Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Mondelez, which owns big names such as Oreo and Toblerone, claims that Primal Pantry’s snack bar “exploits” the trademark of its Milka chocolate bars. Mondelez’s lawyers are demanding that the use of lilac packaging for the snack bar be swapped out, warning of a £5,200 penalty each time the trademark is infringed. However, Nurture Brands, which owns Primal Pantry, denies exploiting the trademark.
Primal Pantry’s snack bars were launched back in 2016 in a range of different coloured packaging so that "they have good differentiation on a shelf together", said the managing director of Nurture Brands, Adam Draper. "We don't think it is the same colour or even in the same spectrum," he added.
Draper went on to say that, despite the legal letter, Mondelez is yet to provide evidence that the packaging colour is similar enough to infringe on the Milka trademark.
According to the BBC, Mondelez has given Nurture Brands six months to swap out its lilac packaging. However, in 2019, its subsidiary Cadbury lost an appeal to protect the particular shade of purple used for its packaging.
Prosecutors and defence lawyers concluded their closing arguments last week. Now the 12-strong jury will begin deliberating on the charges of sex trafficking and racketeering bought against the 54-year-old singer.
In addition to being accused of running a trafficking ring, R Kelly is also charged with multiple violating of the Mann Act, the federal law which criminalises the transportation of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.”
Plaintiffs say R Kelly subjected them to perverse and sadistic whims when they were underage. They say they believe the fame and celebrity of R Kelly enabled him to do whatever he wanted. Assistant US attorney Nadia Shihata added that the singer’s alleged victims “aren’t groupies or gold diggers, they’re human beings.”
The prosecution claims R Kelly deliberately gave a 17-year-old girl herpes and would subject his victims to degrading rules. He allegedly forced them to call him “Daddy” and filmed them having sexual intercourse as a means of control.
R Kelly has denied any wrongdoing. His defence attorney Deveraux Cannick told the jury that testimony by several accusers was full of lies. "He gave them a lavish lifestyle," Cannick said. "That's not what a predator is supposed to do."
Following a years-long extradition saga, Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou travelled home to China on Friday as an agreement with US prosecutors to end the bank fraud case against her was reached. Meng’s detention has long been a point of tension between the US and China.
Following the deal, two Canadians, who were arrested shortly after Meng Wanzhou was taken into custody in December 2018, were released from prison in China and allowed to go home to Canada. Despite the proximity of the releases, Beijing has denied that their arrests were linked.
Meng was arrested at Vancouver International Airport on a US warrant. She was indicted on bank and wire fraud charges for allegedly misleading British bank HSBC in 2013 over Huawei’s dealings with Iran.
The deal between the US and Meng applies only to Meng. The US Justice Department has said it is preparing for trial against Huawei and is looking forward to proving its case in court.
But the financial loss is just one of multiple devastating costs, which makes it vital to work with a personal injury lawyer you can trust to get you the settlement you deserve. Here, we highlight eight crucial costs of a traffic accident.
When claiming compensation for medical treatment, it can be easy to think this applies only to the treatment prescribed at the time of the accident, such as surgery, hospitalisation, and doctor visits. However, you may be able to recover all medical expenses associated with your injuries, whether that’s travel to and from the hospital or a treatment centre or fees for prescription medication.
You can also claim for anticipated future expenses, especially if the accident has caused severe injuries requiring specialist treatment or regular repeat appointments. Expenses like transport can add up quickly over time, especially if you have to travel often or go a long way to see a specific doctor.
Very few vehicles make it out of an accident without damage. In the worst cases, you may have to fork out for expensive repairs, or your car or bike may be written off entirely, making it more difficult for you and your family to travel.
Emotional distress can be incredibly debilitating. As a jarring and often traumatic event, a car or motorcycle accident can cause long-term emotional effects that may not be visible but can have a long-lasting impact. Experiencing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression are common, causing nightmares or sleepless nights along with a fear of ever getting back behind the wheel. And as if that weren’t enough to contend with, an accident often also causes physical pain that may require extensive treatment and make it difficult to complete even the most basic of tasks or activities.
When you get injured in an accident, you might be surprised by how much it limits your quality of life and ability to do the things you’ve always enjoyed. Athletes can find themselves unable to enjoy their sports; avid gardeners might not be able to tend to their flowers; even a daily walk can prove too painful. When you hire a personal injury lawyer to evaluate your case, they’ll be able to determine whether you could be entitled to additional compensation.
Thankfully, some individuals walk out of a road accident with only a few cuts and bruises. However, for many, a trip to the doctor may be the first of numerous appointments involving hours of rehabilitation or ongoing, long-term care. Whether you need speech and language therapy, behavioural therapy, physiotherapy, or support to recover muscle function or cope with permanent injuries that affect your day-to-day, the road to recovery can be a long one.
If you require care or at-home treatment following an accident, it’s only natural to feel frustrated by a loss of independence. In some cases, car or motorcycle accidents prevent individuals from doing tasks around the home, from laundry and cooking to cleaning and childcare. An accident may even result in not being able to bathe or go to the toilet without support. The impact of this can be long-lasting, resulting in distress at having to be taken care of, a total loss of confidence, and perhaps even humiliation.
While not things many associate with vehicle accidents, scarring and disfigurement occur more often than you might realise, especially in motorcycle accidents. Permanent scars and disfigurement can be especially traumatic, often causing anxiety and depleting your confidence and sense of self. Recovery is also often long, if not never-ending. You may require cosmetic surgery or skin grafts and extensive therapy to help you cope with a life-altering injury.
The loss of a loved one is the most distressing cost of all — road traffic accidents claim the lives of approximately 1.3 million people a year. While it’s an incredibly sensitive time, you have the right to seek compensation for damages in a wrongful death lawsuit. This can allow you to recover the above damages as well as funeral costs, burial expenses, and non-economic damages for the intangible cost of losing a relative, including the emotional anguish and pain that accompanies it.
If you or a loved one are involved in a vehicle accident, it’s crucial to seek a personal injury lawyer experienced in dealing with road traffic cases. As experts in their field, they’ll be able to negotiate the right result for you, encompassing not just compensation for income lost during recovery but also future costs and other damages you may be entitled to.
(Check Pay Stubs Are Correct)
Not only does the Fair Labor Standards Act ensure American employees receive a fixed minimum wage. It also legally makes sure that nonexempt employees receive time-and-a-half pay for any overtime they do above a standard forty-hour week. Employers must pay the correct overtime. Therefore, employers must check non-exempt employees’ pay stubs are correct for the number of hours worked each week and the pay received for that work. If an employee does overtime and does not get paid for it, the employer is sure to have a disgruntled worker on their hands. Thankfully, it is easy to always make sure hours are recorded correctly and the right amount of money is paid by using a pay stub maker. It is quick and simple to use an online service for generating pay stubs that include information like taxes paid in addition to salary information and overtime paid.
Discrimination in the workplace should not be tolerated, so employers and employees have welcomed numerous laws over the years that help to create an anti-discrimination environment. Equal Employment Opportunity laws protect workers against discrimination based on things like gender, race, national origin, disability, religion, and age. Other laws that help to prevent discrimination at work include those under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, all employers in the United States that have fifty or more full-time workers, which is classified as employees who work thirty or more hours per week, must offer a minimal level of health insurance. If the employers do not, they can face substantial penalties.
Working conditions have been much safer since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was introduced in 1970. All employers must comply with the rules outlined in the act. The regulation is overseen by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. There are also compensation laws for employees who are injured while at work.
The Immigration and Nationality Act and other immigration-related laws make sure employers only hire workers who are eligible to work in the United States. That includes citizens, lawful permanent residents, non-citizen nationals, and aliens who are authorised to work in the country. Employers should be aware of precisely who does and does not qualify for work positions.
Since 1993, when the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed, any employee who decides to stay home after their child’s birth or adoption, or needs to take time off because of a serious illness in the family, is eligible to take up to twelve weeks unpaid leave. As long as the worker’s reasons are legitimate, employers must grant him or her that time off. However, the employee must have worked for the company for at least one year and worked a minimum of 1,250 hours. Furthermore, the legal obligation only applies to businesses that employ fifty or more workers within a seventy-five-mile radius.
Employers should be aware that their workers have the right to strike. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, which was passed at a time when workers basically had no rights, protects employees’ rights to strike, peacefully picket, and organise a union. Before 1932, workers who did strike could be fined and jailed without trial.
The settlement was disclosed late Wednesday and stemmed from US government investigations into illegal trading in futures and precious metals markets, commonly referred to as spoofing. Spoofing is a practice in which traders place orders with the intention of cancelling to move prices to benefit their market positions.
JP Morgan did not admit any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. The settlement covers traders in Treasury futures and options between April 2008 to January 2016 and still requires approval by a federal judge.
In September 2020, JP Morgan entered a deferred prosecution agreement and agreed to pay out $920 million to settle US government probes into spoofing in Treasuries and precious metals. The $920 sum included a $436 million criminal fine, with the US banking giant also agreeing to self-report any future violations.
According to a court filing, JP Morgan’s $15.7 million payout would recover under one-third of the estimated classwide damages. Lawyers representing the traders plan to seek up to one-third of the settlement, or approximately $5.2 million, to cover legal fees.
On Wednesday, a judge in Washington DC criticised Facebook for its failure to hand over information to investigators seeking to prosecute the Myanmar for international crimes against the Rohingya people.
Facebook had refused to release the data, arguing that it would violate US law barring online communication services from disclosing users’ conversations. However, the judge ruled that the deleted posts would not count under the law and failing to share the content would “compound the tragedy that has befallen the Rohingya.”
Facebook says it is reviewing the decision and has already made voluntary and lawful disclosure to the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar.
In August 2017, over 730,000 Rohingya Muslims fled Myanmar’s Rakhine state following a brutal military crackdown that refugees say involved mass killings and sexual assault. Authorities in Myanmar say they were battling an insurgency and deny committing systematic atrocities.
In text messages to Balwani in November 2014, Holmes proclaimed she had “total confidence in myself best business person of the year” and also wrote, “don’t give what anyone thinks - engage employees in meetings by stories and making it about them (i.e. prepare well).”
These messages to her then-partner and former Theranos President Balwani are amongst a string of thousands of private text and Skype messages obtained by CNBC as Holmes stands trial on nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
The messages appear to reveal that Holmes lacked no confidence in either herself or her $9 billion blood-testing company and also show that Holmes told her then-partner about courting high-profile investors who later handed over millions of dollars to Theranos. The company had promised to revolutionise the blood-testing industry with a simple finger-prick. However, in 2015, the Wall Street Journal debunked Theranos’ miracle illusion and by 2018, the company had imploded.
Balwani's trial on the same charges as Holmes is set to begin in January.
On Monday, US District Judge Maxine Chesney dismissed claims by Greenpeace that Walmart violated California's Unfair Competition Law by marketing and selling single-use plastic products. Greenpeace’s complaint argued that Walmart customers who bought plastic items, including plastic party cups, cutlery, and fruit snack cups, do not have access to recycling programmes that accept these items.
Greenpeace filed the lawsuit back in December in California state court, with Walmart removing it to a federal court a month later. In March, Walmart moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that Greenpeace’s claims fail because it has no “lost money or property”, which is a key requirement to bring a lawsuit under the California Unfair Competition Law.
Although Judge Chesney dismissed Greenpeace’s claims, she said that it could choose to submit an amended complaint.
In a statement, Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar said: "Big brands know their customers are growing concerned about plastic pollution, but instead of addressing real solutions they have opted for greenwashing.”
A spokesperson for Walmart said that the company: “relies on labelling developed and validated by our suppliers and sustainability partners."
Jon Belcher, specialist data protection lawyer at Excello Law, examines the government’s aim and its recent consultation and argues that, while the current data protection law is far from perfect, reducing compliance obligations will weaken individuals’ data rights.
Brussels has warned that it will sever the adequacy decision granted to the UK if the UK government’s proposed data protection reforms pose a threat to EU citizens’ privacy. The EU’s robust response came in the wake of the announcement of plans to overhaul the UK’s data protection regime.
Last August, the then Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Oliver Dowden said, "Now that we have left the EU I'm determined to seize the opportunity by developing a world-leading data policy." Mr Dowden spoke of “reforming our own data laws so that they're based on common sense, not box-ticking”. The details of the government’s proposals have now been set out in a substantial consultation document.
The government aims to create a series of “data adequacy partnerships” with states around the world to facilitate trade by minimising data protection compliance barriers. The government hopes to reach such agreements with nations including the United States, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, Dubai and Colombia. The DCMS promises that high data protection standards will be maintained while making it easier for businesses to transfer personal data outside the UK.
Reforms to the UK’s data protection regime have long been talked up by pro-Brexit politicians. The GDPR is often seen as overly complex, burdensome and bureaucratic. Easing some of its requirements would be seen as a much-needed Brexit win for these politicians.
At the end of the Brexit transition period, the European Commission granted an “adequacy decision” to the UK, as regards its data protection regime. This allows the unrestricted transfer of personal data from the EU to the UK. This is crucial for many UK businesses. Any significant move away from existing GDPR standards could come with a significant economic cost.
The EU remains the UK’s most important trading partner. The 2019 figures are the most relevant since that was the last normal trading year before the disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic. In that year, exports to the EU of £72 billion accounted for 43% of the UK’s total exports. Services accounted for 43% of this figure. By comparison, the UK’s next largest export market was the US, which accounted for 19% of exports. Clearly, it would be unwise to risk disrupting the free flow of data with the EU in return for a slightly simplified data protection regime.
There is no guarantee the proposed measures will reduce compliance costs in practice. The introduction of GDPR in 2018 involved a major adjustment for organisations in the UK in terms of their data protection policies and procedures. That has now been done. Most businesses now have satisfactory systems in place and the requirements are widely understood.
Changing the goalposts once again, just a few years later, would cause a new wave of disruption. Many UK businesses are still adjusting to the new paperwork required for EU trade since earlier this year. It may be best to simply leave well enough alone.
While the government is no doubt right to say that cookie banners are frustrating and the GDPR is not perfect, any drive to reduce compliance obligations will inevitably weaken individuals’ data rights and protections. Such moves could meet with a backlash from privacy campaigners. Public anxiety about data protection has been heightened by high profile ransomware attacks.
A key motivation for changing the UK’s data protection regime given the government’s document which analyses the impact of the proposed changes. It states that “Data has become a driving force of the modern economy, at the forefront of technological and scientific progress, driving scientific discovery and new goods and services. The UK direct data market - consisting of value added from the generation, storage, processing and analysis of digitised data - has been estimated to be worth over £15 billion annually.” The paper argues that reforms should aim to achieve “a pro-growth and trusted regulatory regime for data protection.” Post-Brexit, the government wants the UK to benefit from this global growth industry.
Some of the suggested measures set out in the consultation document include removing the requirements to appoint a dedicated Data Protection Officer and undertake data protection impact assessments, as well as changing the data breach reporting requirement to only apply when there is a “material risk” to individuals, instead of a “risk”, as is now the case. Other changes might be popular with businesses, but unpopular with the public, such as the proposal to allow charges for data subject access requests.
Overall, the consultation paper promises a “regulatory regime will be clearer and more suited to an agile, technology-driven economy. Regulatory requirements will be focused on the outcomes that must be achieved, rather than prescribing how they are achieved.” While many businesses would prefer a lighter touch, less prescriptive regime, the EU will likely regard such changes as a significant watering down of its high standards, which could jeopardise the UK’s adequacy decision.
Multinational businesses are likely to continue to apply the EU’s data protection rules. Indeed, the rest of the world is increasingly looking at the GDPR as an international standard. For example, in recent weeks China has created a new data protection regime that echoes aspects of the GDPR. Similar trends are also happening in other jurisdictions.
Any changes to the UK’s data protection regimes will need to be measured and incremental. A major shift away from GDPR standards could prove costly. The government will need to tread carefully when balancing risk and opportunity.
