Legal Radar

Court of Appeals Allows Reprieve for Tobacco Firms on Package Messages

The tobacco industry won’t have to include messages on their packaging indicating of them lying to American public, according to a federal court of appeals ruling in Washington, D.C.

The federal court of appeals last week ruled that tobacco firms are required to inform their consumers that cigarettes are made to be addictive. But a judge-panel allowed the tobacco industry some reprieve, indicating that companies won’t have to inform of them lying about the harmful effects of smoking.

The case began in 1999 when the federal government filed racketeering charges against numerous firms including Altria Group, Lorillard Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and Philip Morris USA. The Justice Department believed that the tobacco industry was part of a long-running conspiracy to trick consumers the harmful effects of smoking.

Back in 2006, a federal trial judge in Washington ordered the firms to eliminate ads showcasing smoking issues, from harmful smoking effects to nicotine level manipulation on their “low tar” and “light” brands.

NY Senate Leader and Son Facing Corruption Charges

A multi-page complaint was released by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, which charges Mr. Skelos, the highest ranking Republican Senate in the State, and his son, with two counts of extortion, two counts of conspiracy, and two counts of gratuities and bribes.

The complaint indicates a scheme of extorting business for funds to benefit Skelos’ son, with expectations that payments would greatly impact the Senator’s actions. It also claims that both the Senator and his son went through extensive lengths to hide their activity, including the use of burner mobile phones and coded languages.

The investigation is part of a wide inquiry by federal investigators into possible wrongdoing in Albany, NY, and recent charges coming months after Sheldon Silver, a Democrat and former assembly speaker, was arrested on corruption charges.

The complaint also claims an extended scheme by the Senator and his son to secure earnings from businesses with business and legislative interests in the NY state, and those who have given political contributions to the senator.

Virginia SC: Yelp Doesn’t Need to Reveal Reviewers

Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled earlier that Yelp is obligated to not reveal the identities of online users accused by a business owner of posting fraud and negative feedback about his carpet-cleaning firm.

The dispute before the Supreme Court in Virginia describes a complaint brought about by Joe Hadeed, a business owner of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc. in Springfield, Virginia, who claimed his business was bombarded with harsh reviews in 2012. He filed a suit against several online reviewers for defamation and demanded Yelp to reveal their true identities.

Hadeed believed that the posted reviews were made by fellow competitors and says his sales took a nose dive after negative comments were posted online. Yelp argued that without proof, users had the First Amendment right to post without revealing their identity.

The state trial court and Court of Appeals sided with Hadeed, holding Yelp responsible for contempt for not revealing the identities of users.

Justices looking into the case felt that the lower court lacked the authority for revealing the Yelp reviewers.

McDonald’s Labor Case Makes It to Judge

A McDonald Corp’s lawyer informed the federal administrative judge that the company is a “victim” of an attack on its brand, as proceedings are currently underway, which may may end relations between major retailers and their franchisees.

The issue at hand is whether or not McDonalds share equal responsibility for their franchisees’ actions, especially on low wages complaints for its fast-food employees.

The general counsel of the National Labor Relations complained that McDonald’s and its franchisees are violation of restaurant workers rights in improving the working environment and wages.

Such moves are part of the a struggling relationship between American corporations and the labor board, with pressure building up to offer salary raises for low-wage workers.

Depending on how the case could end up later, the dispute may make it a lot simpler for labor unions to structure fast-food workers, negotiate salaries, and further expose franchisers with liability on labor matters. 

SC Abandons Amtrak Role over Rail Guidelines

A ruling by the Supreme Court early this week was left unclear as to whether or not Amtrak is authorized to set in place performance standards on its own as part of a government effort to enhance passenger rail performance.

The case involved challenging a 2008 law that gave complete power of the passenger rail firm to co-create minimum standards and metrics to directly address delays and poor service. Private railroad firms said that Congress didn’t properly delegate regulatory authority to a private firm, allowing Amtrak (a government-owned entity) an unfair advantage over them.

If Amtrak doesn’t meet performance standards, railroads sharing the same tracks may be penalized for not contributing enough to cater to Amtrak trains.

When making a ruling on Amtrak being a government entity, the SC said that questions regarding constitutional performance standards may still be within the case.

All 9 justices voted to push the case back for further proceedings.

With high takes seen on both sides of the legal battle, it appears that case may likely make its way back to the SC for the final ruling.

Europe Looking to Further Secure Data Privacy Law

The United States and Europe are pushing each other further apart when it comes to data privacy matters.

Shaken up by the current Snowden issue, the EU is making last touches on a bill that would alter the way European-based American companies would handle consumer data. Such measure would replace the current patches of European data privacy laws.

The draft legislation will entail consumers to make an explicit consent before businesses are cleared to share their personal information.

The legislation is currently in the EU negotiation process and will need to make it through several legal hurdles before it can take full effect.

EU authorities are already thinking of removing the U.S.-EU agreement called “Safe Harbor.” This agreement lets American firms gather data generated by EU consumers. Such change can take effect at any point in time.

EU Data Protection Supervisor, Giovanni Buttarelli, a figure who coordinates with the EU data protection policy, is hoping the new law will help streamline national data protection in all European nations.

Teva Spots Possible FCPA Violations

Teva, a pharmaceutical company, indicated in a securities filing that an internal probe revealed business practices to likely have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The drug indicated before it was looking into matters in multiple countries that may lead to a rise of FCPA violations and/or possible violations to local laws, based on a securities filing last year.

Teva said its internal investigation started after receiving subpoenas and further requests on details related to foreign bribery from the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and the Justice Department beginning in 2012.

The probe revealed business practices and transactions in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Russia which is said to likely violate FCPA and local laws.

Teva previously mentioned that it may end up paying fines in relation to the FCPA investigation. The drug maker also mentioned that its affiliates in specific countries who are being investigated offered local authorities false or altered details on their marketing processes.

FTC Further Strengthens Antitrust Victory in Healthcare Case

The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) is consistently maintaining a court presence regarding its efforts to halt healthcare mergers it thinks aren't competitive.

A judge-panel from the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mentioned that an Idaho federal judge remained on strong round when he ruled that 2012 deal of St. Luke’s Health System with the Saltzer Medical Group could push to higher pricing for medical services.

The 9^th Circuit indicated that when a merger in healthcare happens it risks higher pricing. At the same time it’s not enough to prove that a merger would let the current system serve patients better.

St. Luke’s pointed out that the merger would let it offer improved healthcare as well as enhanced electronic sharing of medical records. The court of appeals, however, showed findings that St. Luke’s isn’t required to purchase a new group of doctors to take in a different and new approach.

Uber Updating User Privacy to Congress

Ridesharing company, Uber, shared results of an audit regarding its data privacy practices by Hogan Lovells, a law firm. The company commissioned the audit last November after comments triggered concerns of Uber tracking its riders in real-time.

The incident ignited an important inquiry from Senator Al Franken, currently the chairman of the Senate committee on technology, privacy, and law. He called Uber to be clearer on its privacy policies.

Uber is following new regulations regarding the elimination of user data when riders delete their account, and conducting background checks on its employees who has access to private data, as indicated in the audit.

The firm has plans to begin conducting more thorough reviews of its privacy policy, aiding riders to understand its regulations clearly, and allowing passengers to track their star rating offered by Uber drivers.

Franken has received the audit copy of the company and is looking into the document closely.

SC Siding with Teva on Patent Issue

The U.S. Supreme Court early this week overturned a Court of Appeals ruling that invalidated a patent by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. on a multi-sclerosis drug (Copaxone), offering the drug manufacturer a chance to stall generic competitors.

The court ruling gives new life to Teva’s ability to prevent competitors from making headway into the Copaxone market until the patent expiration this September.

It also serves as another rebuke by the SC to the Federal Circuit, a special court that listens to a bulk of the country’s patent appeals.

In the past few years, as patents are playing a bigger role in the country’s economy, the Supreme Court has dealt with numerous patent appeals and overturned many rulings from the Federal Court.

In a 7-2 decision made by the court, Justice Stephen Brever said the Federal Circuit needs to be deferential in studying determinations done by trial judges who look into patent infringement cases.