Update: California tow-and-sue scam

In an elaborate scheme discussed in this space in May, a northern California towing operator towed cars without authority, then proceeded to sue the owners — and even some non-owners — for exaggerated storage and handling fees. The enterprise was eventually exposed by Greg Adler, a young lawyer who estimates that he spent 1,200 hours documenting the misdeeds. Two of the scammers are now headed to prison, with one receiving a 14-year sentence. [San Jose Mercury News via Legal Ethics Forum]

On the food safety bill


Despite the “government will finally protect you now” atmospherics, there’s little reason to think the recently signed food safety bill will make any dramatic change in what were already falling rates of food poisoning. Bacteria will still be around, and you’ll still want to remember grandma’s advice about washing fresh produce and taking care with raw eggs. I explain in a brief interview with Hearst-Argyle Television.

Separately: Food-safety bill provided a feast for lobbyists [Washington Post]

Toyota theories shift

Unable to show any electronic flaw in the vehicles, plaintiff’s lawyers switch to the theory that the automaker should have embraced “brake override” technology that disengages the throttle when the brake is applied. That technology doesn’t work, of course, if the driver is in fact mistakenly hitting the accelerator when intending to hit the brake — which was what happened in earlier sudden-acceleration scares, and looks likely to be the cause of most of the Toyota incidents as well. [L.A. Times]

“Law degree, never used, for sale on eBay”

If they were really transferable, we’d all be in trouble. [Stephanie Landsman, CNBC “NetNet”]

Related: Sunday’s New York Times has a long article asking whether law schools are adequately disclosing the high likelihood that their costly offerings will turn out to be a poor investment for many heavily indebted students. Should U.S. News law-school rankings, like cigarette packs, carry warnings? [Above the Law]

January 7 roundup

  • Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s firm suing Apple, Google and many others over common web features [Atlantic Wire, Groklaw (“Allen v. World and Dog”]
  • Probably not a good idea to give local authorities cash incentive to snatch kids from homes [Bader, CEI]
  • Hyperlink liability case: “If I lose there won’t BE an Internet in Canada” [Ars Technica]
  • Shooting spree at Denny’s results in suit charging eatery with negligent security [PNWLocalNews.com]
  • More links: “Do securities lawsuits help shareholders?” [Point of Law, Bainbridge]
  • Fourth Circuit revives CSX fraud suit against asbestos lawyers [Dan Fisher, Forbes] “Asbestos defendants want automatic access to info in bankruptcy trusts” [Chamber-backed LNL]
  • Creation of noncompliant consumer financial product is a criminal offense under Dodd-Frank [Josh Wright, TotM]
  • Man sues over seeing contestants eat rats on NBC reality show “Fear Factor” [six years ago on Overlawyered]

Kitty litter manufacturers in court

Church & Dwight, of Arm & Hammer fame, has sued Clorox over comparative advertising of its “Fresh Step” litter brand. At issue is whether the comparison is scientific, per the WSJ Law Blog’s account:

“But cats do not talk, and it is widely understood in the scientific community that cat perception of malodor is materially different than human perception,” the lawsuit said. “Thus, it is not possible scientifically to determine whether cats view one substance to be more or less malodorous than another substance.”

More: Popehat.