Podcasts about Class action

John is joined by Miguel Rato and Marixenia Davilla, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's Brussels office. They discuss a major antitrust and competition law class action brought in the United Kingdom against Qualcomm, a leading developer of mobile communications technology.The case was filed as an opt-out class action on behalf of consumers and alleged that Qualcomm had abused a dominant market position by charging excessive patent royalties to smartphone manufacturers, particularly Apple and Samsung. The plaintiff claimed that Qualcomm used its strength as a supplier of mobile chipsets to pressure manufacturers into accepting licensing terms that allegedly resulted in inflated consumer prices. Remarkably, the plaintiff class withdrew the case at the end of the first phase of the trial.European competition law differs from U.S. antitrust law in that it permits claims based not only on the exclusion of rivals, but also on the alleged exploitation of customers through excessive pricing. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that Qualcomm leveraged its market power in chipsets to impose unfair licensing terms. Qualcomm maintained that its licensing model reflected legitimate compensation for decades of innovation and intellectual property development.The trial focused in detail on Qualcomm's relationships with Apple and Samsung. Evidence showed that key licensing arrangements were entered into at times when the manufacturers were not dependent on Qualcomm chipsets, undermining the claim that Qualcomm used chipset supply as leverage. Additional evidence demonstrated that royalty levels did not vary according to the volume of chipset purchases and that customers could obtain licenses independently of chipset transactions. Economic analysis likewise failed to reveal any connection between alleged dependence on Qualcomm products and the royalties ultimately negotiated.The case proceeded to a five-week trial before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. The first phase addressed market definition, dominance, liability, and whether the allegedly excessive royalties could nevertheless be justified as reasonable. Before the tribunal issued its ruling on the first phase, the class representative agreed to withdraw the case entirely. Qualcomm paid nothing, each side bore its own costs, and the litigation ended without a judgment.A judge reviewing the withdrawal concluded that the claim had no realistic prospect of success, making the case a rare instance in which a plaintiff abandons a major class action after trial, but before a decision was rendered.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Not everything that glitters is gold. People often wonder: How does someone end up at Christian Centre anyway? In this episode, we sit down with a former parent and congregant, Jackie, who once brought her family into the church and enrolled her children in the school. She shares her firsthand experience as an adult navigating the community, what initially attracted her, and what she learned after getting a closer look behind the curtain.   Join the Class Action: https://scharfsteinlaw.com/class-action/ Website and Socials: https://www.legacyofabuse.com/ Contact Us: legacyofabusepodcast@gmail.com

In this special episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, produced in partnership with Shine Lawyers, we dive into the forces shaping Australia's class action landscape and what comes next for one of the country's leading plaintiff firms. From emerging litigation trends and the rise of big tech claims to innovation, scale and strategic growth, the conversation offers a timely look at where the market is heading and how Shine is helping lead it. Host Jerome Doraisamy speaks with Shine Lawyers Head of Class Actions Craig Allsopp about his path in law, the passion that continues to drive his plaintiff practice, and his recognition as a finalist in the class actions category at the upcoming Partner of the Year Awards. The episode also explores Shine's push to deliver class actions more efficiently through technology and smarter cost management, its investment in international mass torts, its expanding national footprint, and its campaign to attract top legal talent to its high-performing class actions team. Together, these priorities reflect a firm with strong momentum, a clear market position, and an ambitious vision for the future of class actions in Australia. If you like this episode, show your support by rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, X and LinkedIn. If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au

Let it ride! Buckle up for this episode of Let's Talk Wheels with Mike Herzing and Jeremy Birenbaum as they break down the big stories: a controversial Honda proposed class‑action settlement that paid lawyers far more than drivers, Volvo's massive backup‑camera recall, rising airbag thefts, and fresh Civic Type R updates. Also included: an in‑depth review of the 2026 Kia Sportage X‑Line plug‑in hybrid, Ford's new Bronco partnership with Filson, classic‑car market notes (Mini Cooper John Cooper Works), towing and maintenance tips, and a plain‑spoken explanation of E‑Rev technology.

Philippe Trudel, Lawyer and Partner at Trudel Johnston & Lespérance. You can submit a claim at RecoursTabac.com.

We're filling out May's Watchcast schedule with a trio of documentaries that have been on our respective lists for a while now, and first up is Vinny's pick, Class Action Park! Join us as we recount our own memories of weirdo theme parks of yore, marvel at the brazen lawlessness of this whole operation, and wonder aloud if we aren't just living in Action Park all the time now.CHAPTERS:(00:00:00) - The Nextlander Watchcast Episode 178: Class Action Park (2020)(00:00:43) - Intro.(00:04:00) - Class Action Park is Vinny's pick this month, and here's why.(00:10:37) - How this podcast is going to go, generally, and our own personal experiences with local theme parks.(00:20:57) - How the hell was this allowed to go on for so long?(00:27:04) - Break!(00:27:32) - We're back, and it's time to talk about who made this movie, and who some of the folks speaking in it are.(00:32:11) - Kicking things off with who Gene Mulvihill was. and how he came to own this place. (00:36:26) - The Action Park complex, and the rides that didn't work out.(00:46:42) - Some of the rides that lasted the duration, and the Lord of the Flies situation going on here.(00:56:02) - The deadliest kayak experience this side of the Colorado.(00:57:31) - The wave pool deaths.(01:05:49) - Motorworld, and George Larsson's death on the Alpine Slide.(01:14:52) - How Gene Mulvihill dodged consequences.(01:24:05) - What became of Action Park, and what, if anything, is there to be learned from all this?(01:46:12) - Final thoughts.(01:53:26) - Our film for next week: Harlan County, USA!(01:56:18) - Outro.

In this episode, we break down the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan's $950,000 phishing settlement, Medtronic's nine-million-record breach, and the Inc Ransom attack on Sandhills Medical Foundation. We also highlight Henderson Behavioral Health's patient-centered approach and discuss practical takeaways for strengthening your organization's security posture through staff training, system patching, and incident response planning.

In this episode, we speak with Jude and Mike, a couple whose journey through three high‑control Christian communities began with the charismatic Light of the World movement and led them into the covenant‑based structure of People of Praise. They describe communal living, financial surrender, strict headship hierarchies, and the pressure to shape every major life decision - dating, housing, work - around spiritual authority. Their story reveals how seemingly vibrant renewal movements can slide into systems of control, shunning, and expectations of obedience. As Jude and Mike recount the move of more than 100 members to Saskatoon and the painful realization that the community they joined didn't want them, listeners see early patterns that would later intensify inside Saskatoon Christian Center.   Join the Class Action: https://scharfsteinlaw.com/class-action/ Links and Socials: https://linktr.ee/legacyofabusepodcast Contact Us: legacyofabusepodcast@gmail.com

Con lo sviluppo esponenziale dell'Intelligenza Artificiale Generativa, è diventato sempre più difficile distinguere i contenuti creati dalle macchine da quelli prodotti dagli esseri umani. Se 5 o 6 anni fa eravamo già preoccupati dal dilagare di fake news e video deepfake, oggi la situazione è ancora più grave. I social sono invasi da “AI slop”, mentre il web si riempie di applicazioni sviluppate interamente con l'IA, spesso prive di supervisione adeguata. È quindi diventato fondamentale sviluppare sistemi e tecnologie in grado di permettere a utenti e applicazioni di riconoscere se un contenuto – sia esso un video, un testo, un'immagine o una musica – è stato generato totalmente o parzialmente da una macchina. Ma è ancora possibile farlo? E quanto sono affidabili i sistemi che stanno nascendo per questo scopo? In questa puntata proviamo a rispondere a queste domande.Nella sezione delle notizie parliamo di una nuova tecnica CRISPR contro i tumori, della class action contro Apple per le promesse non mantenute su Siri e Apple Intelligence e infine dell'avvio della produzione del camion elettrico di Tesla.--Indice--00:00 - Introduzione01:12 - Una nuova tecnica CRISPR contro i tumori (ANSA.it, Luca Martinelli)02:58 - Siri nel mirino di una class action (Wired.com, Davide Fasoli)04:10 - Tesla avvia la produzione del tir Semi (DMove.it, Matteo Gallo)05:37 - Riconoscere contenuti generati dall'IA. È ancora possibile? (Luca Martinelli)18:35 - Conclusione--Testo--Leggi la trascrizione: https://www.dentrolatecnologia.it/S8E19#testo--Contatti--• www.dentrolatecnologia.it• Instagram (@dentrolatecnologia)• Telegram (@dentrolatecnologia)• YouTube (@dentrolatecnologia)• redazione@dentrolatecnologia.it--Brani--• Ecstasy by Rabbit Theft• Falling For You by SouMix & Bromar

Whoa, Shuhei!  We’ve got a lot to talk about.  Stack it up!  Join Matt and Alex as they discuss, among other things, Mouse: P.I. for Hire, Slay the Spire 2, Arc Raiders, Hyrule Warriors: Age of Imprisonment, and The Spell Brigade.  What’s more, we delve into Xbox game sales on PlayStation, and we focus on Sony’s settlement of an antitrust lawsuit.  As usual, the news is full of surprises. And if you think that’s all, then you’ve got another thing coming!  We hit the high notes, and we hit the low notes, but we’ll always bring the banter.  What are you waiting for? Dive in! As always, the opinions fly fast and heavy! Look out for this super-sized show, as the seemingly smallest conversation veers off into a multiverse of chit-chat. Sounds cool, huh? That’s the fancy way of saying “derailment.” And there’s plenty of that to go around! Let’s dance, Heroes of the XMB! In a bit of big news that would make the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles proud, iHeartRadio, Pandora and Spotify host episodes of Trophy Whores. It's a tremendous honor for the show to be part of three massive and respected entertainment communities, and Proven Gamer have only the fans to thank for pushing the podcast to soaring heights. The Trophy Whores work hard to put out a quality weekly show, but they owe so much love to their listeners, who keep the show strong and growing. If you want to support the show via Patreon, then check out our page, which shares the tiers for all of our Patrons! We appreciate your support (and your ears)! Please subscribe to the Trophy Whores feed in iTunes, Google Play, TuneIn, IHeartRadio, Stitcher, or RSS and please leave a review. We won't give you cookies, but it will help us make the show better. You can find us on Twitter: @TrophyWhores and @ProvenGamer You can also email us at TrophyWhores. If you wish, you can always download the show here – Trophy Whores 713 – Class Action Consoles

05/06 Thu Hr. 3: You Could Get an Iphone Class Action Payout!You Could Get an Iphone Class Action Payout! Bryan Freedman, Justin Baldoni's lead attorney says, Justin won and Blake lost in the wake of their settlement; New emails from their case show brand partners were pulling back on her endorsements very soon after bad press started; One Star Reviews and the Five Second Rule Game!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A coding error in one of ANZ's loan calculators saw it charge about 17,000 customers the wrong amount of interest. 

A class-action lawsuit have been filed in California on behalf of triggered CNN viewers who are worried that Paramount buying Warner Bros. would lead to a lack of "diversity of viewpoints" in the news media. You know, it's not like we had a bunch of "diversity" in views for the last decade or so... Watch the podcast episodes on YouTube and all major podcast hosts including Spotify. CLOWNFISH TV is an independent, opinionated news and commentary podcast that covers Entertainment and Tech from a consumer's point of view. We talk about Gaming, Comics, Anime, TV, Movies, Animation and more. Hosted by Kneon and Geeky Sparkles. Get more news, views and reviews on Clownfish TV News - https://more.clownfishtv.com/ On YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ClownfishTV On Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4Tu83D1NcCmh7K1zHIedvg On Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/clownfish-tv-audio-edition/id1726838629 MORE CLOWNFISH TV - Official Merch Store: http://ClownfishMinus.com Facebook - https://facebook.com/ClownfishTV X - https://x.com/ClownfishTVcom Clownfish TV subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClownfishTVOfficial/ Disclaimer: This series is produced by Clownfish Studios and WebReef Media, and is part of ClownfishTV.com. Opinions expressed by our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of our guests, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. ClownfishTV.com is an unofficial news source and has no connection to any company that we may cover. This channel and website and the content made available through this site are for educational, entertainment and informational purposes only. These so-called “fair uses” are permitted even if the use of the work would otherwise be infringing. #CNN #WarnerBros #Paramount #Hollywood #Podcast #Commentary #News #Reaction #Gaming #Comedy #Entertainment #Hollywood #PopCulture #Tech #Anime #FYP Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

"The week that changed the world.” Was it a chance encounter at the World Tennis Championship in 1971, “Panda diplomacy” between the U.S. and Communist China, or a break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters by a team of 5 burglars, that drastically altered the trajectory of world history? It was around this time that the Women's Equity Action League also filed one of the farthest-reaching Class Action lawsuits, leading to President Nixon signing the Education Act into law. Join us as we talk about the origins of the Watergate scandal, the landslide victory that kept Nixon in office, and the establishment of Title IX. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week we're diving into the wild story of Donald Howard, the man behind Accelerated Christian Education, also known as the curriculum that tried to teach generations of kids that dinosaurs and humans hung out together like it was a prehistoric group project. We break down the doctrine, the beliefs, and the very creative version of science and history baked into the program that spread through Christian schools around the world. Then we ask the obvious question: what actually happened to the guy who built the whole thing? Because when you start pulling on that thread, the story gets… let's just say biblically messy.   Join the Class Action: https://scharfsteinlaw.com/class-action/ Links and Socials: https://linktr.ee/legacyofabusepodcast Contact Us: legacyofabusepodcast@gmail.com

The Institute for Justice has filed the class action on behalf of three San Jose residents over the cameras. Visit the IJ here: https://ij.org/

4/11/26 show

Maryland House passes Good Cause Eviction for the second time Bill sponsor Jheanelle Wilkins is hoping the Senate will finally pass it this year.  MD Senator Cheryl Kagan joins to discuss the Special Elections Bill. MCPS families receive emails from a class action settlement in Illinois involving the platform Naviance which is widely used in the school district. What is going on?  Online privacy attorney Joel Schwarz clarifies. And more. Music by A Shrewdness of Apes.

6pm - GUEST - BESS BYERS - REASON.COM / @BessByers on Instagram // Bess Byers on Flock Cameras: Is this mass surveillance program FINALLY over? // Stanwood reactivates Flock cameras as Spokane County joins Pierce County in shutting them down // Bess VS High Earner Taxes Across the Country and her next big target;  Washington’s Millionaire Tax // DOL Class Action Suit

Today's MadTech Daily covers OpenAI raising USD$3bn from retail investors in a USD$122bn funding round, Anthropic set to sign a deal with Australia on AI safety and economic data tracking, as well as Elon Musk being ordered to face a class action lawsuit over the late disclosure of his Twitter stake.

Today on Bud's #WeeklyGeekOut . . . Canadian? LastPass user in 2022? You may be eligible for $170.05...or more. =) webmeister Bud Listen and get more details at TheZone.fm/geekout

A Class Action could be next. Two similar homes with very different costs to insure, don't mess up your tax breaks and a car dealer's worst nightmare. Plus it could be time for a credit freeze.

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports three FBI agents fired after helping investigate President Trump are suing to get their jobs back.

Alumni packed their cars and headed to Regina for their day in court as our stayed civil action was argued before the Court of Appeal. Our legal team: Grant Scharfstein, Samuel Edmondson, Michael Scharfstein, and Christine Libner, faced counsel for the church and the government.  During the hearing, the Chief Justices of the Court of Appeal characterized the rationale for staying the civil suit due to a supposed "change in the litigation landscape" as "abstract theory and speculation".  Tune in as we share our ongoing saga with the legal system.    Join the Class Action: https://scharfsteinlaw.com/class-action/ Links and Socials: https://linktr.ee/legacyofabusepodcast Contact Us: legacyofabusepodcast@gmail.com

The High Court's ruled the Crown breached its promise to ensure self-employed midwives are paid fairly and reasonably. After 18 months of waiting, the decision's been published. Justice Cheryl Gwyn also says the Crown unlawfully discriminated against the midwives on the basis of sex - and breached their human rights. NZ College of Midwives chief executive Alison Eddy says workers weren't being paid based on reasonable comparators. "And the fact that they're self-employed and had to carry the costs of that and providing a 24/7 service, 365 days a year." The Government says it will appeal the decision. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Access to justice stops at the prison gates unless you happen to be incarcerated in one of the few states in the U.S. that has prisoner legal services available. For 9 plaintiffs and another 150 incarcerated men at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Massachusetts, legal help from Prisoner Legal Services and Hogan Lovells Law Firm was able to offer legal support, and won a $7 million landmark case, against the correctional center. In this episode of The Hustler Files, Lawyers of the Year, in Massachusetts, David Milton and Kayla Ghantous discuss the critical role of organizations dedicated to advocating for prisoners facing legal challenges, while incarcerated. While civil legal services exist for housing, benefits, and family matters, far fewer resources are available to those behind bars, leaving many without the legal support they desperately need. This conversation shines a light on the growing demand for prisoner legal advocacy, the gaps in access to justice, and why these services are more essential than ever, because justice should never depend on where you are.

Qantas will pay $105 million to settle a class action over delayed COVID flight refunds… as it tries to move on from the major reputational hit. McDonald’s CEO went viral for awkwardly eating a burger… and somehow it boosted sales of the burger he was eating. Bumble’s share price has surged more than 30% after its latest results beat expectations… even though revenue and users are still sliding. _ Download the free app (App Store): http://bit.ly/FluxAppStore Download the free app (Google Play): http://bit.ly/FluxappGooglePlay Daily newsletter: https://bit.ly/fluxnewsletter Flux on Instagram: http://bit.ly/fluxinsta Flux on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@flux.finance —- The content in this podcast reflects the views and opinions of the hosts, and is intended for personal and not commercial use. We do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any opinion, statement or other information provided or distributed in these episodes. —- Schroder Investment Management Australia Limited (ABN 22 000 443 274, AFSL 226473) (Schroders) is the product issuer for Schroders Global Equity Alpha Fund (ARSN 678 278 370). This document does not contain and should not be taken as containing any financial product advice or financial product recommendations. This document does not take into consideration any recipient’s objectives, financial situation or needs. Before making any decision relating to a Schroders fund, you should obtain and read a copy of the product disclosure statement available at www.schroders.com.au or other relevant disclosure document for that fund and consider the appropriateness of the fundto your objectives, financial situation and needs. You should also refer to the target market determination for the fund at www.schroders.com.au. All investments carry risk, and the repayment of capital and performance in any of the funds named in this document are not guaranteed by Schroders or any company in the Schroders Group. The material contained in this document is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for accounting, legal or tax advice. Schroders does not give any warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of information which is contained in this document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Schroders, every company in the Schrodersplc group, and their respective directors, officers, employees, consultants and agents exclude all liability (however arising) for any direct or indirect loss or damage that may be suffered by the recipient or any other person in connection with this document. Opinions, estimates and projections contained in this document reflect the opinions of the authors as at the date of this document and are subject to change without notice. “Forward-looking” information, such as forecasts or projections, are not guarantees of any future performance and there is no assurance that any forecast or projection will be realised. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. All references to securities, sectors, regions and/or countries are made for illustrative purposes only and are not to be construed as recommendations to buy, sell or hold. Telephone calls and other electronic communications with Schroders representatives may be recorded.__See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Partner with Henderson and Ball lawyers, Justin Lawrence, joined Jacqui Felgate.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After decades of referring politely to what was called the volleyball incident, justice finally set the record straight. It was not an "incident." It was an assault on the volleyball team. For years, euphemisms softened the story. Language blurred responsibility. Memory did the careful tiptoe that institutions often prefer. In this episode, we unpack how the truth was buried in plain sight, and what it means when a long-whispered reality is finally spoken out loud. This is about accountability, about survivors, and about a last minute guilty plea.   Join the Class Action: https://scharfsteinlaw.com/class-action/ Links and Socials: https://linktr.ee/legacyofabusepodcast Contact Us: legacyofabusepodcast@gmail.com

Donald Beshada, former litigator turned legal tech entrepreneur and CEO of Covalynt shares his journey from big-law to the forefront of using data science in litigation. Specifically, to address systemic fraud in class action settlements. The conversation explores the evolution of claims administration—from the traditional "People Magazine" notice era to the current digital landscape dominated by targeted advertising and sophisticated fraud bots. Donald explains how his company uses data science and identity resolution to bring "scientific rigor" to ensure class action settlements reach legitimate claimants while filtering out fraudulent activity. Key Takeaways: The Shift in Fraud: How class action fraud evolved from "couponing" websites to sophisticated, non-US-based bot attacks. Defensible Clarity: Why "gut feelings" about fraud don't hold up in court, and the necessity of providing an evidentiary framework for disqualifying claims. Data Science vs. Traditional Settlement Administration: A look at how the Apple Antitrust case served as an inflection point, proving that old-school matching methods are no longer sufficient for class certification or ascertainability. The Future of Notice: Moving toward a world where data science can connect retail purchases directly to individuals, potentially eliminating the need for expensive, broad-market advertising.  

The 2025 class action against two Australian universities: University of Newcastle and Western Sydney University, are ongoing and have been diverted to mediation. - Dua class action atau gugatan perwakilan kelompok yang diajukan pada tahun 2025 terhadap dua universitas ternama Australia: Western Sydney University dan University of Newcastle, saat ini dialihkan ke tahap mediasi.

Judge Faillia dismisses a Uniswap class-action lawsuit. The Aave Will Win proposal passes a temp check vote. Lido V3 phase 3 goes live. And Vitalik outlines Big FOCIL. Read more: https://ethdaily.io/894 Earn 10% real yield on your dollars, fully onchain. Hold $BOLD, the only decentralized stablecoin rated A- by stablecoin agency, Bluechip. No vaults, no middlemen, no RWAs. Learn more on liquity.org/earn Disclaimer: Content is for informational purposes only, not endorsement or investment advice. The accuracy of information is not guaranteed.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Stephen Grootes speaks to Simon Baloyi, CEO of Sasol about the group’s half-year results as it navigates weaker oil and chemicals prices. While earnings declined and impairments weighed on profit, production at Secunda rose 10% and cost discipline supported positive free cash flow for the first time in four years. In other interviews, Gerhard van der Merwe, consumer law attorney at Trudie Broekmann Attorneys talks about a landmark High Court case challenging banks’ long-standing use of sales in execution. Lawyer Douglas Shaw is seeking to certify a class action, alleging that homes in arrears were sold for amounts just sufficient to settle outstanding debt, potentially below market value. Major banks deny wrongdoing, saying repossessions are a legal last resort, and are opposing both the certification and Shaw’s conduct. The case could have significant implications for foreclosure law and consumer rights in South Africa. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

⭐️ Thanks to Huel for sponsoring this video! Get 15% off Huel's newest and existing products by heading to https://huel.yt.link/wAqRvGZ and using code LEGAL (new customers only, min $75 purchase). --------- In this video, we're talking about the dismissal of the CryptoZoo investors' class action lawsuit against Logan Paul. TMZ and others reported that this was an "official" close to the lawsuit and that this meant that the court concluded that "no reasonable juror could find Logan Paul's statements misleading or fraudulent." But that's simply not true. CONTEXT: After Coffeezilla exposed Sam Bankman-Fried and the collapse of FTX, he turned his sights on Logan Paul's crypto NFT project, Cryptozoo. See his videos here: Investigating Logan Paul's Biggest Crypto Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=386p68_lDHA The Biggest Fraud in Logan Paul's Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvzyDg40-yw Ending Logan Paul's Biggest Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-fugWMBwCg In response, Logan Paul posted a short video to his main channel, Logan Paul, in which he threatened Coffeezilla with a defamation lawsuit. He followed this with an episode of his podcast, Impaulsive, where he repeated the same threat. He then took down both videos and reached out to Coffeezilla to inform him that he's no longer pursuing litigation--but then, on June 27, 2024, he sued him anyway. TIME STAMPS 0:00 Introduction 1:04 Explaining the Legal Procedure 4:13 The Report & Recommendation for Logan Paul's Motion to Dismiss 6:13 The TMZ Article 8:06 What the R&R Actually Says 12:30 Why the Claims Were Actually Dismissed 12:45 Suing as an Individual vs Corporate Agent 14:33 Piercing the Corporate Veil 15:22 Other Claim Categories 15:43 The Fraud Claim 22:09 How This Impacts the Coffeezilla Defamation Case 26:22 What Do You Think? To Become a Member of Byte Club, you can pick between YT or Patreon: YT Members: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJvDEmKLft6F2MxhuNUMwag/join Patreon: https://patreon.com/legalbytes -------------------- Follow me here! X: https://x.com/legalbytesmedia Instagram: https://instagram.com/legalbytesmedia Facebook: https://Facebook.com/legalbytesmedia --------------------

This Day in Legal History: Jacobson v. MassachusettsOn this day in legal history, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), a case that defined the balance between individual liberty and public health. The dispute arose during a smallpox outbreak when Massachusetts authorized local governments to require vaccinations. Henning Jacobson refused the vaccine, arguing that the mandate violated his personal liberty under the Constitution. The case presented a fundamental question: how far can the state go in protecting the health of its citizens?In a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the compulsory vaccination law. The justices reasoned that individual freedoms are not absolute. Writing for the majority, the Court explained that the Constitution permits reasonable regulations to protect public health and safety. This authority stems from the state's “police power,” a broad power to enact laws for the welfare of the community. The Court emphasized that liberty does not include the right to act in a way that harms others. During an epidemic, the government may impose measures necessary to prevent disease from spreading.The decision established an enduring precedent for public health regulation. It has been cited in later cases involving quarantine laws, vaccine mandates, and emergency health orders. More than a century later, Jacobson remains central to debates about the limits of government authority in times of crisis.A federal judge in California sharply reduced a jury pool in a class action securities trial against Elon Musk after many potential jurors said they could not be impartial. Out of 92 candidates, 38 were dismissed after admitting they could not fairly judge the case, prompting Musk's attorney to argue that strong personal hostility toward his client was affecting the process. The lawsuit, brought by former Twitter investors, alleges that Musk made misleading statements in 2022 to depress the company's stock price while negotiating its purchase. Musk denies the allegations.Judge Charles R. Breyer reminded jurors that their verdict must be based only on evidence presented at trial, not personal opinions about Musk. Several prospective jurors expressed strong views, both positive and negative, and some were removed for cause. One man who said he believed Musk should be in prison but could be fair in a civil case was not selected. Others who openly supported Musk or dismissed class actions as frivolous were also excluded. By the end of the day, a nine-member jury was seated.The case centers on claims that Musk's tweets about the deal being “on hold” and about the percentage of fake accounts misled investors. The judge previously ruled that investors plausibly alleged securities law violations and certified a class of affected shareholders. He also denied early summary judgment motions, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The upcoming trial will determine whether Musk's public statements violated federal securities laws during the 2022 acquisition process.‘Hate' For Musk Quickly Narrows Jury Pool In Twitter Deal Trial - Law360Jeffrey Epstein's estate has agreed to pay up to $35 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that two of his longtime advisers helped facilitate his sex trafficking scheme. The proposed agreement was disclosed in a federal court filing in Manhattan and must still be approved by a judge. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, targeted Darren Indyke, Epstein's former personal lawyer, and Richard Kahn, his longtime accountant, who serve as co-executors of the estate.Attorneys for the victims claimed the two men assisted Epstein by managing a network of corporations and financial accounts that concealed his activities and enabled payments to victims and recruiters. As part of the settlement, neither Indyke nor Kahn admitted wrongdoing. Their attorney stated they were prepared to contest the claims at trial but chose to settle to bring closure and resolve remaining potential claims against the estate.The estate has already distributed substantial sums to victims. A compensation program previously paid out $121 million, and an additional $49 million has been resolved through other settlements. According to defense counsel, the new agreement will offer a confidential path to compensation for individuals who have not yet settled claims.Epstein died in a New York jail in 2019, and his death was ruled a suicide.Epstein estate agrees to $35 million settlement in victim class action | ReutersThe Trump administration announced plans to scale back federal limits on mercury and other hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants. Officials said easing these standards would help utilities manage costs and maintain reliable baseload electricity as power demand rises, particularly from artificial intelligence data centers. The move targets updates made during the Biden administration to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which built on regulations first adopted in 2012.The Biden-era revisions would have significantly reduced allowable mercury emissions and cut releases of toxic metals such as arsenic, nickel, and lead. Supporters of those rules argued they would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in public health savings by lowering exposure to harmful pollutants. The Supreme Court previously declined to pause the updated standards while legal challenges proceeded.Environmental and public health advocates warn that weakening the rule could increase health risks, especially for children and other vulnerable populations, since mercury exposure can impair neurological development. The EPA, however, stated that the original 2012 rule already provides sufficient public health protection and that the newer requirements impose costs exceeding their benefits.The rollback aligns with broader administration efforts to support coal power, including declaring an energy emergency, granting temporary exemptions to dozens of coal plants, and revisiting prior climate-related regulatory findings. Coal plants currently produce less than one-fifth of U.S. electricity but remain significant sources of hazardous air pollution.Trump EPA to weaken rule limiting harmful mercury, air toxics from coal plants | ReutersA federal judge in California ruled that PepsiCo and its Frito-Lay division can block a proposed class action brought by convenience store owners alleging unfair pricing practices. The stores claimed the company favored large national retailers by offering them better wholesale prices, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits certain forms of price discrimination. The lawsuit sought to represent thousands of independently owned California stores that said they lost significant sales as a result of the alleged practices.U.S. District Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani determined that the plaintiffs failed to show that all proposed class members suffered the same type of injury, a key requirement for class certification under federal law. She explained that price discrimination claims typically require detailed, transaction-specific evidence, making broad class treatment difficult. The court agreed with the defendants' argument that resolving the claims would require individualized inquiries into each store's circumstances.Although the judge rejected the class action request, she did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit. Instead, she allowed the plaintiffs to revise and refile their class allegations. Attorneys for the convenience stores said they plan to amend the complaint to provide additional detail about how Frito-Lay allegedly disadvantaged smaller retailers.PepsiCo, Frito-Lay win US court order barring class action in snack pricing lawsuit | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Donald Trump to impose broad tariffs under a declared national emergency. In a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court emphasized that the Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes and duties exclusively to Congress, not the executive branch. The case arose after President Trump declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade deficits and then imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries, including Canada, Mexico, and China.Small businesses and several states challenged the tariffs, arguing that IEEPA permits the president to “regulate” importation but does not explicitly authorize the imposition of duties. Lower courts agreed, and the Federal Circuit largely affirmed those rulings before the cases reached the Supreme Court. The majority concluded that the statutory term “regulate . . . importation” cannot be read to include the power to impose taxes, especially given Congress's consistent practice of clearly and specifically granting tariff authority in other statutes. The Court also relied on the “major questions” doctrine, reasoning that such sweeping economic authority requires clear congressional authorization, which IEEPA does not provide.The justices rejected arguments that emergency powers or foreign affairs concerns justified a broader interpretation. They noted that no prior president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs in its nearly 50-year history. As a result, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision invalidating the tariffs and directed dismissal of a related case for lack of jurisdiction.Justices Strike Down Trump's Emergency TariffsThis week's closing theme is by Louis Spohr.This week's closing theme features music by Spohr, a composer who stood at the crossroads between the Classical and early Romantic eras. Born in 1784, Spohr was a celebrated violinist, conductor, and teacher whose reputation in his lifetime rivaled many of his contemporaries. Though his name is less familiar today, he played an important role in shaping early nineteenth-century orchestral and chamber music. His style combines Classical clarity with the expressive warmth that would define the Romantic movement.Spohr wrote four clarinet concertos, each showcasing the instrument's growing technical and expressive range. The Clarinet Concerto in F minor reflects both virtuosity and lyricism, qualities that made the clarinet increasingly popular in concert halls of the time. The first movement, Allegro assai, opens with dramatic orchestral energy before introducing the soloist in sweeping, agile lines. The music balances precision with expressive phrasing, demanding both technical control and emotional depth from the performer.Throughout the movement, Spohr allows the clarinet to sing as much as it dazzles. Rapid passages are paired with moments of lyrical calm, highlighting the instrument's wide tonal palette. The dialogue between soloist and orchestra feels conversational rather than combative, giving the concerto an elegant cohesion. As our closing theme, this Allegro assai offers drive, color, and a glimpse into a composer once central to Europe's musical life.Without further ado, Louis Spohr's Clarinet Concerto in F minor, the first movement, the Allegro assai – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Mills Legal Founding Partner Donte Mills discusses the latest in the Nancy Guthrie case. Gupta Wessler Founding Principal and Harvard Law School lecturer Deepak Gupta discusses the sexual assault verdict against Uber. Duane Morris Partner and Chair of Class Action Defense Group, Jerry Maatman, discusses Duane Morris Class Action Review-2026: A Comprehensive Analysis of Class […]

This week's episode is unhinged in the most revealing way. We're talking to an alum who was pregnant in high school at the school, because apparently "Christian education" meant shame with a side of silence. And in a plot twist absolutely no one should be surprised by, the woman the church advised her parents to send her to, you know, as a "solution" for a problematic child, was just convicted in criminal court for child abuse. Turns out when an institution treats kids like liabilities instead of humans, the call is coming from inside the church.   Join the Class Action: https://scharfsteinlaw.com/class-action/ Links and Socials: https://linktr.ee/legacyofabusepodcast Contact Us: legacyofabusepodcast@gmail.com

SUPPORT VIVA! GET MERCH! www.vivafrei.com BUY A BOOK! https://amzn.to/4qBXikS SEND ME SOMETHING! David Freiheit 20423 SR 7 Ste F6319 Boca Raton 33498 TIP WITH CRYPTO! bc1qt0umnqna63pyw5j8uesphsfz0dyrtmqcq5ugwm THAT IS ALL! ----- The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) is a Canadian non-profit legal advocacy organization founded in 2010 that defends constitutional rights and freedoms through litigation and education, often focusing on cases involving free speech, personal liberties, and challenges to government overreach (e.g., related to COVID measures and the Freedom Convoy).

Crystal is building a class action suit for anyone with Morgellons Disease (or any contested illness) who has been discriminated against and defrauded by gaslighting AI companies. Reality is no longer revealed or covered up by the CDC. It is mediated by artificial intelligence companies who decide who gets help, service, harm or erasure. Crystal is done being gaslit by chatbots, by government agencies, by doctors and a system designed to erase and silence human beings who refuse to be used as disposable human data mines for the enrichment of a few rich dorks.

A new nationwide class action lawsuit is accusing Rocket Companies of illegally steering homebuyers toward its mortgage and closing products — even when better rates may have been available elsewhere. The lawsuit alleges Rocket and its affiliates pressured real estate agents, including those at Redfin, to funnel clients to Rocket Mortgage and its title company, potentially violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA. Rocket denies the allegations and says it will vigorously defend itself. In this episode, Kathy Fettke breaks down what the lawsuit claims, how the alleged referral arrangements worked, why the case references a prior Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigation, and what this could mean for mortgage competition, agent referrals, and consumer choice going forward. Want to learn more? Visit www.Newsforinvestors.com  Source: https://www.scotsmanguide.com/news/class-action-lawsuit-accuses-rocket-of-illegal-steering-scheme/

John Pollock and Brandon Thurston discuss a class action lawsuit filed over WWE's move to ESPN, AEW's Q4 performance & Netflix's WWE viewership stats. Topics this week include:Lawsuit filed against WWE over ESPN UnlimitedNetflix releases states for WWE programming in 2025AEW's Q4 results from Brandon Thurston TNA's launch on AMC this week Netflix Global Top 10 for the first week of 2026 Latest TV ratings figures Music courtesy: “Panic Beat” by Ben TramerPOST WrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/Q795HhRTwitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @POSTwrestlingBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comWrestlenomicsSubscribe: https://wrestlenomics.com/podcast/Patreon: https://patreon.com/wrestlenomicsSubstack: https://wrestlenomics.substack.com/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @WrestlenomicsBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/wrestlenomics.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy