Other Decisions: Decided
Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Other Category

The NTSB has ruled that drones, despite being in a regulatory gray area, are subject to the FAA's rules.

This is a reversal of a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) judge's ruling in March, which found that the FAA didn't have any legitimate regulations which could touch drone pilots. But on Tuesday, that judge's decision was appealed to the four-member board, which reversed the lower administrative decision and found that drones are indeed "aircraft" under the FAA's regulations.

So with all this back and forth, what should drone pilots know about this NTSB ruling?

AT&T has agreed to a $105 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over claims that the carrier allegedly charged consumers for unauthorized third-party services and subscriptions through a process called "cramming."

The settlement is the largest to date in the FTC's effort to combat the practice of mobile cramming. Earlier this year, the FTC filed a complaint against T-Mobile alleging that carrier was cramming users' bills with unauthorized third-party charges as well.

What exactly is cramming, and what are the terms of AT&T's cramming settlement?

The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld a lower court decision allowing appointed professional guardians to remove patients from life support without a court review.

The case involved Jeffrey Tschumy -- a man incapacitated from diabetes, the effects of a stroke, and partial paralysis from a spinal infection -- who choked on his food and suffered what was determined to be irreversible brain damage, reports Minnesota Public Radio. The man had no family and the professional guardian who'd been appointed nearly three years earlier to make the man's medical decisions asked the hospital to remove him from life support.

The hospital's ethics panel and a district court said that guardians didn't have that decision-making power. But the Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed.

Electric car maker Tesla has gotten the go-ahead from Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled Monday that a state law couldn't be used to stop Tesla from selling cars.

The Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association had tried to bar Tesla from selling its premium electric cars at an upscale mall in Natick, under a law that prevents manufacturers from owning and operating dealerships. But the high court disagreed.

The Boston Globe reports that Tesla is facing similar restrictive laws in Texas, Arizona, and Maryland. So how did Tesla manage to win in Massachusetts?

A federal judge ruled Thursday that BP was grossly negligent in causing the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and now the company has to pay.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier found that BP acted with "gross negligence" in the oil spill that killed 11 rig workers and caused billions of dollars in damage to Gulf businesses. Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the precise dollar amount owed by BP as a result of this ruling isn't clear yet, but The Associated Press estimates the damage at $17.6 billion.

How does this new case relate to BP's past and future court woes?

Vitaminwater has settled a class action lawsuit over claims that its labeling and marketing were deceptive and misleading.

The class action includes Vitaminwater consumers in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and the Virgin Islands who purchased the product since 2003. As of Tuesday, the Washington Examiner reported that the settlement was still pending approval in a New York federal court. If approved, the settlement will prohibit Vitaminwater from making claims like "vitamins + water -- what's in your hand."

What was the case against Vitaminwater, and how will its marketing be changed by this settlement?

A federal appellate court has upheld Florida's controversial "Docs v. Glocks" law, barring doctors from asking patients about gun ownership.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a prior decision by a Florida federal district court, declaring the law to be a "legitimate regulation" of doctors' professional conduct in the state, reports Reuters. Critics worry that this law chills physicians' free speech rights with regard to firearms, placing their licenses on the line if they broach the subject of guns.

It appears "Glocks" won over "Docs," but why did the appeals court side with gun owners?

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the use of Obamacare subsidies in both state- and federally run healthcare exchanges.

Tuesday's unanimous ruling in King v. Burwell flatly contradicts an earlier ruling (hours earlier) by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the use of Obamacare tax credits to anyone who enrolled via a federally created exchange. USA Today reports that this circuit split may lead to a "Supreme Court showdown."

Why did the 4th Circuit allow Obamacare subsidies for all healthcare exchanges, when the D.C. Circuit limited them?

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Obamacare subsidies are only authorized for eligible participants in "State"-established healthcare exchanges, and not for participants in the federally established exchange.

The ruling arises from an IRS interpretation of the laws underpinning Obamacare, specifically allowing taxpayers to take advantage of premium tax credits regardless of whether a state or federal entity created the insurance marketplace. Law professor Jonathan Adler writes for The Volokh Conspiracy that he believes this ruling is truer to the text of the law, though it may not mean the healthcare system many reformers had hoped for.

Why did the D.C. Circuit rule against Obamacare subsidies for participants in federally created marketplaces?

If you bought a computer, video game console, or other electronic device between 1998 and 2002, chances are you're eligible to get at least $10 -- and maybe more -- just by filling out a form.

As part of a price-fixing lawsuit settlement, manufacturers of DRAM -- aka Dynamic Random Access Memory, a type of memory used in most computers -- have agreed to provide rebates to consumers who purchased products containing DRAM during the years in question, with no documentation required on your part.

Fill out the form; acquire currency. Can it really be that simple?