integrity of the judicial process," 35 former federal judges argue in a response filed on Friday.
Trump sued the IRS on January 29, claiming that an IRS contractor's illegal disclosure of his tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. In addition to offering a plainly preposterous estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump missed the statutory deadline for filing such claims. And even if he had filed his lawsuit on time, he would have faced the challenge of arguing that the contractor qualified as an "officer or employee of the United States"—a point that the DOJ has disputed in other cases involving similar claims.
Despite those manifest legal weaknesses, the DOJ never contested Trump's claims, in sharp contrast with the way it has handled lawsuits against the IRS by plaintiffs who were not the president. That failure underlined the blatant conflicts of interest created by the case, which pitted Trump against an agency he oversees, represented by DOJ lawyers who serve at his pleasure. Further compromising the DOJ's ability to represent the IRS, an executive order that Trump issued in February 2025 bars the government's lawyers from taking legal positions that contradict the president's.
The situation was so bizarre that Williams questioned whether the case involved a genuine controversy between adverse parties, as required for the lawsuit to proceed. But two days before the deadline for briefing on that crucial issue, Trump dropped his lawsuit, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a "settlement agreement" that promised $1.8 billion in taxpayer money for an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" designed to benefit Trump's friends and followers. The next day, Blanche revealed an addendum that purports to shield Trump and his family from liability for tax violations and any other federal offenses they might have committed prior to May 19.
1 month ago
As Gillette Stadium hosts World Cup matches this summer, Robert Kraft and the New England Patriots have sued the town of Foxborough over licensing fees, claiming “the town repeatedly misused its state-granted licensing authority to unlawfully extract funds from the plaintiffs.”
The suit was filed in Norfolk County Superior Court on Monday, June 15.
According to the lawsuit, Foxborough has state authorization to charge the plaintiffs a maximum fee of $100 each year to renew the stadium’s entertainment license.
The lawsuit alleges that the town of Foxborough has imposed an illegal tax on the plaintiffs.
This April, “Foxborough used what should have been a routine entertainment license renewal as a pretext to charge plaintiffs approximately $1 million in new administrative fees,” the lawsuit states.
The suit was filed in Norfolk County Superior Court on Monday, June 15.
According to the lawsuit, Foxborough has state authorization to charge the plaintiffs a maximum fee of $100 each year to renew the stadium’s entertainment license.
The lawsuit alleges that the town of Foxborough has imposed an illegal tax on the plaintiffs.
This April, “Foxborough used what should have been a routine entertainment license renewal as a pretext to charge plaintiffs approximately $1 million in new administrative fees,” the lawsuit states.
2 months ago
United States attorneys have responded to the lawsuit trying to stop this weekend's UFC Freedom 250 card.
U.S. attorneys said that neither the Department of Interior nor the National Park Service violated any laws regarding the upcoming bout, which is scheduled to take place on Sunday on the South Lawn of the White House.
The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of two Virginia residents by the Public Integrity Project, was filed last weekend in federal court in the District of Columbia in an effort to stop the fight card. The lawsuit called the event on White House grounds "deeply corrupt" and alleged that several federal rules and regulations had been violated in an effort by President Donald Trump to give UFC head Dana White a favor.
"The President is giving White and his company what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to stage a private, for-profit sports event, with all the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access," the lawsuit reads.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that both the Department of Interior and the National Park Service organized a private sporting event on public property and failed to obtain congressional approval for construction sites. The suit is asking for an injunction to stop the event.
U.S. attorneys said that neither the Department of Interior nor the National Park Service violated any laws regarding the upcoming bout, which is scheduled to take place on Sunday on the South Lawn of the White House.
The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of two Virginia residents by the Public Integrity Project, was filed last weekend in federal court in the District of Columbia in an effort to stop the fight card. The lawsuit called the event on White House grounds "deeply corrupt" and alleged that several federal rules and regulations had been violated in an effort by President Donald Trump to give UFC head Dana White a favor.
"The President is giving White and his company what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to stage a private, for-profit sports event, with all the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access," the lawsuit reads.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that both the Department of Interior and the National Park Service organized a private sporting event on public property and failed to obtain congressional approval for construction sites. The suit is asking for an injunction to stop the event.
2 months ago
The NCAA’s landmark House settlement agreement has its first major legal attack.
Two California football players have filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA, the power conferences and the College Sports Commission, claiming those entities created a new enforcement arm whose policies directly contradict state statutes and violate federal antitrust law by illegally price-fixing.
USC freshman linebacker Talanoa Ili and Stanford senior quarterback Charlie Mirer are the listed plaintiffs in the case, filed in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of California on Tuesday. Three attorneys from the firm Berger Montague and one from the firm Freedman Normand Friedland are representing Ili, Mirer and those in the proposed classes, which include thousands of athletes at schools residing in more than a dozen states with statutes protecting their ability to earn an unlimited amount of NIL compensation.
The plaintiffs are asking for monetary damages as well as an injunction to suspend the NCAA and College Sports Commission’s enforcement of athlete NIL deals, or else plaintiffs “will continue to suffer suppression of their NIL compensation" within a price-fixing “scheme,” the suit says.
The 81-page complaint serves as the most significant outside legal challenge since the NCAA and power leagues agreed to settle three antitrust cases against a class of former and current athletes, most commonly referred to as House. The settlement, approved by a California judge last June, ushered in direct pay from schools to athletes, but only within a capped revenue-share system regulated by a new enforcement arm.
Two California football players have filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA, the power conferences and the College Sports Commission, claiming those entities created a new enforcement arm whose policies directly contradict state statutes and violate federal antitrust law by illegally price-fixing.
USC freshman linebacker Talanoa Ili and Stanford senior quarterback Charlie Mirer are the listed plaintiffs in the case, filed in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of California on Tuesday. Three attorneys from the firm Berger Montague and one from the firm Freedman Normand Friedland are representing Ili, Mirer and those in the proposed classes, which include thousands of athletes at schools residing in more than a dozen states with statutes protecting their ability to earn an unlimited amount of NIL compensation.
The plaintiffs are asking for monetary damages as well as an injunction to suspend the NCAA and College Sports Commission’s enforcement of athlete NIL deals, or else plaintiffs “will continue to suffer suppression of their NIL compensation" within a price-fixing “scheme,” the suit says.
The 81-page complaint serves as the most significant outside legal challenge since the NCAA and power leagues agreed to settle three antitrust cases against a class of former and current athletes, most commonly referred to as House. The settlement, approved by a California judge last June, ushered in direct pay from schools to athletes, but only within a capped revenue-share system regulated by a new enforcement arm.
2 months ago
The class-action lawsuit against the NFL alleging antitrust violations regarding its practices in selling the out-of-market Sunday Ticket package has been a monkey on the league’s back for a decade, and the case is still far from over.
After trial in 2024, a jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and hit the NFL with a $4.7 billion bill that under federal antitrust law was to be trebled to over $14 billion. Later that year, however, a judge took the unusual step to overturn the jury’s ruling, accessing that two economic experts called by the plaintiffs misled the jury with faulty calculations used to estimate financial damages. In doing so, the judge tossed the case entirely and did not arrange a retrial.
That ruling is now being appealed by the plaintiffs and was put in front of a three-judge panel in March for oral arguments, with a decision on the future of the case supposedly coming later this year.
One legal **** yst believes the panel of judges will reinstate the case, which could take on any number of possible outcomes including a new trial, or even putting the NFL back on the hook for billions in damages.
Joining Puck sports correspondent John Ourand on The Varsity podcast, Puck legal **** yst Eriq Gardner suggested the case will likely be reinstated, and went through some of the possibilities for how that could unfold.
After trial in 2024, a jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and hit the NFL with a $4.7 billion bill that under federal antitrust law was to be trebled to over $14 billion. Later that year, however, a judge took the unusual step to overturn the jury’s ruling, accessing that two economic experts called by the plaintiffs misled the jury with faulty calculations used to estimate financial damages. In doing so, the judge tossed the case entirely and did not arrange a retrial.
That ruling is now being appealed by the plaintiffs and was put in front of a three-judge panel in March for oral arguments, with a decision on the future of the case supposedly coming later this year.
One legal **** yst believes the panel of judges will reinstate the case, which could take on any number of possible outcomes including a new trial, or even putting the NFL back on the hook for billions in damages.
Joining Puck sports correspondent John Ourand on The Varsity podcast, Puck legal **** yst Eriq Gardner suggested the case will likely be reinstated, and went through some of the possibilities for how that could unfold.
2 months ago
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal lawsuit seeks to halt the upcoming UFC fight card on the White House South Lawn in a mixed martial arts show timed for President Donald Trump's 80th birthday and part of the celebration of the nation's 250th anniversary.
The filing Saturday by the Public Integrity Project on behalf of two Virginia residents contends the Trump administration's authorization of the June 14 event was unlawful. The lawsuit says such approval violated National Park Service regulations prohibiting sporting events on federal parklands, Congress did not consent to the towering arch overlooking the event ***** e and no environmental review was conducted before the construction.
"This is fundamentally a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain," said Brendan Ballou, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "And that is what is motivating this lawsuit."
The White House said in a statement that the legal challenge was "an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory" attempt to prevent Trump from hosting the fight and that the event was "no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year."
UFC did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.
The filing Saturday by the Public Integrity Project on behalf of two Virginia residents contends the Trump administration's authorization of the June 14 event was unlawful. The lawsuit says such approval violated National Park Service regulations prohibiting sporting events on federal parklands, Congress did not consent to the towering arch overlooking the event ***** e and no environmental review was conducted before the construction.
"This is fundamentally a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain," said Brendan Ballou, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "And that is what is motivating this lawsuit."
The White House said in a statement that the legal challenge was "an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory" attempt to prevent Trump from hosting the fight and that the event was "no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year."
UFC did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.
2 months ago
The Ultimate Fighting Championship gala extravaganza hasencountered a legal hitch.
On Friday, the Public Integrity Project—a firm with the missionstatement to "stop corruption"—sued the U.S. government on behalfof two individuals from Virginia. The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia (D.D.C.), defendants include the Acting Director of theNational Park Service (NPS) Jessica Bowron, the National CapitalRegion Director of the NPS Jen Nersesian, the U.S. Department ofthe Interior and its Secretary, Doug Burgum. The plaintiffs requestthat the court deems the organization of the event itself unlawfuland shuts it down, while removing the structures built on the WhiteHouse lawn to accommodate the fight card.
In the suit itself, the demand for relief declares that thearrangement between the Ultimate Fighting Championship and the WhiteHouse is corrupt, partially due to the personal relationshipbetween President Donald Trump and UFC President and CEO DanaWhite. The lawsuit goes on to point out that the President willgive "unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial tostage a private, for-profit sports event."
Attorney Brendan Ballou put out a statement to the ******* ociated Pressin regards to the suit. In it, he briefly the reason for why thePublic Integrity Project got involved.
"This is a fundamentally private, commercial, corrupt use of ourmost sacred national monuments for private gain. And that is whatis motivating this lawsuit," Ballou stated.
The grounds for the suit include that the event violates NPSregulations that specifically write the NPS will not permit thestaging of a sporting event that is "conducted primarily for thematerial or financial benefit of a for-profit entity."Additionally, the suit offers that the construction of the UFCstage required congressional approval that was not sought. It alsosuggests that the required environmental impact review to buildthis arena in this location was not run.
The White House had a short response shrugging off the suit,positing that it was no more than obstructionism. In it, the WhiteHouse remarked that this UFC show would be "no different than thevarious other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn andproperly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mallthroughout the year."
On Friday, the Public Integrity Project—a firm with the missionstatement to "stop corruption"—sued the U.S. government on behalfof two individuals from Virginia. The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia (D.D.C.), defendants include the Acting Director of theNational Park Service (NPS) Jessica Bowron, the National CapitalRegion Director of the NPS Jen Nersesian, the U.S. Department ofthe Interior and its Secretary, Doug Burgum. The plaintiffs requestthat the court deems the organization of the event itself unlawfuland shuts it down, while removing the structures built on the WhiteHouse lawn to accommodate the fight card.
In the suit itself, the demand for relief declares that thearrangement between the Ultimate Fighting Championship and the WhiteHouse is corrupt, partially due to the personal relationshipbetween President Donald Trump and UFC President and CEO DanaWhite. The lawsuit goes on to point out that the President willgive "unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial tostage a private, for-profit sports event."
Attorney Brendan Ballou put out a statement to the ******* ociated Pressin regards to the suit. In it, he briefly the reason for why thePublic Integrity Project got involved.
"This is a fundamentally private, commercial, corrupt use of ourmost sacred national monuments for private gain. And that is whatis motivating this lawsuit," Ballou stated.
The grounds for the suit include that the event violates NPSregulations that specifically write the NPS will not permit thestaging of a sporting event that is "conducted primarily for thematerial or financial benefit of a for-profit entity."Additionally, the suit offers that the construction of the UFCstage required congressional approval that was not sought. It alsosuggests that the required environmental impact review to buildthis arena in this location was not run.
The White House had a short response shrugging off the suit,positing that it was no more than obstructionism. In it, the WhiteHouse remarked that this UFC show would be "no different than thevarious other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn andproperly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mallthroughout the year."
2 months ago
Supreme Court wont intervene in discrimination suit led by Black ex-head coach Flores against NFL
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in a discrimination lawsuit led by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores against the NFL, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.
The justices rebuffed an appeal from the league, which wanted the case handled through its arbitration process rather than open court in New York. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision not to hear the case.
Flores, who's Black, sued the league and three teams in February 2022, alleging the league was “rife with racism” regarding its hiring practices when it comes to Black coaches. He was later joined in the lawsuit by fellow Black coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton.
Flores, who was fired by the Dolphins shortly before the suit was filed, is now the Minnesota Vikings' defensive coordinator.
The NFL has argued Flores should go through arbitration rather than the legal system, but lower courts have sided with the plaintiffs. The league said it respected the Supreme Court decision, which allows lower-court rulings to stay in place, but is "fully prepared to defend ourselves as this matter proceeds.”
https://sports.yahoo.com/a...
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in a discrimination lawsuit led by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores against the NFL, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.
The justices rebuffed an appeal from the league, which wanted the case handled through its arbitration process rather than open court in New York. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision not to hear the case.
Flores, who's Black, sued the league and three teams in February 2022, alleging the league was “rife with racism” regarding its hiring practices when it comes to Black coaches. He was later joined in the lawsuit by fellow Black coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton.
Flores, who was fired by the Dolphins shortly before the suit was filed, is now the Minnesota Vikings' defensive coordinator.
The NFL has argued Flores should go through arbitration rather than the legal system, but lower courts have sided with the plaintiffs. The league said it respected the Supreme Court decision, which allows lower-court rulings to stay in place, but is "fully prepared to defend ourselves as this matter proceeds.”
https://sports.yahoo.com/a...
3 months ago
30 former Ohio State football players join Strauss abuse lawsuits
Thirty former Ohio State University football players, including ex-team captains and NFL veterans, have come forward to join legal efforts against the university over **** ual abuse by former OSU doctor Richard Strauss. The former players have signed engagement letters to join class action lawsuits, according to Michael DiSabato, a spokesman for the plaintiffs.
The new group of plaintiffs includes three members of the 1980 Rose Bowl team: Ray Ellis, Al Washington, and Keith Ferguson, all of whom played for coach Woody Hayes and went on to play some time in the NFL.
Other OSU athletes have come forward before but these new high-profile plaintiffs could bring increased visibility to survivors.
Related news: Ohio State settles with more than a dozen Strauss survivors
Washington, who played for the New York Jets for one season, later became an OSU linebacker coach. Ellis, a native of Canton, was a team captain and played defensive back for seven years in the NFL with the Philadelphia Eagles and Cleveland Browns. Ferguson was a team captain for the Buckeyes and played ten seasons in the NFL as a defensive end for the San Diego Chargers and the Detroit Lions.
https://www.yahoo.com/news...
Thirty former Ohio State University football players, including ex-team captains and NFL veterans, have come forward to join legal efforts against the university over **** ual abuse by former OSU doctor Richard Strauss. The former players have signed engagement letters to join class action lawsuits, according to Michael DiSabato, a spokesman for the plaintiffs.
The new group of plaintiffs includes three members of the 1980 Rose Bowl team: Ray Ellis, Al Washington, and Keith Ferguson, all of whom played for coach Woody Hayes and went on to play some time in the NFL.
Other OSU athletes have come forward before but these new high-profile plaintiffs could bring increased visibility to survivors.
Related news: Ohio State settles with more than a dozen Strauss survivors
Washington, who played for the New York Jets for one season, later became an OSU linebacker coach. Ellis, a native of Canton, was a team captain and played defensive back for seven years in the NFL with the Philadelphia Eagles and Cleveland Browns. Ferguson was a team captain for the Buckeyes and played ten seasons in the NFL as a defensive end for the San Diego Chargers and the Detroit Lions.
https://www.yahoo.com/news...
