Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The charges, brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), include two counts of rape, two counts of assault by penetration, and one count of sexual assault. All the alleged offences relate to a single woman and are said to have occurred in January 2023.
Ward, best known for his role as Jamie in the hit Netflix series Top Boy, is due to appear at Thames Magistrates’ Court on 28 August. He currently resides in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire.
In a statement released on Friday, Detective Superintendent Scott Ware of the Metropolitan Police said:
“Our specialist officers continue to support the woman who has come forward – we know investigations of this nature can have a significant impact on those who make reports.”
Catherine Baccas, deputy chief crown prosecutor for CPS London South, emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity of the upcoming trial:
“We remind all concerned that proceedings against the suspect are active and he has a right to a fair trial. It is vital that there should be no reporting, commentary, or online sharing of information which could prejudice the proceedings.”
Ward rose to prominence with his performances in Top Boy, Blue Story, The Old Guard, and Empire of Light. Born in Jamaica and raised in the UK, he was named the BAFTA Rising Star in 2020. He also received Best Supporting Actor BAFTA nominations in 2021 for his role in Steve McQueen’s Small Axe and in 2022 for Empire of Light.
Most recently, Ward appeared at the 78th Cannes Film Festival promoting his upcoming film Eddington, in which he stars alongside Joaquin Phoenix and Pedro Pascal. The film is slated for release in the UK this August.
Outside of acting, Ward has cultivated a public profile through charity work, including his participation in last year’s Soccer Aid event at Stamford Bridge and a reading at the 2023 Christmas Eve carol service hosted by the Princess of Wales.
Key Takeaway: Micheal Ward faces serious sexual offence charges and will appear in court next month. Authorities urge the public to avoid commentary that could impact the trial.
What charges has Micheal Ward been accused of?
Micheal Ward has been charged with two counts of rape, two counts of assault by penetration, and one count of sexual assault. All charges relate to one woman and are alleged to have taken place in January 2023.
When is Micheal Ward's next court appearance?
He is scheduled to appear at Thames Magistrates’ Court on August 28, 2025, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.
What shows and films is Micheal Ward known for?
Ward is best known for his role as Jamie in Netflix’s Top Boy. He has also appeared in Blue Story, The Old Guard, Empire of Light, and the upcoming film Eddington.
Has Micheal Ward responded to the charges?
As of now, Micheal Ward has not made a public statement regarding the charges. The CPS has reminded the public that he is entitled to a fair trial and that legal proceedings are currently active.
Is Micheal Ward still active in the entertainment industry?
Yes, he is currently starring in Eddington, set for release in the UK in August 2025. Ward has continued making public appearances, including press events, prior to the charges being announced.
Interested in more high-profile legal showdowns and the laws behind them? Check out these in-depth features:
Top 5 Trademark Disputes of All Time – From Apple vs. Apple Corps to Nike’s logo wars, explore the courtroom battles that reshaped brand protection forever.
Where Did the Menendez Brothers’ Money Go? – A financial deep-dive into the infamous double murder case and the hidden fortune behind it.
Hulk Hogan’s “Real American Beer” Faces Legal Trouble Over Alleged IP Theft – The wrestling icon enters a new ring: trademark law.
Surviving Slender Man: The Long Road to Recovery for Payton Leutner – The emotional and legal journey following one of the internet’s most disturbing criminal cases.
Ever received a surprise check in the mail from a company you don’t even remember doing business with—or an email saying you’re part of a lawsuit you never filed? That’s the class-action system quietly doing its job.
A class-action lawsuit is one of the most powerful tools in American law. It allows groups of people who’ve been harmed in a similar way to take collective legal action—without each person having to hire their own attorney or pay for an individual lawsuit. From massive data breaches and defective products to false advertising and unpaid wages, class actions make it possible for ordinary people to stand up to corporations, institutions, and even government agencies.
They help level the playing field by turning many small claims into one large case—strong enough to demand accountability.
But how exactly does a class action work? Who qualifies to join one? And why do these cases matter more than ever in an era of digital data, consumer rights, and corporate accountability?
A class-action lawsuit is a legal process that allows one or more people to file a single case on behalf of a much larger group who’ve experienced the same problem. This group is known as the class.
Instead of thousands of individuals taking separate legal actions, the court combines their claims into one collective case. This approach saves time, lowers costs, and helps ensure that everyone affected receives a fair and consistent outcome.
Once the case is resolved—whether through a settlement or a court judgment—the result applies to all class members, even those who never actively joined the lawsuit or didn’t realize they were part of it.
Class actions aren’t just about efficiency—they’re about fairness. When many people are harmed in the same way, a class-action lawsuit allows them to stand together instead of fighting separate, expensive battles.
These cases help to:
Avoid conflicting rulings by consolidating similar claims into one consistent outcome.
Protect the rights of people who might not have the resources to take legal action on their own.
Share legal costs among many plaintiffs, making lawsuits possible when individual damages are small.
Promote access to justice by giving ordinary people a way to challenge powerful companies and institutions.
In simple terms, class actions level the playing field—allowing regular consumers to hold large corporations accountable when going it alone would be financially impossible.
Before a class-action lawsuit can move forward, a court must decide whether it qualifies to be treated as a class action. In federal court, this decision is based on Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets out several key requirements.
First, the group must meet four basic conditions:
Numerosity: There are too many people affected to handle their cases individually.
Commonality: Everyone in the group shares similar legal or factual issues.
Typicality: The lead plaintiff’s situation reflects the experiences of the rest of the group.
Adequacy: The lead plaintiff and their lawyers can fairly and effectively represent everyone’s interests.
Once those conditions are met, the court must also find that a class action is the best way to handle the dispute. That usually means one or more of the following:
Individual lawsuits could lead to conflicting results.
The defendant’s actions affected everyone in the same way.
The shared legal questions outweigh individual differences, making one combined case the most efficient solution.
In short, the court certifies the case as a class action only when it’s clear that combining everyone’s claims will lead to a fairer and more practical outcome for all involved.
If a class-action lawsuit is seeking money damages, you’ll usually be notified that you’re part of it. That notice might come by mail, email, or even through an official website.
In most cases, you don’t need to sign up or take any action to be included—the court automatically counts you as part of the class. However, you’ll also be given the option to opt out if you prefer to handle your claim on your own.
Choosing to stay in the class means you’ll share in any settlement or payout if the case succeeds. Opting out preserves your right to file an individual lawsuit, but it also means you won’t receive any money or benefits from the class settlement.
In 2025, newspaper publisher Lee Enterprises agreed to pay $9.5 million to settle claims that it had shared subscribers’ personal data with Facebook without permission. The settlement covered more than 1.5 million people, many of whom had no idea their information had been shared.
Shortly after, Lee Enterprises faced additional class-action lawsuits from employees who said a separate cyberattack exposed sensitive personal information.
Cases like this show why class actions matter. Without the ability to combine their claims, millions of people affected by the same data breach or privacy violation would have little chance of seeking justice on their own.
Class-action lawsuits might feel like a modern phenomenon, but their roots run deep—and knowing where they come from helps explain why they still matter today.
The idea of many people joining together to sue one defendant emerged from English equity courts, which in the Middle Ages sometimes allowed a single representative to bring a claim on behalf of a larger group. That same concept crossed the Atlantic and began appearing in U.S. courts in the 1800s as a way to avoid dozens of duplicate lawsuits and to ensure fairness when many people suffered the same harm.
In the U.S., the turning point came when the federal civil-procedure rules were revised to formally permit “class-action” style suits. A key figure in that transformation was the legal scholar Benjamin Kaplan, who helped shape the intervention of “group litigation” into what became Rule 23. His work underscored that class actions allow one case to resolve thousands of similar claims in one stroke.
“A class suit is a device by which society makes a single judgment for many who have suffered alike,” Kaplan observed.
Because of that legislative and procedural backbone, modern class-action law can handle everything from data-breach lawsuits and consumer-fraud claims to environmental disasters and employment-law disputes.
Mini Legal Angle for Consumers:
Even though you don’t see every rule or statute when you get a notice in the mail, you’re participating in a legal process grounded in decades of procedural reform. The certification of a class action is not automatic—it must pass a court’s scrutiny (“certification”) and meet defined standards (such as shared harm, enough people affected, and a lead plaintiff whose case represents the group). That means when you see “You may be part of a class action” in your inbox, you are stepping into a legal mechanism built to treat many similar claims as one—saving time, cost and risk compared to each person filing alone.
Like any legal tool, class actions come with both advantages and drawbacks. Understanding these helps you see when they make sense—and when they might not.
1. Makes legal action accessible to everyone
Class actions allow ordinary people to challenge large companies or institutions without paying out of pocket. Legal costs are shared, and attorneys typically work on contingency—meaning they’re only paid if the case succeeds.
2. Reduces court congestion
Instead of hundreds or even thousands of similar lawsuits clogging up the system, one consolidated case streamlines the process and ensures consistent results.
3. Creates leverage to change corporate behavior
Large settlements and public accountability can push companies to improve safety standards, strengthen privacy protections, or stop deceptive practices altogether.
4. Enables compensation in small-damages cases
When individual losses are too minor to justify a separate lawsuit—like a few dollars in hidden fees—a class action ensures people still receive compensation and that wrongdoing doesn’t go unchecked.
1. Payouts per person can be small
Even when a settlement is large, dividing it among thousands or millions of class members can leave individuals with modest payments.
2. Cases can take years
Class actions are often complex and can move slowly through the courts, especially if there are appeals or certification challenges.
3. Lawyers may collect large fees
Because attorneys often take a percentage of the total settlement, their compensation can seem disproportionate to the amounts individuals receive—though courts must approve all fees to ensure fairness.
Class actions aren’t perfect, but they remain one of the few ways regular consumers can hold powerful corporations accountable on a national scale.
If you’re part of a class-action lawsuit and the case settles, you may be entitled to some form of compensation—but what that looks like depends on the nature of the claim.
Common types of settlements include:
Cash payments: Direct compensation for financial losses or damages.
Refunds or rebates: Reimbursement for products or services you paid for but didn’t receive as promised.
Free credit monitoring or identity protection: Often included in data-breach or privacy cases.
Product replacements or repairs: Offered in defective-product lawsuits where the issue can be fixed or replaced.
In most cases, you’ll need to submit a claim form—either online or by mail—to receive your share. The process is simple, but deadlines can be strict, so it’s worth reading any notice you receive carefully.
💡 Legal Insight: According to consumer-rights attorney Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, “Class actions don’t just provide compensation—they act as a public deterrent. When people claim what they’re owed, it sends a message that accountability matters.”
Even if the payout seems small, your participation helps reinforce fairness in the marketplace and ensures that companies can’t profit from widespread misconduct.
Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (1998) – $206 Billion
The largest civil litigation settlement in U.S. history.
Forty-six U.S. states sued the nation’s largest tobacco companies for healthcare costs related to smoking-related illnesses. The funds are to be paid out over 25+ years.
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2016) – $20 Billion
After the catastrophic 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP agreed to the largest environmental damage settlement ever, covering ecological restoration and economic damages.
Volkswagen Emissions Scandal (2016) – $14.7 Billion
VW agreed to a massive payout after it admitted to cheating emissions tests on diesel vehicles. The settlement covered buybacks, environmental penalties, and consumer claims.
Enron Securities Fraud (2006) – $7.2 Billion
One of the largest corporate fraud cases in history. Investors reached a massive settlement after the company’s collapse revealed years of accounting fraud.
WorldCom Accounting Scandal (2005) – $6.1 Billion
WorldCom’s bankruptcy—due to a $3.8 billion accounting fraud—led to one of the biggest investor settlements ever in a securities class-action lawsuit.
In today’s digital world, companies collect vast amounts of personal data and operate on a global scale. When mistakes happen—or when corporations cross ethical lines—the impact can reach millions. Class-action lawsuits remain one of the few tools powerful enough to hold those entities accountable.
At their core, class actions aren’t just about money; they’re about access to justice. They give individuals a collective voice strong enough to stand up to large organizations that might otherwise go unchecked. From consumer-privacy violations to environmental damage, these cases serve as a reminder that fairness in the legal system depends on ordinary people having a path to be heard.
Of course, class actions aren’t flawless. Settlements can take years, and payouts may be modest. Yet their broader value lies in the precedent they set and the change they force. As legal ethics scholar Arthur R. Miller of NYU Law once said, “The class action is one of the few legal devices that gives the powerless some leverage against the powerful.”
Even in an era of corporate influence and digital complexity, class actions continue to balance the scales of justice—proving that collective action, when guided by the law, can still make a difference.
What is a class-action lawsuit?
It’s a type of lawsuit where one or a few people file a legal case on behalf of a larger group of people who all suffered similar harm—like a shared data breach, defective product, or unfair business practice.
What is the meaning of class action?
A class action is a legal process that allows many people with similar claims to combine their cases into one single lawsuit, saving time and resources while ensuring consistent outcomes.
What is class action in the US?
In the U.S., class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They allow groups of individuals to collectively sue a company or organization for widespread harm—often involving consumer protection, employment law, or data privacy.
What is another word for class action?
While “class action” is the formal legal term, it’s sometimes informally referred to as a group lawsuit, collective lawsuit, or representative action.
What is the point of a class action?
The main goal is to make justice accessible for people who wouldn’t otherwise sue individually—either because the harm was small, the costs are too high, or the legal complexity is overwhelming. Class actions also hold powerful defendants accountable for systemic wrongdoing.
Do I have to pay to be in a class-action lawsuit?
No. Most class actions are handled on a contingency basis, so plaintiffs pay nothing upfront. Lawyers are paid only if the case results in a settlement or judgment.
Can I opt out of a class action?
Yes. In many class actions (especially those seeking financial compensation), you’ll be given a chance to opt out—preserving your right to file an individual lawsuit if you choose.
What is the largest class-action settlement in U.S. history?
The largest class-action or mass tort settlement in U.S. history is the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, totaling $206 billion. Forty-six states sued major tobacco companies to recover healthcare costs related to smoking-related illnesses. The funds are paid out over decades, making it the most expensive civil litigation settlement ever reached in the U.S.
The media company, which owns more than 300 newspapers and specialty publications across 25 states, including the Quad-City Times, Sioux City Journal, and Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, is under mounting legal pressure over alleged data privacy violations.
Three separate lawsuits were filed this month in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiffs—Nicole Church of Illinois, Declan Lawson of Montana, and Anthony Bangert of Wisconsin—are current or former Lee employees alleging:
Negligence
Invasion of privacy
Unjust enrichment
Breach of implied contract
Each suit seeks class-action status on behalf of thousands of Lee workers whose personal information was allegedly compromised in a February 2025 cyberattack. The plaintiffs claim the company failed to implement basic security protocols, such as encryption and system monitoring, to prevent unauthorized access.
According to the complaints, Lee began notifying affected employees on June 3, 2025, but allegedly provided little transparency about the scope of the breach or the vulnerabilities exploited.
One lawsuit calls the notification “no real disclosure at all,” stating that the lack of specifics made it difficult for victims to protect themselves from potential fraud or identity theft.
Lee has not yet responded in court, and a company spokesperson, Tracy Rouch, declined to comment on pending litigation.
Lee previously confirmed it had spent $2 million restoring its data systems following the February attack, which disrupted billing and vendor payments.
The Qilin ransomware group claimed credit for the breach, asserting it had accessed 350 gigabytes of sensitive data—including contracts, financial records, and NDAs. In filings with the SEC and the Maine attorney general, Lee disclosed the breach affected 39,779 individuals and exposed names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license data, medical and insurance information, and bank details.
The new employee lawsuits come just months after Lee reached a $9.5 million settlement in a separate class-action case filed by subscribers — a case that underscores the power of group litigation (see our What Is a Class Action? Explainer for more).
In that case, more than 1.5 million Lee newspaper subscribers alleged the company improperly shared personal data—including video viewing history—with Facebook through tracking tools embedded in Lee’s websites.
According to the lawsuit, individuals could match specific Facebook users to the videos they watched on Lee sites, violating privacy protections.
The class-action suit, filed in 2022, sought both monetary damages and a court order requiring Lee to obtain informed consent before sharing any subscriber data with third parties.
The case was mediated in November 2024 before Judge Wayne R. Andersen in Florida. Andersen proposed the $9.5 million figure, which was accepted by both sides.
The settlement applies to all paid subscribers who accessed video content on Lee websites between December 2020 and March 4, 2025, and who also used Facebook during that time.
In court filings supporting the agreement, both sides wrote that the payout “will yield a significant benefit” to affected users while avoiding drawn-out litigation. The settlement also includes changes to Lee’s digital privacy practices.
A final court hearing to approve the deal is scheduled for August 7, 2025.
This is not the first time Lee’s data systems have been compromised. In 2020, the company was targeted by Iranian hackers as part of a broader campaign to spread disinformation during the U.S. presidential election.
Two Iranian nationals were later charged with conspiracy to commit computer fraud, intimidation of voters, and making interstate threats. That federal criminal case remains open.
Lee Enterprises agreed to a $9.5 million settlement with subscribers over unauthorized data sharing with Facebook.
The company now faces three new class-action lawsuits from employees claiming their personal data was exposed in a February 2025 ransomware attack.
Lee has confirmed at least $2 million in recovery costs and the exposure of sensitive data for nearly 40,000 people.
A final ruling on the subscriber settlement is set for August 7, 2025.
1. What is the Lee Enterprises $9.5 million settlement about?
The $9.5 million settlement resolves a class-action lawsuit alleging that Lee Enterprises shared subscriber video-viewing data with Facebook without proper consent, violating privacy laws.
2. Who is affected by the Lee Enterprises data breach?
The February 2025 breach impacted 39,779 current and former Lee employees, exposing sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, medical data, and financial details.
3. What is the Qilin ransomware group’s role in the Lee cyberattack?
The Qilin group has claimed responsibility for the cyberattack on Lee Enterprises, alleging it accessed 350 GB of confidential company and employee data.
Interested in more high-profile legal showdowns and the laws behind them? Check out these in-depth features:
Top 5 Trademark Disputes of All Time – From Apple vs. Apple Corps to Nike’s logo wars, explore the courtroom battles that reshaped brand protection forever.
Where Did the Menendez Brothers’ Money Go? – A financial deep-dive into the infamous double murder case and the hidden fortune behind it.
Hulk Hogan’s “Real American Beer” Faces Legal Trouble Over Alleged IP Theft – The wrestling icon enters a new ring: trademark law.
Surviving Slender Man: The Long Road to Recovery for Payton Leutner – The emotional and legal journey following one of the internet’s most disturbing criminal cases.
What started as a viral clip of Cardi B defending herself from a flying drink has now become a full-blown legal battle. A new civil lawsuit filed in Clark County, Nevada accuses the Grammy-winning rapper of battery, assault, and negligence after she allegedly hurled a microphone at a concertgoer during her July 29, 2023 performance at Drai’s Beachclub in Las Vegas.
According to the plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, she was enjoying her first solo trip to Las Vegas when Cardi B, onstage and battling sweltering temperatures, encouraged fans to splash water on her. But after Doe tossed a small amount of liquid—just like many others allegedly had—Cardi B allegedly reacted in anger and launched a microphone into the crowd, striking Doe in the face.
In her complaint, Doe claims the incident caused “emotional distress, humiliation, and physical injury.” Footage from the show went viral last summer, sparking debate over whether Cardi had invited the water splash—and whether her retaliation was justified.
Although Las Vegas police briefly opened a criminal battery investigation, it was closed for lack of evidence. But that doesn’t end the story.
Cardi B performs at Drai’s Beachclub in Las Vegas on July 29, 2023. The concert later became the center of a civil battery lawsuit after the rapper allegedly threw her microphone into the crowd, striking an audience member.
Even without criminal charges, civil lawsuits can still proceed. Here's how this case stacks up under Nevada law.
In civil law, battery is the intentional and offensive physical contact with another person without consent. Nevada criminal law defines battery under NRS 200.481 as “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”
→ Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.481
While Cardi has not been criminally charged, Doe is seeking damages in civil court, which uses a lower burden of proof. If the court finds that Cardi intended to throw the microphone and it made harmful contact, that could establish civil battery.
Under NRS 200.471, assault occurs when someone “unlawfully attempts to use physical force against another person” or “intentionally places another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.”
→ Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.471
Even if the mic hadn’t made contact, the moment Jane Doe saw it flying toward her could be enough for a civil assault claim.
Doe also alleges that both Cardi B and the venue, Drai’s, failed to act with reasonable care. This falls under general Nevada negligence principles, which require the plaintiff to prove:
A duty of care,
Breach of that duty,
Causation,
Damages.
The lawsuit claims that Cardi should have known throwing a microphone posed a foreseeable risk of injury, and that Drai’s failed to take proper precautions—even after a similar incident occurred the night before.
Determining fault in a civil case hinges on intent, foreseeability, and proportionality:
Did Cardi act deliberately or instinctively?
Was her response disproportionate to the fan's actions?
Should Drai’s have intervened given her prior conduct?
If found liable, Cardi could be required to pay:
Compensatory damages (medical expenses, pain and suffering), and
Punitive damages if the act is deemed egregious. Under NRS 42.005, punitive damages in Nevada may not exceed three times the amount of compensatory damages unless the harm was caused by conduct involving intentional malice or fraud.
→ Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005
Cardi B’s legal team may argue that she was responding to a perceived assault from a thrown drink. Nevada does recognize self-defense in both civil and criminal law—but it must be reasonable and proportional.
If the threat was a splash of water and the response was a microphone thrown with force, a court may determine that Cardi’s reaction was excessive and unjustified under the circumstances.
Doe is also suing Drai’s Management Group, claiming they negligently allowed a potentially violent performer to appear without enhanced security or crowd protocols.
Under Nevada premises liability law, property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to guests (invitees). If Doe can prove that the venue knew about Cardi’s mic-throwing pattern and failed to act, they may share financial liability.
Battery and assault can be pursued civilly even if police don’t file criminal charges.
Nevada law (NRS 200.481 and NRS 200.471) supports claims based on harmful contact and perceived threats.
Self-defense requires proportionality—and courts are skeptical when a celebrity escalates a minor provocation.
Venues may be held liable under premises liability if they ignore known safety risks.
Was Cardi B charged with a crime?
No. The criminal case was dropped by Las Vegas authorities due to insufficient evidence.
Can someone sue a celebrity for being hit at a concert?
Yes. Civil law allows anyone injured by another’s intentional or negligent actions to sue, even if the incident happened during a performance.
What statute defines battery in Nevada?
Nevada Revised Statute NRS 200.481 defines battery as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence on another.
What damages could Cardi B be ordered to pay?
She could face compensatory and punitive damages, depending on the court’s findings and the severity of the alleged misconduct.
Interested in more high-profile legal showdowns and the laws behind them? Check out these in-depth features:
Top 5 Trademark Disputes of All Time – From Apple vs. Apple Corps to Nike’s logo wars, explore the courtroom battles that reshaped brand protection forever.
Where Did the Menendez Brothers’ Money Go? – A financial deep-dive into the infamous double murder case and the hidden fortune behind it.
Hulk Hogan’s “Real American Beer” Faces Legal Trouble Over Alleged IP Theft – The wrestling icon enters a new ring: trademark law.
Surviving Slender Man: The Long Road to Recovery for Payton Leutner – The emotional and legal journey following one of the internet’s most disturbing criminal cases.
Most people recognise a trademark as a logo or a catchy name, but the law treats it as something far more alive. A trademark needs care. It gains strength when used consistently in the real world, weakens when ignored, and can slip away entirely if a business holds it too loosely.
That’s why companies as different as McDonald’s, Apple, and Adidas have all faced moments where they had to defend the essence of their identity. And in each case, the question wasn’t only what is the brand?—it was what does the brand mean in the eyes of the law?
Today’s trademarks stretch across more places than ever: shopping apps, delivery platforms, AI-generated logos, automated voice assistants, and even virtual storefronts.
A symbol once printed on a sign outside a shop now follows a business through dozens of digital channels, each adding its own layer of risk and opportunity. Courts around the world have had to adapt, refining how we understand originality, ownership, and fairness.
The most influential trademark disputes aren’t just courtroom dramas. They are guiding posts for modern branding, offering practical lessons that still apply long after the verdict.
They show how far a trademark can reach, how easily it can be damaged, and why even global giants must follow the same rules as everyone else.
Below are five major disputes that continue to shape trademark law today—not because of the headlines they once made, but because of the long-lasting principles they established.
When McDonald’s defended its famous “Big Mac” name against the Irish chain Supermac’s, the legal question went well beyond burgers. It forced regulators to look closely at what it means to use a trademark. Ownership alone wasn’t enough; the company had to show genuine commercial activity for every part of the trademark it claimed.
European regulators have long required proof of real-world use within a continuous five-year period. Without evidence—advertising, packaging, sales, consumer recognition—sections of a trademark can be trimmed away. That’s exactly what happened. McDonald’s kept the core of its mark but lost coverage in areas where it wasn’t actively trading.
Why this still matters:
In a world where businesses file trademarks early—sometimes before a product even exists—this case remains a reminder that trademark protection is rooted in action, not aspiration. Searchers often ask “Can you lose a trademark if you don’t use it?” The answer is yes, and this dispute is still the go-to illustration.
European regulators have long required proof of real-world use within a continuous five-year period.
The legal battle between Apple and Samsung made one thing clear: design elements that seem minor can carry enormous legal weight. Apple argued that features like rounded corners, a grid of colourful icons, and familiar gestures weren’t merely aesthetic—they were essential parts of the user experience, ones consumers closely associated with the iPhone.
Courts in the United States examined the issue under design-patent and trade-dress principles, asking whether an ordinary buyer might mistake one phone for another based on these visual cues. The answer, at least in part, was yes. The initial verdict confirmed that a product’s “look and feel” can be as protected as its brand name.
Why this still matters:
Digital products today often look deceptively simple. But simplicity can be distinctive. Businesses frequently search for answers like “Can you protect a design that seems basic?” or “What counts as copying in tech?” This dispute shows that visual identity can be legally powerful, even when the design appears understated.
Many companies protect both design and function by combining trademark rights with U.S. patent law, which offers a separate layer of protection for inventions and technical features.
Long before smartphones, Apple Corps—the company tied to The Beatles—secured its own trademark rights connected to music. Apple Computer, at the time, occupied a separate world entirely. For years, both companies co-existed under an agreement that kept one away from the other’s territory.
Then digital music arrived. When Apple launched iTunes, the question became whether distributing music files amounted to entering the “music business.” The courts took a nuanced view: Apple’s platform transmitted content but didn’t create it. That distinction allowed both sides to continue operating, though not without tension.
Why this still matters:
Modern companies often expand horizontally, drifting into industries they never expected to enter. A retailer may become a streaming host; a gaming studio might run a digital marketplace. People routinely search “Can two companies share a similar name?” or “What happens when industries collide?” This dispute shows how technology forces old agreements to bend—and why precision in trademark contracts is essential.
The dispute between Starbucks and a small Oregon café named Sambucks highlights a side of trademark enforcement that rarely shows up in textbooks: community perception. Starbucks argued that the café’s name was too similar to its own. The café owner, however, pointed out that her name was Sam, and the branding grew out of that personal connection rather than any imitation.
Although the café eventually rebranded, the public response became part of the story. Local support made the disagreement feel less like a clash of names and more like a question of fairness.
Why this still matters:
Trademark disputes happen in public view, and companies know it. A firm can win legally yet damage its reputation if the enforcement looks too aggressive. Everyday questions like “Can a big company force a small business to change its name?” often hinge as much on public sentiment as on legal filings.
Adidas’ case against Payless showed how powerful trade dress can be. At first glance, stripes might seem too simple to serve as a protected identifier. But decades of advertising, global recognition, and consistent use turned those three stripes into a signature. When Payless began selling shoes with two or four parallel stripes, Adidas argued that the overall impression was close enough to mislead customers.
A jury agreed, awarding a substantial sum and reinforcing the idea that a pattern can function as a brand even without a traditional logo.
Why this still matters:
Minimalist branding is everywhere today. Clean lines, subtle shapes, understated packaging. The question many business owners search for—“Can simple designs be protected?”—finds its answer here.
Understanding how trademarks differ from other forms of intellectual property—such as the protections covered in The Difference Between Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights—helps clarify where each right begins and ends.
EasyGroup’s attempts to stretch the word “easy” across multiple industries highlight another cornerstone of trademark law: no one owns a common word outright. A trademark protects a word only within the specific context of the goods or services it represents. When companies try to fence off a broad area of language without evidence of consistent commercial activity, courts tend to push back. This principle aligns with global IP standards set by organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Why this still matters:
Short, snappy names are popular, especially online. But ordinary words usually belong to everyone unless tied to something clearly identifiable.
Stepping back from the individual disputes, several themes continue to guide trademark law today—principles that matter to anyone running a business, launching a product, or building a brand:
A trademark is strongest when used regularly and clearly.
Visual identity can be protected even when it’s minimalist.
Courts focus on consumer perception, not corporate size.
Technology can transform the meaning of an agreement.
Common words can be trademarked only in specific contexts.
These principles echo the questions people search for every day: How do courts decide whether something is too similar? Can you trademark a plain word? Do small businesses stand a chance against big companies? How does technology affect old trademark agreements?
Trademark law adapts slowly, but it adapts. And as brands move deeper into AI branding tools, immersive environments, virtual goods, and algorithm-driven marketing, these foundational lessons become even more important. They’re the guardrails that help businesses grow without losing control of what makes them recognisable.
Judges look at overall consumer impression, not side-by-side technical differences. They ask whether an ordinary buyer could reasonably believe the products come from the same source.
Yes. Trademark rights are divided by category. If a company can’t show proof of use for specific goods or services, those portions of the registration can be removed.
If consumers associate the design with a particular source, and the design isn’t purely functional, it can qualify for trade-dress protection.
They do. Courts emphasise evidence, fairness, and consumer clarity. Well-documented use can outweigh size and market power.
Because the law aims to protect competition. A common word can only be trademarked for the specific goods or services where it acts as a recognisable brand indicator—not as a universal term.
Wrestling icon Hulk Hogan’s new beer brand, Real American Beer, is caught in the middle of a federal lawsuit over intellectual property and trade secrets. Though Hogan himself is not a defendant, the case raises serious questions about ownership, branding rights, and the risks of high-profile celebrity ventures.
Terry Bollea, better known as Hulk Hogan, has long been one of the most recognizable figures in American pop culture. After decades in the wrestling ring and numerous media appearances, Hogan ventured into the beverage industry in 2023 with the launch of Real American Beer (RAB). The beer — a light lager marketed as affordable, nostalgic, and proudly patriotic — quickly gained traction among fans drawn to Hogan’s red-and-yellow branding and throwback marketing approach.
The beer positioned itself clearly in the domestic market, aiming for wide consumer appeal rather than niche craft beer fans. Hogan actively participated in promotional events, stating that the goal was to create something that “brings America back together, one beer at a time.”
But just one year after its launch, the brand is now entangled in a legal battle over intellectual property rights, executive misconduct, and corporate sabotage — raising many of the same questions seen in high-stakes creative industries, like video game development, where lasting IP protection is key to long-term success.
That controversy now unfolds in the shadow of Hogan’s death. On July 24, 2025, Hogan passed away at the age of 71. At the time of his death, his net worth was estimated at $30 million according to Finance Monthly, built from a storied wrestling career, television appearances, licensing deals, and entrepreneurial ventures like Real American Beer.
Although Hogan is not named in the lawsuit, his image and legacy are central to the brand's identity — and its future. The unfolding litigation raises broader concerns about how celebrity-driven businesses handle IP ownership, executive conduct, and legal safeguards during expansion. For Real American Beer, the battle over branding could define what comes next, now without its most visible face.
While Hogan served as the public face of Real American Beer, the business strategy and product development came from Carma HoldCo Inc., a celebrity licensing and branding firm. Carma is known for building partnerships with major public figures and previously helped develop other celebrity-backed ventures, including Ric Flair’s energy drink line and Mike Tyson’s cannabis brand, Tyson 2.0.
According to Carma, the idea for Real American Beer was developed in-house in early 2023. The company entered into discussions with Hogan and members of the Busch brewing family—who owned rights to the “Real American Lager” trademark—about launching the beer as a joint venture. Carma says it invested significant time and resources into brand development, design, marketing strategies, and product concepts, all of which it considered confidential business assets.
In its recently filed complaint, Carma claims that two of its former top executives—Chad Bronstein, the company’s then-president, and Nicole Cosby, former chief legal and licensing officer—acted in bad faith during the early development of the Real American Beer brand.
According to Carma, Bronstein attempted to structure the venture in a way that would give himself a personal ownership stake, creating a clear conflict of interest. Cosby, the company alleges, knowingly approved the arrangement despite her legal oversight role. Following an internal investigation, both executives were terminated in November 2023.
However, Carma contends that the misconduct didn’t end there. The company alleges that after their dismissal, Bronstein and Cosby—operating under a new entity called Rahm Inc.—continued private discussions with Hulk Hogan and members of the Busch brewing family, ultimately filing federal trademark applications for Real American Beer and related brands. The beer was subsequently launched without Carma’s involvement, using materials the company claims were confidential and proprietary.
The case echoes broader patterns of alleged executive overreach and investor deception in high-profile corporate litigation. In a parallel example from the financial sector, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP recently filed a class action lawsuit against ICON plc, alleging that company leadership misled investors about the state of their client contracts and revenue pipeline while painting a picture of stability and growth.
Like the Hogan beer case, that lawsuit raises key questions about fiduciary responsibility, strategic transparency, and the legal consequences of corporate misrepresentation—regardless of industry.
Filed in federal court in Illinois, the lawsuit alleges multiple claims against Bronstein, Cosby, and Rahm Inc., including:
Breach of contract
Misappropriation of trade secrets
Tortious interference with contractual and prospective business relationships
Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA)
Violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act
Carma asserts that Rahm used proprietary branding materials, marketing strategies, and confidential business plans originally developed under Carma’s direction. The company is seeking at least $10 million in damages, restitution from the former executives, and an injunction prohibiting Rahm from using any disputed intellectual property.
While Hulk Hogan is not named as a defendant, his role is central to the lawsuit. Carma had entered into an ambassador agreement with Hogan during the early stages of development, but the company now believes he was persuaded by Bronstein and Cosby to abandon that arrangement and move forward with Rahm instead.
To date, Hogan has not made public comments about the dispute, and his legal representatives have not issued any statements. At present, he remains the face of Real American Beer, which has continued to expand distribution and recently entered into promotional partnerships with WWE.
In a separate legal matter, Hogan and the RAB brand are facing a personal injury lawsuit stemming from an incident during a promotional event in Ohio. In 2024, a woman attending an event at Thirsty Cowboys in Akron alleges she was struck in the head by a thrown beer can, resulting in a laceration that required ten stitches and may have caused permanent scarring. That case is proceeding independently and has no direct connection to the intellectual property suit.
From a legal perspective, Carma’s claims fall squarely under business tort and intellectual property law. If the court finds that the executives misappropriated trade secrets or breached fiduciary duties, the financial and reputational consequences for Rahm Inc. could be significant.
The suit also highlights the increasingly common risk of executive misconduct in high-stakes celebrity branding deals. When a venture is built on intellectual property, marketing materials, and confidential plans, the loss of internal alignment can result in costly legal entanglements — especially when the celebrity at the center chooses to switch allegiances.
The litigation is in its early stages. Depending on the evidence presented, the parties may choose to settle privately, or the case could proceed to trial. If Carma prevails, the outcome could include monetary damages, an order transferring ownership of trademarks, or restrictions on further use of the disputed branding.
For consumers, the short-term availability of Real American Beer is unlikely to change. However, depending on the outcome, the beer may eventually be rebranded or withdrawn from market circulation.
Real American Beer is currently operated by Rahm Inc., but ownership is being contested in court.
Carma HoldCo alleges its former executives stole confidential business plans and branding to launch the beer independently.
Hulk Hogan is not a defendant, but his decision to partner with Rahm rather than Carma is a central issue.
A separate personal injury lawsuit against Hogan and RAB is also ongoing.
The case raises broader concerns about IP rights, executive ethics, and the legal risks in celebrity product launches.
Is Hulk Hogan being sued over Real American Beer?
No, he is not a defendant in the IP lawsuit. However, he is named in a separate personal injury case related to a promotional event.
Who owns the Real American Beer trademark?
The trademark is currently registered by Rahm Inc., but Carma is contesting the ownership in federal court.
What are the claims in the lawsuit?
The lawsuit includes allegations of breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and violations of state and federal IP laws.
Will the beer be pulled from shelves?
Possibly, depending on the outcome. If Carma wins or a settlement is reached, the brand may be rebranded or shut down.
Curious how the Real American Beer battle compares to other major IP clashes? Check out our breakdown of the Top 5 Trademark Disputes of All Time—from Apple vs. Apple Corps to the Burger King territory wars.
Following the recent disciplinary ruling against attorney Brian Kent by the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board, new concerns have emerged about other legal professionals connected to ongoing litigation involving the Church of Scientology.
A source familiar with the matter has come forward, alleging a broader pattern of misconduct among attorneys tied to these high-profile cases.
Among those named is Graham Berry, a Los Angeles-based attorney who previously served as co-counsel with Kent in cases involving Scientology.
Berry was recently added—once again—to the Judicial Council of California’s list of vexatious litigants, according to court records. The designation restricts an individual’s ability to file lawsuits without prior judicial approval. Berry has also faced past scrutiny over allegations of inappropriate conduct with clients.
Another attorney linked to this circle is Michael Dolce, formerly of a law firm that collaborated with legal scholar Marci Hamilton, who has served alongside Kent in various lawsuits. In 2023, Dolce was sentenced to four years in federal prison and 15 years of supervised release after pleading guilty to possessing child pornography. According to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice, Dolce had amassed an extensive collection of illicit material at the time of his arrest.
Questions have also been raised about Neil Glazer, the attorney reportedly responsible for filing the initial bar complaint against Brian Kent. Glazer was reprimanded following an incident involving intoxication and inappropriate behavior toward a client. The source claims Glazer is no longer associated with his former law firm and is not currently active in litigation against Scientology.
Critics argue that the conduct of some involved attorneys may jeopardize the credibility and outcomes of these important cases.
“I have no personal stake in this matter,” said the individual who provided the information to this publication, adding that their interest stems from a personal experience with attorney negligence. “I’ve made it a point to research and expose problematic behavior within the legal profession.”
As public interest grows in the legal teams representing clients in cases against institutions, these developments highlight the importance of ensuring accountability for those entrusted with the responsibility of seeking justice.
Efforts to reach attorneys Berry and Glazer for comment were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
In a legal system often criticized for its complexity and delays, one type of court motion stands out for its speed and effectiveness: the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion. Designed to swiftly dismiss lawsuits aimed at punishing individuals for exercising their free speech rights, anti-SLAPP laws are increasingly viewed as powerful tools for defending public discourse.
Legal experts say that once a defendant prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion, it’s exceptionally difficult to lose that victory on appeal.
“These laws are meant to stop lawsuits that are really just intimidation tactics,” said a First Amendment attorney with experience in anti-SLAPP litigation. “And once a trial court finds that the speech is protected, appellate courts are usually hesitant to overturn that decision.”
“If you win your anti-SLAPP motion, your odds on appeal are strong,” the attorney added. “You’re on solid legal ground, and the courts recognize the importance of protecting free expression.”
A recent high-profile example involves actress Leah Remini. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge recently granted a sweeping anti-SLAPP motion against Remini, dismissing the bulk of her claims in a lawsuit she filed. The judge ruled that much of the speech at issue was protected under California’s expansive anti-SLAPP statute. Remini has since appealed, but legal analysts say she faces steep odds—not just because appellate reversals are rare, but because, if the dismissal is upheld, she will be liable for substantial attorney’s fees.
Those fees can climb into the hundreds of thousands—or even millions—especially when a case proceeds through the appellate courts. In Remini’s case, legal observers note, the appeal could not only fail but result in significant financial consequences.
Anti-SLAPP statutes have seen a surge in use in recent years, particularly in response to lawsuits over online reviews, public protests, or criticism of influential individuals and corporations.
“The attorney’s fees provision is a major deterrent against frivolous litigation,” the attorney said. “It raises the cost of using the courts as a weapon to silence speech.”
As courts continue to affirm the importance of protecting public discourse, legal analysts say anti-SLAPP laws are becoming a mainstay of First Amendment defense—and that for those who win early, appeals are often little more than a formality.
“The system doesn’t always move quickly,” the attorney noted, “but in anti-SLAPP cases, once you win, it’s very hard to lose—and it can be very costly for the other side.”
A key reason appellate losses are rare is the burden placed on the plaintiff once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed. The person bringing the lawsuit must show they are likely to succeed on the merits—an unusually high standard at the early stages of litigation, when evidence is often sparse.
“In most civil cases, plaintiffs don’t need to prove much to move forward,” the attorney explained. “But with an anti-SLAPP motion, they must demonstrate a likelihood of success at trial. That’s a high bar to clear right out of the gate.”
Even though appellate courts apply a “de novo” standard—meaning they review the issue independently rather than deferring to the trial court—they frequently reach the same conclusion.
Legal experts say this consistency stems from two factors: appellate judges’ caution about allowing lawsuits that could chill free speech, and the solid legal grounding of most successful anti-SLAPP motions, which often rely on clear precedent and constitutional protections.
Another powerful feature of anti-SLAPP laws is that the prevailing party is typically entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs—often substantial. This means defendants not only get meritless lawsuits dismissed, but are also reimbursed for the cost of defending themselves.
As free speech battles continue to play out in the courtroom, experts agree: anti-SLAPP victories are among the most durable wins a defendant can achieve—and among the most expensive losses for a plaintiff to absorb.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP advised Cobepa S.A. on the completion of two significant platform investments in the U.S.
Cobepa acquired Eagle Fire, a leading provider of fire and life safety services focused on high-complexity end markets. Weil also advised Cobepa on its minority investment in SAX LLP, a Top 100 accounting and advisory firm headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. The investment will support SAX’s continued growth, innovation, and client service excellence.
Commenting on the SAX investment, Andrew Hollod, Cobepa’s Managing Director North America, said: “Our investment in SAX is driven by their strong leadership and client-first culture. We believe our ‘hands-with’ approach will help unlock significant growth opportunities while preserving the firm’s high-quality client service.”
SAX CEO Joseph Damiano added: “With Cobepa’s backing, we’re poised to scale our offerings, invest in our people, and enhance client service.”
Raymond Clarke, President and CEO of Eagle Fire, commented: “Cobepa’s resources and shared values will enable Eagle Fire to expand its geographic reach and service capabilities.”
Weil’s multidisciplinary team was led by Private Equity partner Luke Laumann and included professionals from across the firm’s Private Equity, Tax, Antitrust, Environmental, Executive Compensation & Benefits, Employment, Privacy & Cybersecurity, Technology & IP Transactions, Banking & Finance, and Regulatory Transactions practices.
Cobepa S.A. is a Brussels-based private equity firm managing over €5 billion in assets, with a U.S. office in New York. Founded in 1957 and backed by European entrepreneurial families, Cobepa focuses on long-term investments in family-owned and entrepreneurial businesses across Europe and North America. The firm’s permanent capital model enables flexible, growth-oriented partnerships, supporting management teams through buyouts, growth capital, and minority investments.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is a leading global law firm founded in 1931, with over 1,200 lawyers across 15 offices in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Known for its strength in corporate, private equity, restructuring, litigation, and regulatory matters, Weil advises major public companies, private equity sponsors, and financial institutions on their most complex legal challenges. The firm operates under a unified "one-firm" approach and is recognized worldwide for its legal excellence and industry leadership.
Clifford Chance Advises CVC on $220M Airalo eSIM Unicorn Deal
Peruvian Man Found Guilty in $15M Scam Targeting Spanish Speakers
A Peruvian man who thought he could scam vulnerable Americans from thousands of miles away is now facing serious prison time. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), David Cornejo Fernandez, 36, has pleaded guilty to helping run a $15 million fraud operation that targeted Spanish-speaking consumers across the U.S.
Cornejo, from Lima, wasn’t the one making the threatening phone calls. Instead, he played the role of tech mastermind, setting up fake phone lines, spoofing caller IDs to mimic U.S. agencies, and even recording bogus messages that sounded like real court hotlines.
All of it was designed to trick people, many of them older or less fluent in English, into believing they were about to face legal trouble if they didn’t pay up.
In total, over 30,000 Americans were targeted, many harassed into handing over money they didn’t actually owe. Victims were told they’d be fined, arrested, or deported if they didn’t pay for supposed English-language products or services.
As Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate put it in the official DOJ statement:
“The Department of Justice is committed to protecting vulnerable U.S. consumers from fraud, especially schemes carried out by criminals impersonating U.S. government officials.”
"Those who target American consumers from abroad will be identified, prosecuted, and held accountable for their crimes. We thank the Republic of Peru for their assistance in arresting and extraditing this defendant and others involved in these scams.”
David Cornejo Fernandez was extradited from Peru in late 2024. In court, he admitted not only to providing the tools, but to training scammers on how to sound convincing, as if pretending to be an FBI agent was just another day at the office.
He also rotated fake phone numbers whenever victims caught on, keeping the scam alive far longer than authorities expected.
According to investigators, Cornejo is the 13th person convicted in connection to the multi-million-dollar scam.
Bladismir Rojo of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service summed it up bluntly:
“Setting up fake call centers to harass and intimidate innocent victims, Cornejo and his co-conspirators, crafted a campaign of fear designed to rob people of not only their savings but their peace of mind. If you target Americans, no matter where you are in the world we will find you.”
Now, Cornejo faces up to 20 years in federal prison, with sentencing set for September 25 in Miami.
This case, led by the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, involved cooperation from authorities in both the U.S. and Peru.
The DOJ credited the Peruvian National Police and Prosecutor General’s Office for helping bring Cornejo to justice.
Have You or Someone You Know Been Scammed?
If you’re over 60 or know someone who is and have experienced financial fraud, the National Elder Fraud Hotline is available.
Call 1-833-FRAUD-11 (1-833-372-8311) for free, confidential help. Reporting scams can help catch criminals and might even recover your money.
(Source: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
