WebProNews

Tag: settlements

  • LinkedIn Settles Lawsuit over Those Excessive Emails

    LinkedIn has settled a lawsuit that revolved around its infamous “add me” emails, and you may qualify for a piece of the settlement.

    The class action suit, which was first filed in 2013, has been settled for $13 million (plus an additional $3.25 in legal fees). LinkedIn hasn’t admitted wrongdoing, but says it’s choosing to settle the case in order to “focus where it matters most: finding additional ways to improve our members’ experiences on LinkedIn.”

    LinkedIn is sending out emails to members who used the company’s ‘Add Connections’ feature between September 17, 2011 and October 31, 2014.

    Also, if you think you are a part of this class and didn’t receive an email, there’s a settlement website you can visit.

    LinkedIn’s Add Connections feature allows the company to access users’ email contacts and send them requests to connect on LinkedIn.

    That’s not in dispute – as a court ruled that LinkedIn users had in fact given the company permission to do that.

    The issue had to do with the follow-up emails – those reminders that a person is waiting on a connection. According to the plaintiffs, these emails were unauthorized and amounted to spam.

    LinkedIn has provided this statement on the settlement:

    LinkedIn recently settled a lawsuit concerning its Add Connections product. In the lawsuit, a number of false accusations were made against LinkedIn. Based on its review of LinkedIn’s product, the Court agreed that these allegations were false and found that LinkedIn’s members gave permission to share their email contacts with LinkedIn and to send invitations to connect on LinkedIn. Because the Court also suggested that we could be more clear about the fact that we send reminder emails about pending invitations from LinkedIn members, we have made changes to our product and Privacy Policy. Ultimately, we decided to resolve this case so that we can put our focus where it matters most: finding additional ways to improve our members’ experiences on LinkedIn. In doing so, we will continue to be guided by our core value — putting our Members First.

    LinkedIn has backed off its aggressive email campaigns as of late. Earlier this year, the company changed its policies to make emails “more infrequent and more relevant.”

    “Many of you have told us that you receive too many emails from LinkedIn. We’re also not immune to the late night talk show host jokes. We get it. And we’ve recently begun to make changes so that the emails you receive are more infrequent and more relevant,” says LinkedIn in July. ““We also want to remind you that we provide the ability to control which emails you want to receive at your desired frequency. All of our emails have an unsubscribe link at the bottom, and you can visit your Settings page to manage your email experience to your liking.”

  • Uber Settles Lawsuit over Death of 6-Year-Old Girl

    Uber Settles Lawsuit over Death of 6-Year-Old Girl

    Uber has settled a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the tragic death of a six-year-old girl on New Year’s Eve, 2013.

    On December 31st at around 8pm, Sofia Liu, her younger brother Anthony, and mother Huan Kuang were struck as they walked a crosswalk in San Francisco. Sofia died as a resulted of the accident. The driver was logged in to the Uber app, according to the lawsuit.

    According to Reuters, Uber and the girl’s family have reached a settlement – the terms of which are being kept under wraps at the family’s request.

    When the lawsuit was filed, Uber asserted that the driver was not actually providing services for Uber at the time of the accident.

    “Our hearts go out to the family and victims of the tragic accident that occurred in downtown San Francisco on New Year’s Eve. We extend our deepest condolences. We work with transportation providers across the Bay Area. The driver in question was not providing services on the Uber system during the time of the accident. The driver was a partner of Uber and his account was immediately deactivated,” said Uber at the time.

    The family’s argument against Uber was two-pronged – first, it challenged the notion of what it means to really be “on the clock” while employed at Uber and second it took issue with Uber’s app, how it relates to the company’s entire business premise, and how it could run afoul of California law.

    From the New York Times, in 2014:

    Uber asserts that Uber drivers without fares are not Uber cars. The suit, filed by Chris Dolan, a San Francisco lawyer, directly challenges this effort by the company to detach itself from its own users. It says Uber needs the vehicles to be logged into the Uber app — that’s the only way potential riders know there is a car in the vicinity. So even when there is no fare in the car, the drivers are in essence on the clock, working for Uber. When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless telephone” while driving unless it is specifically configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the “development, implementation and use of the app” so as to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.

    It looks like Uber decided to settle rather than risk this argument in court.

    Of course, this lawsuit sounds very similar in tone to others currently in motion. Are Uber drivers employees? Or are they simply contractors? When is an Uber driver actually working for Uber?

    Uber’s argument has always been that it’s a software company. Uber connects people wanting a ride to those offering a ride. It’s a logistics company. Uber simply connects third-party contractors with customers.

    In a recent decision the California Labor Commission ruled that one Uber drivers was actually an employee.

  • Verizon, Sprint Pay $158M for ‘Cramming’ Bogus Charges

    Verizon, Sprint Pay $158M for ‘Cramming’ Bogus Charges

    The Federal Communications Commission has announced that Verizon and Sprint will pay a combined $158 million to settle “cramming” investigations, wherein the Commission found that the carriers were cramming unauthorized charges onto customers’ bills.

    The majority of such charges came from so-called “premium text services”.

    “For too long, consumers have been charged on their phone bills for things they did not buy,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “We call these fraudulent charges ‘cramming,’ and with today’s agreements we are calling them history for Verizon and Sprint customers.”

    The FCC describes the scheme as such:

    The monthly charge for these third-party premium text messaging services ranged from $0.99 to $14.00, but typically were $9.99 per month. Verizon retained 30% or more of each third-party charge that it billed, while Sprint received approximately 35% of collected revenues for each of its third-party charges. Numerous consumers have complained to the FCC, other government agencies, and the carriers that they never requested or authorized the third-party services for which they were charged. Customers who called to complain were often denied refunds, and yet, when the FCC requested proof that customers had authorized charges, the carriers were unable to prove that these services were ever requested.

    The majority of the settlement will go toward customer refunds, in fact. Verizon’s $90 million chunk is divided as such: $70 million in refunds, $16 million for state governments, and a $4 million fine to the US Treasury. Sprint’s $68 million portion is divided as such: $50 million in refunds, $12 million to states, and a $6 million fine.

    “Consumers rightfully expect their monthly phone bills will reflect only those sevices that they’ve purchased,” said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. “Today’s settlements put in place strong protections that will prevent consumers from being victimized by these kinds of practices in the future.”

    With this joint settlement, all four major US carriers will have paid for their “cramming”. Last year, both AT&T and T-Mobile settled for $105 million and $90 million, respectively.

    Both Verizon and Sprint said that they rigorously “protect customers” and already have systems to refund premium text message charges in place.

    Image via Thinkstock

  • LinkedIn Settles Lawsuit Over Massive Password Leak

    LinkedIn Settles Lawsuit Over Massive Password Leak

    LinkedIn has settled a class-action lawsuit filed shortly after the social network allowed over 6.5 million passwords to be exposed by Russian hackers in 2012. And apparently, LinkedIn feels as though its penalty should be about $1 per user.

    Premium user, that is. Though the password breach affected all both types of users – both paid and unpaid – the class action settlement only applies to premium (paid) LinkedIn users.

    The settlement, which was just recently approved, will set up a $1.25 million fund for affected users. LinkedIn’s roughly 800,000 premium subscribers will have until May 2, 2015, to file their claim – each of which has a $50 maximum.

    But as the New York Times points out, after lawyers take around one-third of that pool, the available funds work out to about $1 per 800,000 premium subscriber.

    Of course, those who file a claim will most certainly receive more than $1. There’s no way that all 800,000 LinkedIn premium subscribers are going to take the time to submit a claim form. But if you were a premium member at any time between March 15, 2006 to June 7, 2012 – you can go file one right now.

    “Following the dismissal of every other claim associated with this lawsuit, LinkedIn has agreed to this settlement to avoid the distraction and expense of ongoing litigation,” said LinkedIn in a statement.

    But the company “continues to deny that it committed, or threatened, or attempted to commit any wrongful act or violation of law or duty alleged in the Action,” according to the settlement.

    In June of 2012, 6.5 million LinkedIn passwords were leaked. Barely two weeks after the breach, a senior associate at a real estate firm filed a complaint claiming that LinkedIn failed to adequately protect users with “basic industry standard encryption methods.”

    Image via LinkedIn

  • Toyota Settlement Pays $1.2 Billion to the U.S.

    The U.S. Department of Justice today announced that Toyota Motor Corporation has agreed to pay $1.2 billion to the U.S. to settle a criminal wire fraud charge. It is the largest financial penalty of this kind imposed by the U.S. on a vehicle manufacturer.

    The settlement surrounds the well-publicized recall of Toyota and Lexus vehicles over manufacturing errors that could cause “unintended acceleration.”

    The Justice Department’s case against Toyota claimed that Toyota knowingly defrauded consumers in late 2009 and early 2010 through “misleading statements” touting the safety of its vehicles. As part of the settlement Toyota is now admitting that U.S. consumers were mislead by statements about the acceleration issue.

    The agreement also puts in place an independent monitor to review Toyota’s safety-related public relations, statements, and reporting. Toyota’s compliance is required for three years for the Justice Department to dismiss the wire fraud charge.

    “Rather than promptly disclosing and correcting safety issues about which they were aware, Toyota made misleading public statements to consumers and gave inaccurate facts to Members of Congress,” said Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General. “When car owners get behind the wheel, they have a right to expect that their vehicle is safe. If any part of the automobile turns out to have safety issues, the car company has a duty to be upfront about them, to fix them quickly, and to immediately tell the truth about the problem and its scope. Toyota violated that basic compact. Other car companies should not repeat Toyota’s mistake: a recall may damage a company’s reputation, but deceiving your customers makes that damage far more lasting.”

    Toyota is quickly becoming infamous for its numerous safety recalls. Just last year the company’s Sienna minivans were recalled over an issue that could cause the vehicles to shift out of park without the brake engaged. Most recently the company recalled nearly 1.9 million of its Prius hybrids due to a software glitch that could cause the vehicles to lose power during a drive.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • 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.

  • Yes, Facebook May Owe You $10; That Email Isn’t a Scam

    Million and millions of U.S. Facebook users received an email last weekend that read LEGAL NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION – just like that, in all caps. It says that “a federal court authorized this notice,” and that it’s “not a solicitation from a lawyer.”

    It also tells you that you may be entitled to up to $10, coming directly from the deep pockets of Facebook.

    Although it may sound like a scam (in fact it really, really sounds like a scam), you can rest assured that it is 100% legit. You can proceed with your claim without fear – but you may not want to.

    This past weekend, another large group of Facebook users received the Settlement email, which stems from an ongoing class action lawsuit that was first filed in early 2012. Facebook settled the lawsuit, which claimed that the company had infringed upon the privacy rights of users when they used their likenesses, photos, and activity in Sponsored Stories ads without consent, compensation, or the ability to opt-out.

    The initial settlement was rejected, however, and Facebook was forced to rework the terms. In December 2012, a judge issued a preliminary ruling approving the new terms: a $20 million settlement that will see the majority handed out to users or to various charities and advocacy groups. It all depends on how many claims are filed.

    What Facebook has done, in the simplest of terms, is create a giant fund that can be used to pay class members. If you received an email, it means that you are eligible to sign on as a class member because your activity or likeness was used in a Sponsored Story prior to December 3rd, 2012. The amount that each claimant will receive depends on how many people jump in the pool. If too many people file a claim, and it’s “economically infeasible” to pay out everyone, the fund will be distributed to around a dozen non-profits who all operate to “teach adults and children how to use social media technologies safely,” or to “protect the interest of children.

    They are:

    Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Joan Ganz Cooney Center, Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Harvard Law School), Information Law Institute (NYU Law School), Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (Berkeley Law School), Center for Internet and Society (Stanford Law School), High Tech Law Institute (Santa Clara University School of Law), Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood, Consumers Federation of America, Consumer Privacy Rights Fund, ConnectSafely.org, and WiredSafety.org.

    If you received the settlement notice, you have five options. You can either submit a claim, which makes you eligible for the $10, but prevents you from joining any other action against Facebook in this realm. Or you can exclude yourself, which lets you retain your ability to sue Facebook in matters pertaining to Sponsored Stories. If you do nothing, you give up your right to both the money and future litigation.

    There’s also options to object to the settlement or attend a hearing, neither of which will really be considered by most users.

    If you decide to file a claim, however, you should know that you’ll be attesting to a few things that might be difficult to attest to (for the more informed Facebook user). As pointed out by Forbes, you’ll agree that you were “not aware that Facebook could be paid a fee for displaying actions such as these, along with my name and/or profile picture, to my Facebook friends,” and that you were truly “injured” by the display of your info in a Sponsored Story.

    Anyway, all of the information you need to take any route is available on a dedicated site for the suit, fraleyfacebooksettlement.com

    What’s just as interesting as the cy pres settlement is the set of changes that Facebook has agreed to implement as a result of the ruling. Facebook has promised to add new language to its terms, making Sponsored Stories easier to understand for the average user. Facebook has also agreed to implement better mechanisms for viewing past activities that may have been featured in Sponsored Stories, as well as set up tighter controls on what appears in the future.

    Here are all of those stipulations, as provided by the agreement in Fraley v. Facebook:

    • Revise its terms of service (known as the “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” or “SRR”) to more fully explain the instances in which users agree to the display of their names and profile pictures in connection with Sponsored Stories
    • Create an easily accessible mechanism that enables users to view, on a going-forward basis, the subset of their interactions and other content on Facebook that have been displayed in Sponsored Stories (if any)
    • Develop settings that will allow users to prevent particular items or categories of content or information related to them from being displayed in future Sponsored Stories
    • Revise its SRR to confirm that minors represent that their parent or legal guardian consents to the use of the minor’s name and profile picture in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content
    • Provide parents and legal guardians with additional information about how advertising works on Facebook in its Family Safety Center and provide parents and legal guardians with additional tools to control whether their children’s names and profile pictures are displayed in connection with Sponsored Stories
    • Add a control in minor users’ profiles that enables each minor user to indicate that his or her parents are not Facebook users and, where a minor user indicates that his or her parents are not on Facebook, Facebook will make the minor ineligible to appear in Sponsored Stories until he or she reaches the age of 18, until the minor changes his or her setting to indicate that his or her parents are on Facebook, or until a confirmed parental relationship with the minor user is established.

    As far as the money goes, you have until May 2nd to submit your claim. Or you can do nothing, of course. Personally, I don’t think I can file a claim that stipulates my ignorance on the fact that Facebook was making money off of Sponsored Stories. Plus, I don’t find myself feeling particularly wronged by the concept of a Sponsored Story. And in the end, filing a claim is simply more of a hassle than it’s worth.

    But if you completely disagree with me (as I’m sure many do), and you received an email, you can proceed with the knowledge that this is all legit. Happy claims filing.

  • Facebook’s Sponsored Stories Lawsuit Is in Its Penultimate Hour

    A couple of weeks ago, we told you that Facebook’s long-running Sponsored Stories lawsuit was likely on its way to coming to a close. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, upon reviewing a new settlement proposal from the social network, was less critical and stated that he would issue a ruling “very shortly.”

    Today, we have a preliminary ruling on the revised settlement: it’s good to go.

    “The court is satisfied that the revisions to the terms of the settlement are sufficient to warrant preliminary approval under the applicable standards,” said U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg. This isn’t the official end of the case, as Seeborg will consider final approval of the settlement in June of next year. But it does suggest that the case is in its penultimate stages.

    The lawsuit stems from a few California residents who claimed that Facebook violated their privacy rights when the company used their likenesses in their Sponsored Stories product without permission or compensation. Facebook’s first proposed settlement offer included a $10 million cy pres payment to charity, with an additional $10 million in leftover legal fees.

    Seeborg initially rejected that offer, citing concerns over the size of the cy pres payment as well as the fact that no money was going directly to users.

    Facebook revised the settlement, and that’s where we are today. Seeborg has issued preliminary approval of the revised proposal. Under this new settlement, Facebook users can each claim up to $10 in damages. It’s still a $20 million settlement, so that only totals out to 2 million users getting paid. As a stipulation of the revision, if enough users file claims on the damages as to push the amount-per-person below $5, most of the sum could end up going to advocacy groups.

    And of course, Facebook will keep their word and make sure information about their Sponsored Stories initiative is displayed more prominently on the site, as well as allow total opt-outs for minors and a “mechanism” for dealing with past activities and how they are featured in Sponsored Stories.

  • Apple, HTC Settle All Their Patent Lawsuits

    Apple and HTC announced this weekend that they have reached a global settlement that dismisses all current patent lawsuits between the companies. In addition, the companies have signed a ten-year license agreement that extends to current and future patents held by both Apple and HTC. The “terms” of the settlement are confidential, so it is unknown how much money has changed hands.

    “HTC is pleased to have resolved its dispute with Apple, so HTC can focus on innovation instead of litigation,” said Peter Chou, CEO of HTC.

    “We are glad to have reached a settlement with HTC,” said Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. “We will continue to stay laser focused on product innovation.”

    Though the terms of the settlement haven’t been released, I think it’s safe to say that HTC will be paying plenty of money to Apple. Apple is the company who began these lawsuits, and the company does not have a history of backing down from patent trials.

    Back in August, the judge in the U.S. trial between Apple and Samsung urged the companies to resolve their dispute before the verdict could bring possible disaster to both parties. No settlement was reached, and the move paid off for Apple, which was rewarded just over $1billion.

    Unfortunately for Apple, it has not been as successful with patent litigation outside the U.S. In the U.K., Apple was ordered to publish an embarrassing apology to Samsung. Samsung and Motorola won a lawsuit against Apple in Germany back in September, and last month a court in the Netherlands ruled that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s multi-touch patents. Last week, a patent troll was able to win a verdict against Apple, nabbing $396 million.

  • Netflix Will Caption All Streaming Videos by 2014, Per Settlement

    Netflix and the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) have reached an agreement that will see the company close caption every single one of their streaming videos by September 30th, 2014. According to the NAD, this landmark settlement will hopefully convince other streaming video providers to follow suit.

    The settlement arose out of a lawsuit filed by the NAD and the Western Massachusetts Association of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, where the two organizations claimed the Netflix was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by “failing to provide adequate closed captioning on ‘watch instantly’ streaming video programming.” The lawsuit has now been settled with a $795,000 payment and a joint decree.

    In the decree, Netflix must submit to deadlines for captioning their streaming content. Netflix says that 82% of their content is already captioned, but the settlement forces the company to make sure 90% is captioned by September 30th, 2013 and 100% is captioned by September 30th, 2014.

    Netflix has also agreed to become progressively more efficient in captioning content added to the service after the 2014 deadline. By September 30th, 2015, Netflix must be able to caption all new content in 15 days from it appearing in the library. By 2016, Netflix must provide captioning on all content within one week of its debut. Beyond that, Netflix must strive to work toward providing simultaneous captioning with all new content.

    Until then, Netflix has to update their UI to make it even easier to find the captioned content that’s currently available:

    “Netflix will maintain on its website (www.netflix.com) a list or similar identification of On-demand Streaming Content with Conforming Captions and Subtitles. Netflix will provide an option to either sort or filter the list by title, year, maturity rating, and genre. Netflix’s obligation to maintain this list will expire on October 1, 2014, by which point Conforming Captions or Subtitles will be available on 100% of On-demand Streaming Content,” says the settlement.

    “The National Association of the Deaf congratulates Netflix for committing to 100% captioning, and is thrilled to announce that 48 million deaf and hard of hearing people will be able to fully access Netflix’s Watch Instantly services,” said NAD CEO Howard Rosenblum.

    “We have worked consistently to make the broadest possible selection of titles available to Netflix members who are deaf or hard of hearing and are far and away the industry leader in doing so,” said Neil Hunt, Netflix Chief Product Officer. “We are pleased to have reached this agreement and hope it serves as a benchmark for other providers of streaming video entertainment.”

    You can see a full list of all captioned content here. You can also find it by searching “subtitles.”