CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Commercial Law Category

One inevitable outcome to manufacturing driverless cars is that there will nonetheless be lawsuits if and when those cars get into accidents. And if there's no "driver" to sue, those lawsuits will be undoubtedly be aimed at the manufacturer.

One driverless car manufacturer is trying to avoid liability for several accidents, essentially arguing "to err is human." Tesla says that no manufacturer has been expected to build a perfectly accident-free automobile, especially in the face of human error, nor should it be expected to design a car, even a driverless one, that can overcome those human errors. You can see their full legal filing below:

Most of us are skeptical when buying a used car -- we want the CARFAX report and we don't always believe salesmen's assurances that a car on their lot is safe. But the "Certified Pre-Owned" distinction is meant to allay those fears -- after all, the CARFAX website itself calls them "the low-cost alternative to a new car, or as a low-risk option to a used car." But it turns out CPOs might not be as safe as you'd think.

A federal lawsuit alleges the Federal Trade Commission allowed dealers to market and advertise certified pre-owned vehicles as "safe," even when the same vehicles were subject to safety recalls due to dangerous defects. The suit covers cars, trucks, motorcycles, and motor homes, and claims the FTC did not require dealers to submit the vehicles to the recalls or fix the defects; they only had to disclose the vehicles "may" be subject to recalls, even when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had already required a safety recall. You can read the full lawsuit below.

A local wine bar is taking the president to court. Or at least trying to. Cork Wine Bar in Washington, D.C. is suing President Donald Trump, claiming his continued ownership of the Trump International Hotel constitutes unfair competition under District of Columbia law.

The lawsuit claims that even though Trump placed control of his business interests to his adult sons, he continues to benefit from ownership of the hotel and that customers looking to curry favor with the new administration have left Cork for Trump International. You can see the full lawsuit below.

Maybe it's not all that surprising that a lawsuit involving a virtual reality company called Magic Leap, known in in venture capital circles as a "unicorn," would involve some discussion of wizards. But the claims made in the lawsuit are very real.

A unicorn is defined as "a startup company valued at more than $1 billion even though it has yet to bring a product on the market." A wizard is defined as "a man who has magical powers." And ignoring, insulting, and firing female employees, especially those hired to fix your company's gender issues, is a text book case of "hostile environment sex discrimination and retaliation."

The reality may be virtual, but the jury's verdict is very real. Oculus VR, makers of the Rift virtual reality headset, along with founders Palmer Luckey and Brendan Iribe, were found to have violated a nondisclosure agreement as well as copyright infringement and false designation in a legal rift with ZeniMax Media. And now Oculus -- or more accurately its new owner, Facebook -- owe ZeniMax half a billion dollars.

Here's a breakdown of the jury's verdict, along with the verdict itself:

This past summer, the city of Chicago passed new regulations on home-sharing and short-term rental companies like Airbnb, adding a new four percent licensing fee to fund enforcement and homeless services, along with a complaint hotline. The new rules also require those who lease their houses or apartments by the night to pay share data on their listings with the city to ensure compliance with the law.

But a new lawsuit claims those rules "imposed draconian and unintelligible restrictions on home-sharing that hurt communities, violate constitutional rights, and punish responsible homeowners." You can see the full complaint below:

Before the next big show hits your TV screens, it's shopped to advertisers in "upfronts," lavish previews featuring network stars and musical numbers, hosted at venues like Lincoln Center and Carnegie Hall. And long before a single episode of that show hits the airwaves, a whole team goes to work on its scenery and backdrops. Who puts on these extravagant unveilings? Who do the networks call to design the latest sets and reality TV backgrounds? Turns out, it's a much messier process than the Hollywood polish would lead you to believe.

An entertainment industry party planning company is suing former employees and their side businesses, claiming they siphoned off millions in profit that should've gone to the company itself. Not only that, but party planners claim the illegal enterprise went on so long it amounted to racketeering, and now they're looking for $200 million in damages.

Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to regulate internet service providers the same as any common carrier of utility services, opening up companies like Comcast and Time Warner to regulation similar to water and electric providers. Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld that notion, an enormous victory for the Obama administration and net neutrality advocates.

The ruling also preserves federal regulations prohibiting companies from either blocking or slowing of internet traffic to consumers or speeding up websites that agree to pay a fee for faster access. Here's a look at the ruling:

A federal judge has barred members of the U.S. women's national soccer team from striking or being locked out in the lead-up to this summer's Olympics. Women's team members have been clashing with the U.S. Soccer Federation over fair wages and an expired collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

In finding that certain clauses of that CBA were still in effect, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court in Illinois "barred the players from authorizing, encouraging, or engaging in any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or other concerted interference with the activities of the Federation." Here's a look at the full opinion and order.

It may be the world's oldest profession, but that doesn't make it protected under the Constitution. A federal judge in California ruled that there is no fundamental right to prostitution, dismissing a lawsuit that challenged the state's ban exchanging sex for money.

The state claimed that "there is no fundamental right to engage in prostitution or to solicit prostitution" and "any relationship between the prostitute and the client is not expressive association protected by the Constitution," and U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White agreed. You can see his full order dismissing the case here: