WebProNews

Tag: Class-Action lawsuit

  • Gender Bias Lawsuit Against Google Gains Class-Action Status

    Gender Bias Lawsuit Against Google Gains Class-Action Status

    Google has been dealt a major setback, as a judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit over alleged gender bias and pay discrimination.

    Four plaintiffs have sued Google, accusing the company of discriminating against women, paying them less than their male counterparts. Google was seeking to prevent the lawsuit from gaining class-action status, but the judge ruled the four plaintiffs could represent the 10,800 women working for Google.

    “This is a significant day for women at Google and in the technology sector, and we are so proud of our brave clients for leading the way,” Kelly Dermody, a lawyer representing the women, said in an email to Bloomberg. “This order shows that it is critical that companies prioritize paying women equitably over spending money fighting them in litigation.”

    According to the court filing, the plaintiffs claim Google paid women roughly $16,794 per year less than men in similar roles. The case is seeking more than $600 million in damages.

    The ruling is a big blow to Google, capping off a year of HR disasters. The company fired Dr. Timnit Gebru, and later Margaret Mitchell, calling into question academic integrity and its track record of how it treats Black women. The fallout has resulted in engineers quitting in protest and the company being removed as a sponsor for a prominent AI ethics conference.

  • Facebook Lawsuit: Plaintiffs Say The Company Reads Users’ Private Messages

    Facebook Lawsuit: Plaintiffs Say The Company Reads Users’ Private Messages

    Are your private messages being read by Facebook? On Dec. 30. 2013 Michael Hurley and Matthew Campbell filed a class action lawsuit against Facebook. The plaintiffs claim that Facebook “has systematically violated consumers’ privacy by reading its users’ personal, private Facebook messages without their consent.” The men also claim that Facebook scans its user’s  private messages for links that lead to URLs that have Facebook “Like” buttons. They believe that if Facebook finds a “Like” button, it then attributes a “Like” to that webpage. Furthermore, the men claim that Facebook illegally extracts information found in its user’s private messages and sells the information to advertisers. In 2011, the company generated $2.7 billion in targeted ad sales, according to the lawsuit. If the allegations are true Facebook would also be in violation of California’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

    The plaintiff are also demanding that Facebook, the world’s most used social media site, pay out $100 a day for each day of violation to members of the class action lawsuit.

    In its defense Facebook has denied the allegations. A spokesperson for the company said,”We believe the allegations are without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously”.

    Graham Cluley, internet security expert, argues that Facebook is justified in scanning the private messages of its users as a security measure. According to Cluley, if Facebook did not scan user messages the site would be “rife” with phishing scams, malware and spam.

    This is not the first time Facebook has been hit with a class action lawsuit for privacy violation nor is it the only social media website to be accused. Last year, a similar lawsuit  was filed by 10 plaintiffs that said their Gmail messages were illegally being read by Google.

    Watch video for more insight

    http://youtu.be/wviVv540E4s

    Image via Facebook.com

  • EA Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over ‘Battlefield 4’ Claims

    Since the release of Battlefield 4 back in October, gamers have been fighting to actually play the title. Those who bought the title have encountered bugs, game crashes, and other difficulties when trying to play the game.

    Developer DICE has promised to fix the game before releasing any more DLC content, but that won’t save publisher EA from being held responsible for the tacit promises it made about Battlefield 4 before its release.

    Law firm Robbins Geller this week announced that it is heading up a class action lawsuit against EA. The case involves financial guidance EA provided to investors from July 24 to December 4. The lawsuit is seeking damages for all investors who bought EA stock during that time. Investors in EA during that period are now being invited to join in the lawsuit.

    The lawsuit filing alleges that EA made “materially false and misleading statements” regarding how well Battlefield 4 would sell. The complaint singles out EA’s increased guidance for Battlefield 4 sales that it issued on the game’s release date, which caused the company’s stock to rise.

    When the PlayStation 4 version of the game’s “multiple glitches significant crashes” became evident, however, EA’s stock price was negatively affected. DICE’s announcement that it will fix the game before putting any new content up for sale is also pointed to in the complaint as a factor that decreased EA stock price.

    Though the lawsuit does not specifically address gamers’ complaints about Battlefield 4, it does put future pressure on EA not to inflate its sales predictions based on games that are likely to launch in a near-broken state. Unfortunately, it may not put direct pressure on the publisher to not release near-broken games in the future. The lawsuit is simply blaming EA for those “materially false and misleading” financial projections, which the publisher had apparently based on a functional Battlefield 4 and not on the project delays it faces while fixing the game.

  • Johnson & Johnson to Pay $2.5 Billion Over Hip Replacements

    In January of this year a class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson began. The lawsuit revolved around the company’s 2010 recall of hip replacements and whether Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics knew that the devices could release small bits of metal particles into the bodies of patients.

    Johnson & Johnson this week announced that it has agreed to a settlement with lawyers representing the more than 8,000 patients involved in the lawsuit. Johnson & Johnson and DePuy will compensate patients who received the ASR hip implants and later had to undergo surgery to have them replaced.

    The total payout from Johnson & Johnson could top $2.5 billion if all patients eligible for the settlement claim their stake. This is in addition to a program Johnson & Johnson had set up after the recall to reimburse patients who later had to undergo surgery to correct their implants.

    We are committed to the well-being of ASR patients, as demonstrated by the voluntary recall and the program providing support for recall-related care,” said Andrew Ekdahl, worldwide president of Joint Reconstruction at DePuy. “The U.S. settlement program provides compensation for eligible patients without the delay and uncertainty of protracted litigation. DePuy remains committed to our purpose of advancing innovative treatment options to serve those who need joint replacement surgery.”

    This settlement comes just weeks after Johnson & Johnson was fined billions over the misbranding of the drug Risperdal. The company’s subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals plead guilty to marketing the drug for the relief of agitation caused by elderly dementia, which the drug is not approved for by the FDA.

  • Valve Is Latest To Block Class-Action Lawsuits In Their Terms Of Service

    Valve Is Latest To Block Class-Action Lawsuits In Their Terms Of Service

    There’s a rather disturbing trend making its way through the tech industry at the moment. Companies are updating their terms of service to make it so that consumers can’t bring class-action lawsuits against the company. Consumers are instead forced to bring any complaints to an arbitrator which keeps the case out of the public eye and significantly reduces any potential awards.

    The latest company to join this trend is Valve, the celebrated pro-consumer company behind great games like Portal 2, Half-Life 2 and Team Fortress 2. They also run Steam, the leader in digital distribution for PC games. Why is a company that’s so well known for being consumer friendly doing something that’s decidedly anti-consumer?

    Their reasoning is that it’s actually good for the consumer. Here’s their thoughts on the matter:

    Most significant to the new dispute resolution terms is that customers may now only bring individual claims, not class action claims. We considered this change very carefully. It’s clear to us that in some situations, class actions have real benefits to customers. In far too many cases however, class actions don’t provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims. Class actions like these do not benefit us or our communities.

    That would make perfect sense in a world where the only kind of class-action suits are the frivolous ones that they mention. It’s unfortunate that Valve seems to think only of themselves in regards to class-action suits, despite their claims. If Valve were to royally screw up one of these days, a class-action suit would be one of the few ways to readily come to an agreement. Making every consumer go through small claims court or arbitration is only great for Valve because it discourages the consumer from making a claim.

    It’s unfortunate to see Valve go down this path, but we’ll just have to grin and bear it for now. You’ll be asked to agree to the new terms next time you sign into Steam. If you still want access to all of your Steam games, you’ll have to agree. Considering that I own over 300 games on the platform, I think my hand is already forced.

  • LinkedIn Class Action Complaint Over Password Leak

    As expected for a security breach of this magnitude, a class action lawsuit has begun against LinkedIn regarding its recently leaked passwords. The action, which has been filed with the U.S. District Court in Northern California, claims LinkedIn failed to “properly safeguard its users’ digitally stored personally identifiable information, including e-mail addresses, passwords, and login credentials”

    The plaintiff in the e-filed court document is Katie Szpyrka, a senior associate at a Chicago real estate firm. She has been a LinkedIn member since 2010, and also paid for an upgraded premium account. She claims that LinkedIn failed to adequately protect users with “basic industry standard encryption methods.” By this, the plaintiff means LinkedIn should have been salting its password hashes. These claims are made in light of LinkedIn’s privacy policy, which states that “All information that you provide will be protected with industry standard protocols and technology.”

    While salting and re-hashing passwords certainly is a good security practice, it will be interesting to see if the plaintiff’s lawyers can manage to demonstrate that it is an industry standard. The fact that both eHarmony and Last.fm were also included in the password leak would seem to be evidence that salting passwords before hashing is not “standard,” even if it should be.

    One interesting claim made in the lawsuit is that the password hash was originally stolen from LinkedIn by a hacker using an SQL injection attack. LinkedIn has never officially stated how the passwords were originally leaked. If LinkedIn did leave itself open to SQL injection, it might be a factor more likely way to prove that LinkedIn did not live up to its policy standards, and therefore was in breach of contract. Still, LinkedIn maintains that no unauthorized access resulted from the leak, meaning that an award for damages seems unlikely. The lawsuit, though, also asks for an injunction against LinkedIn, forcing it to better protect its members’ private data.

    The court document can be read as a PDF on the Courthouse News website. The entire debacle started on June 6, when it was discovered that over 6.4 million LinkedIn passwords were leaked to a hash cracking website. LinkedIn responded that same day by deactivating member accounts associated with the leaked passwords and emailing members with information on how to reset their passwords. In the following week it was revealed that some of the leaked passwords also belonged to Last.fm and eHarmony.

    (via Courthouse News)

  • Windows 8 User Agreement Forbids Class Action Lawsuits

    The class action lawsuit is the most valued weapon in the consumer’s arsenal. It allows consumers to bring the wrongdoings of companies into the wider public sphere of discussion and get others who have been wronged to add their voices to the cause. In a recent disturbing trend, however, companies have been updating their user agreements to outright ban such actions. Microsoft is the latest to join in.

    In a post that’s written with enough flowery language to make a pretentious English grad student cry, Microsoft lays out their new user agreement that will be going into effect with Windows 8. The main point of the new user agreement is that disgruntled consumers can not bring class action lawsuits against Microsoft in regards to Windows 8.

    Microsoft proudly parades its new policy with a badge that says, “Supreme Court approved.” That’s because the Supreme Court pretty much killed any chances of a class action lawsuit’s success last year in AT&T Mobility v. Concepion. The case made it so that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempted any state laws that prohibited companies from barring class action lawsuits.

    Of course, Microsoft thinks that the consumer is getting the fair deal here by touting one of the best arbitration provisions in the country. Here’s what they have to say on that:

    We permit arbitration wherever the customer lives, promptly reimburse filing fees, and, if we offer less to resolve a dispute informally than an arbitrator ultimately awards, we will pay the greater of the award or $1,000 for most products and services—plus double the customer’s reasonable attorney’s fees. Most important, this approach means customer complaints will be resolved promptly, and in those cases where the arbitrator agrees with the customer’s position, the customer will receive generous compensation, and receive it quickly.

    Wow, that sounds pretty fantastic. I’m willing to bet that Microsoft will stay true to that promise as well. Consumers are going to be well taken care of and not many are going to complain about the terms listed above. Microsoft gets to keep on making products and consumers can go run to arbitration when a product doesn’t work as advertised.

    It’s great for businesses, but the consumer no longer has a voice. Sure, they can file for arbitration and get their money back, but that’s not the point of a class action lawsuit. It’s never been about the money. It’s about collecting voices together in general dissent towards a company’s suspect practices and letting the country know that you and others have been wronged.

    Microsoft isn’t doing themselves or the consumer any favors with this change. All it does is move to silence those that may have a legitimate complaint against the company.

    But hey, at least Microsoft has a 45-day refund policy and they reimburse you up to $7 on shipping costs. That totally makes up for everything.

    [h/t: The Register]

  • Google Faces Class-Action Suit: Violation of Privacy

    Yes, more complaints over Google’s new privacy policy. This time they come from consumers in New York and California who claim the new policy directly violates the old policy which claims it will not share information from one service with another, Google owned or not.

    Both plaintiffs bring a class-action suit against the technology representing all users holding accounts from August 2004 through the beginning of March of this year when the new policy went into effect. The lawsuits claim that Google is in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, and several other federal and state laws regarding electronic privacy and communication storage.

    If you remember before the new privacy policy went into effect March 1st, most of Google’s products had separate policies that addressed privacy concerns. The introduction of the new unified policy caused a lot of ruckus for users, lawmakers, and other interest parties.

    These lawsuits seem to be an inevitability for Google who ignored a slew of complains, not the least of which was from the European Union, asking the technology giant to delay the launch of their new policies. There’s no way to tell what the court will rule on these cases, but it seems Google has pushed users over the edge with their increasing efforts to bring the public more relevant adds, as they put it.

    Lets see what others are thinking about these new lawsuits:

    Another day, another #privacy lawsuit – Google faces class action lawsuits against new privacy policy http://t.co/xMs06NpI #socmed 1 hour ago via HootSuite ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Class action lawsuit filed against #Google over changes to #Privacy Policy Rules http://t.co/pUXSTLD8 Google’s lawyers are really busy !!! 9 hours ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Google users sue company over ‘deceptive’ privacy changes: Three men have filed a lawsuit against Google Inc. ov… http://t.co/e0HWrgXV 12 hours ago via twitterfeed ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Evil Google doesnt care. Period. @esqcounsel: Google ignores small claims privacy lawsuit – The Inquirer http://t.co/yR1sXBAt via @INQ 1 day ago via Gravity! ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Just filed for a default judgment against #Google in my lawsuit over their recent #privacy policy changes 1 day ago via Seesmic ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Facebook, Twitter, 16 Others Sued for Alleged Privacy Issues http://t.co/MKCGRRmz 2 days ago via twitterfeed ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Just filed for a default judgment against #Google in my lawsuit over their recent #privacy policy changes 1 day ago via Seesmic ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto