In House: Litigation Archives
In House - The FindLaw Corporate Counsel Blog

Recently in Litigation Category

The sight of toddlers and children with tablets and smart phones is pretty common these days -- even I'm guilty -- sometimes technology is the only thing that will curb a meltdown (if only that were true of adults). And, any parent probably has their own story about how their child managed to purchase apps (or movies on demand, in my case). How the kids manage to figure this out is a mystery.

Well, parents will have one less thing to worry about because the FTC is taking up one of their causes: unauthorized in-app charges, reports Inside Counsel.

More than a year later, Apple has finally taken a judge's advice and settled its long-running e-books price-fixing antitrust case -- pending further appeals. On the eve of the damages trial, Apple settled with the government for $450 million, $400 million of which goes to consumers. However, the settlement is conditioned on Apple not losing its appeals, appeals which could reduce the settlement to $70 million or, if Apple gets truly lucky, nothing at all.

That last part seems unlikely, however. If you recall, the government had a ton of evidence, including emails from the late Steve Jobs. The evidence was so compelling that the trial judge warned Apple, on the eve of the merits trial, that it would be best to settle.

It's not about the size of the company -- it's about the culpability and level of misconduct during the subprime mortgage bubble that preceded the 2008 financial crisis. That's the message the Department of Justice is sending after today's settlement with Citigroup.

While the company opened negotiations with a $363 million offer, and the DOJ demanded $12 billion, the approximately $7 billion deal struck is this: a $4 billion civil penalty paid to the Justice Department, $500 million paid to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and several states. The bank will also allocate $2.5 billion for "consumer relief," such as modifying mortgages for struggling homeowners and financing affordable multi-family rental housing.

A federal district judge has preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action, in which plaintiffs allege that J.Crew violated Massachusetts law by collecting zip codes at check out. While that case is wrapping up, another, involving UPS is heating up as the Supreme Court granted cert to hear the case in the 2014 term.

Let's take a look at the issues in the case, which incidentally, affect most companies operating today.

The nation's fastest growing cell phone carrier is about to meet the Federal Trade Commission in a courtroom, and the fallout could be more than a few fines -- the PR hit from allegedly cramming bogus fees on customers' bills could cost the company dearly.

The FTC announced earlier this week that it filed a complaint [PDF] against T-Mobile, accusing it of knowingly passing along unauthorized fraudulent third-party charges to consumers, while taking a thirty-five to forty percent cut. The charges would be hidden in bills that were dozens of pages long, and the refund rate was only 40 percent, according to the agency.

Back in February, we wrote about Kind Snacks suing Clif for trademark infringement, la trade dress violation, related to the new, very similar packaging of Clif's Mojo nutrition bars. Earlier this month, a federal judge denied Kind's motion for preliminary injunction.

But the biggest takeaway has to do more with social media, than trademark infringement. Read on to see why.

Last week, American Apparel axed its founder, CEO, and 27 percent shareholder, Dov Charney, after an "investigation into alleged misconduct." We couldn't help but wonder: with all of his public idiocy (sexual harassment, labor law violations, slurs, and most damning of all: unprofitability), what caused the company to finally pull the trigger, five years too late?

From the reports? Not a whole lot more than we already knew about, including sexual misconduct, as well as a few allegations of personal use of company resources. The real surprise was the way the termination played out: a ten-hour meeting with Charney and an ultimatum: resign or be fired for cause.

On Monday, Judge Oing of the New York State Supreme Court, ruled in favor of Macy's in its legal dispute with JC Penney, over a licensing deal with Martha Stewart.

The problems started in 2011, when JC Penney, under the short-lived and ill-fated tutelage of former CEO Ron Johnson, announced a deal with Martha Stewart outlining plans to create in-store Martha Stewart shops. The problem? Martha Stewart already had an exclusive deal with Macy's to manufacture and sell her line of home goods, reports Bloomberg.

It's the topic of the day: the United States Patent and Trademark Office has invalidated the Pro-Football, Inc.'s trademarked variations on the Washington Redskins name, calling the term "redskin" derogatory. The ruling, if it stands, invalidates the team's ability to protect its intellectual property and brand and effectively forces a change that many in Congress and elsewhere have been requesting for years.

What does the opinion mean for the team, and more importantly, for your company's ability to protect its IP? Let's do a little Monday Morning Quarterbacking of the opinion and the football team's strategy:

A pair of jeans, Mickey Mouse and Karl Lagerfeld walk into a bar. Sounds like the makings of a bad joke, but they all are making their way to a bar -- just not the kind that provides booze. The Gap, Disney and Karl Lagerfeld are all getting sued.

Read on to see why they are getting sued, and take note -- your company could be next.