David Ardia of Citizen Media Law has more details on this disturbing case (earlier).
{ 4 comments }
From the monthly archives:
April 2009
Toronto considers a ban (via Fountain).
The Washington Times reported on Friday on what it says is a little-noticed provision in draft cap-and-trade legislation (PDF) authored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.): new authorization for “citizen suits” to challenge government inaction on climate change. The bill would confer such standing, according to the article, on anyone “who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part,” to such inaction. However — in an apparent concession made some time ago to Republican lawmakers — the article also says that total payouts by the government would be limited to the comparatively minor amount of $1.5 million per year. Attorneys’ fees payable to prevailing plaintiffs, however, will presumably be subject to no such limit. More: Carter Wood also discovers new litigation powers for state AGs tucked into the bill; Marlo Lewis, CEI “Open Market”; Deputy Headmistress.
{ 2 comments }
William Pecau of Steptoe & Johnson has advice for businesses (PDF) thinking of suing over their reputation (reprint courtesy Paul Alan Levy)
{ 2 comments }
Last year, Overlawyered was the first to report that Judge William Acker in the Northern District of Alabama had held the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which provides unlimited damages of $100-$1000 per violation for trivial technical violations of printing too many numbers on a credit card receipt, unconstitutional. Other judges have refused to follow his lead, and last week the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, rejecting the facial challenge to the statute, but leaving open the possibility that the statute would be unconstitutional as applied in a particular case. (Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, No. 08-13510; h/t R.M.)
{ 3 comments }
Many are taking no action to save themselves from the law, but — as Kathleen Fasanella explains — act as if paralyzed by the February “stay” with its illusion of hope.
Okay, it’s not going to win any graphics awards. But it’s got lots of information about abusive disabled-access suits in California.
{ 2 comments }
So says Edificial (via Above the Law).
“There is an underlying belief that retailers are out of the loop on this law or that it doesn’t affect them. That couldn’t be any further from the truth.”
Except for, you know, falling asleep.
{ 2 comments }
Dirk Olin at Portfolio magazine on the Valdez spill litigation.
Turns out there is a trade association sounding the alarm (earlier)
{ 3 comments }
Julia Forte of North Carolina
operates a pair of web sites — 800notes.com and whocallsme.com — that provide an interesting consumer service. These web sites include message boards that permit consumers who receive calls from telemarketers to comment on their experiences; other consumers who receive a call from a given telemarketer can take a look and make a decision about whether they want to take a particular call.
U.S. law protects her in this mission, but telemarketers who don’t like the critiques made available on her sites have begun suing, or threatening to sue her, in other countries where protections for online speech are less robust. [Paul Alan Levy, CL&P Blog]
{ 1 comment }
Wachter’s World (via KevinMD) reports on what can happen when promising innovations are too rapidly accorded the status of obligatory standards of care.
{ 1 comment }
You do have to wonder what the cops are thinking in some of these cases.
{ 3 comments }
Posting may be slower here over the next few days because of the holiday (and comments-moderation may be erratic at best, for which apologies in advance). If you’d like to catch up with CPSIA reading, though, there’s plenty of it:
- Excellent reporting in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel last weekend, based on interviews with local people affected by the law, including a maker of kids’ clothing, a doll maker (more), and so forth. Virtually all of them contribute a striking fact, a memorable quote, or both: “Mark Kohlenberg, owner of the Umi children’s shoe company in Grafton, estimates that the required testing will cost his company $200,000 a year. … ‘This law was written one night in Washington when everyone was drunk,’ said a frustrated Peter Reynolds of the Little Toy Co. in Germantown. ‘It’s impossible to read and impossible to enforce.’”
- Before moving on from the state of Wisconsin, let Valerie Jacobsen’s comment be recorded: “Canvassed Janesville, Wisconsin thrift stores March 31. In an entire city of population 60,000 there was one piece of used clothing for a baby of six months or less”. (Further: ShopFloor).
- A report in the Northfield, Minn. paper on the vintage-kids’-books situation contains a line almost too depressing to pass along: “Congressman John Kline responded and said efforts are underway to change the law, but with the focus on larger budget issues he admitted it could be years [emphasis added] before this gets another look.” More: Deputy Headmistress.
- “The Myth of Good Intentions” [James Wilson, DownsizeDC]
- “$1,500 to test one clutch ball that retails for $16.50″: a letter to President Obama [Jill Chuckas of Handmade Toy Alliance at Change.org]
- Rick Woldenberg, running his family’s educational-toy company, remembers himself as the most apolitical person you would want to meet. How’d he turn into a nonstop organizer of the reform effort? [Story of My Life]
- “When I first heard about CPSIA I actually cried. I didn’t see how they could pass something so stupid.” [11-year-old Lizi, at AmendTheCPSIA.com]
- To grasp the immense scale of Congress’s blunder with this law, “follow a blog like Overlawyered“. Thanks! [Hugh Hewitt, The Examiner; and more, including radio questioning of Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and John Ensign (R-Nev.)]
Public domain image from Walter Crane, Baby’s Own Aesop (1887), courtesy Children’s Library.
{ 6 comments }
Phillips Givens’ IP Law 101 has more on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed extension of liability to situations where bloggers or others in social media fail to disclose the receipt of freebie services (such as entertainment or software) or write insincerely favorable posts about the experience. Earlier here. More: Jeff Winkler, Reason “Hit and Run”.
P.S.: Doesn’t sound as if bloggers have much to worry about, though, if the topics on which they provide favorable coverage are of a more political sort.
{ 2 comments }
