Podcasts about Class action

The tariffs are going to be refunded to Ford, and the consumers want the money coming back to them. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

In this episode, we kick things off by examining the massive strategic restructuring at project44 that splits the visibility giant into two distinct businesses. The company is separating into project44, which will serve enterprise shippers as a decision intelligence platform, and LSP44, a newly launched AI-native infrastructure business built exclusively for logistics service providers. LSP44 launches with day-one profitability and processes a staggering seven hundred six million carrier events daily across four continents. Next, we explore a significant development in the legal arena as a driver misclassification lawsuit against Illinois-based Risinger Brothers Transfer gains class action status. The drivers allege that Risinger misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees, and that wage deductions for truck payments, insurance, fuel, and maintenance left some drivers earning below minimum wage for all hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Finally, we break down a strategic infrastructure project in the Middle East as DP World plans a new UAE port near Fujairah to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The new container terminal would lessen dependence on the UAE's Port of Jebel Ali and route cargo through the Gulf of Oman instead. This move comes amid heightened regional tensions and President Trump's recent suggestion that the U.S. seize control of the critical chokepoint and charge vessels a toll for passage. Follow the FreightWaves Today Podcast Other FreightWaves Shows Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we kick things off by examining the massive strategic restructuring at project44 that splits the visibility giant into two distinct businesses. The company is separating into project44, which will serve enterprise shippers as a decision intelligence platform, and LSP44, a newly launched AI-native infrastructure business built exclusively for logistics service providers. LSP44 launches with day-one profitability and processes a staggering seven hundred six million carrier events daily across four continents. Next, we explore a significant development in the legal arena as a driver misclassification lawsuit against Illinois-based Risinger Brothers Transfer gains class action status. The drivers allege that Risinger misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees, and that wage deductions for truck payments, insurance, fuel, and maintenance left some drivers earning below minimum wage for all hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Finally, we break down a strategic infrastructure project in the Middle East as DP World plans a new UAE port near Fujairah to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The new container terminal would lessen dependence on the UAE's Port of Jebel Ali and route cargo through the Gulf of Oman instead. This move comes amid heightened regional tensions and President Trump's recent suggestion that the U.S. seize control of the critical chokepoint and charge vessels a toll for passage. Follow the FreightWaves Today Podcast Other FreightWaves Shows Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SUPPORTAMI SU PATREON! https://www.patreon.com/kristalcrosspatreon OFFERTA DEL GIORNO | My Time At Sandrock ▶ -79% ▶ 7.39€ https://www.instant-gaming.com/it/7810-comprare-my-time-at-sandrock-pc-steam/?igr=kristalcrossgaming La maglietta LFDM sul LFDM STORE! - https://kristal-cross-shop.fourthwall.com/en-eur/ AFFILIATI: INSTANT GAMING: https://tinyurl.com/3ywv525u EMP: https://tidd.ly/3MTjbcC PAMPLING: codice KRISTALCROSS THOMANN: https://thmn.to/thocf/4ucalotott SPONSOR - ABBONAMENTO AL CANALE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-isEtNtS2_30c5ANuEEyKQ/join DONAZIONI: https://paypal.me/kristalcross Lista Desideri Amazon: https://www.amazon.it/hz/wishlist/ls/CMIUI1RB3GH9?ref_=wl_share CAPITOLI: 00:00 Benvenuti su Kristal News! 00:08 SONY SOTTO ACCUSA! CLASS ACTION in MOLTI STATI. 07:58 Detective Cross 10:15 NEWS A RUOTA 17:17 OFFERTA del GIORNO! 18:15 La ELITE dei MALNATI su PATREON! 18:55 Grazie della visione! Le #KristalNews sono anche in PODCAST! https://www.spreaker.com/show/kristalnews-il-podcast Disponibile anche su SPOTIFY, APPLE PODCAST, ecc ecc SECONDO CANALE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO13aJlGKgOVYq7-yMe_lPA SEGUIMI IN LIVE SU TWITCH: https://www.twitch.tv/kristalcrossgaming SOCIAL & COMMUNITY: FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/kristalcrossgaming/ INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/kristalcrossgaming/ GRUPPO TELEGRAM: https://t.me/joinchat/APAtYQ5DPmVA3AHTl8mBcA VUOI SPEDIRMI QUALCOSA? Mandalo a: BAR 2EMME VIA TORINO 243 SAN BENEDETTO DEL TRONTO 63074 (AP) --------------------- IMPORTANTE SCRIVI NELL'INTESTAZIONE "PER KRISTAL CROSS" ---------------------------------------- VUOI SENTIRE I MIEI LAVORI? IL SITO DEL MIO STUDIO http://www.kristalcrossmusicproduction.com/page0/page0.html LE MIE BAND: THE LOTUS: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheLotusChannel LOST RESONANCE FOUND: https://www.youtube.com/user/lostresonancefound Grazie per la visita da Kristal Cross!Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/kristalnews-il-podcast--4936119/support.

StubHub is facing a proposed class action lawsuit after thousands of FIFA World Cup ticket buyers allege the resale giant never delivered their tickets — a messy case that's putting “speculative ticketing” and last-minute seller cancellations back under the spotlight. Plus, Pokémon cards are exploding into a $15B+ collectibles economy, as Millennials and Gen Z turn childhood nostalgia into a high-risk investment frenzy that's driving six-figure sales (and even real-world thefts).And in The Big Picture: Ottawa and B.C. strike a “generational” deal to uphold the North Coast tanker ban, OpenAI reportedly floats the idea of giving the U.S. government a stake, and SpaceX previews an xAI-integrated device concept for investors.The Peak Daily is produced in partnership with reframevid.com

Send us Fan MailAre real estate administrative fees the next major lawsuit facing the industry?A new lawsuit against Compass in Florida is raising serious questions about transaction fees, administrative fees, brokerage fees, and transparency. Could this be the next legal battleground after the NAR settlement and Sitzer/Burnett?In this episode of Dishin' Dirt, I take a deep dive into one of the most overlooked charges in residential real estate—the administrative fee. Is it truly reimbursement for administrative costs, or is it simply additional brokerage compensation? More importantly, how might courts, regulators, juries, and consumers view these fees in today's environment of increased transparency?You'll learn:Why the new Compass lawsuit could impact the entire real estate industryThe legal theories plaintiffs are using to challenge administrative feesThe difference between commissions, transaction fees, and administrative feesHow fiduciary duty and transparency affect brokerage pricingWhether separate fees could create advertising or disclosure issuesWhat South Carolina law says about honesty and misrepresentation in real estateQuestions every broker should ask before charging an administrative feePractical risk management strategies to help reduce future litigationWhether you're a REALTOR®, broker, attorney, team leader, or real estate professional, this episode will challenge you to think differently about how fees are disclosed, explained, and perceived by consumers.The goal of this episode is not to criticize any brokerage or suggest that administrative fees are unlawful. Instead, it's to explore the important legal, ethical, and business questions every brokerage should be asking in an industry where transparency has never mattered more.If you enjoy educational real estate content that goes beyond the headlines, be sure to subscribe, like, and share this episode with your office. New episodes of Dishin' Dirt explore the biggest legal, business, and technology issues shaping the future of real estate. Chapters00:00 Understanding Administrative Fees in Real Estate02:11 The Legal Landscape of Transaction Fees05:02 The Importance of Transparency in Real Estate11:02 Consumer Expectations and Fee Structures18:48 The Role of Fiduciary Duty in Fee Disclosure26:02 Looking Ahead: The Future of Administrative FeesDon't forget to like us and share us!Gary* Gary serves on the South Carolina Real Estate Commission as a Commissioner. The opinions expressed herein are his opinions and are not necessarily the opinions of the SC Real Estate Commission. This podcast is not to be considered legal advice. Please consult an attorney in your area.    

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Erin Edwards and Simon Fleischmann to break down the most significant trends reshaping the consumer finance class action landscape. With a 25% year-over-year increase in federal class action filings and consumer protection claims leading the charge, the stakes are getting higher for financial services companies. The trio covers critical areas from recent cases to highlight information that every in-house legal team needs to understand about class actions, including the significance of precise class definitions and ascertainability, standing and concrete injury, and evidentiary examination. Whether you're managing active litigation or building a proactive defense strategy, this episode delivers the insights and practical checklist you need to navigate the class action wave. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Review of Wildkat XRatedX at Southport Hall live channel {Every Sunday Night ∙ 8-10P CT} https://nrr.mixlr.com/ all past shows available at Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/4bwkzfw7 Apple Podcasts​: https://goo.gl/SvRBJB SoundCloud​: https://soundcloud.com/not-real-radio Or Your Podcast App Store: https://www.zazzle.com/store/not_real_store

Gas prices are plummeting, grocery costs remain the number one financial pressure for most Americans, and in California, major gas station chains are facing a class action lawsuit.

This Day in Legal History: Windsor and ObergefellOn two separate June 26ths, exactly two years apart, the Supreme Court made history by recognizing marriage equality as a constitutional right. These decisions fundamentally transformed American law and represented victories for millions of Americans.On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. DOMA had defined marriage, for federal law purposes, as a union only between one man and one woman. This meant that even though some states had legalized same-sex marriage, the federal government refused to recognize those marriages for tax purposes, immigration, federal benefits, and countless other legal matters. Edith Windsor, a woman who had been married to her female partner for over 40 years, faced a massive federal estate tax bill after her wife's death because the federal government refused to recognize their marriage. She sued, arguing that DOMA violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. The Court agreed. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that DOMA “violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” The decision meant that same-sex couples legally married under state law now had to be recognized by the federal government. It was a stunning victory—but not a complete one, because some states still didn't allow same-sex marriage at all.Two years later, on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court took the final step. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment. This was different from Windsor. Windsor said the federal government must recognize marriages that states allowed. Obergefell said states must allow same-sex couples to marry in the first place. The decision meant that in all 50 states, same-sex couples could get married and have their marriages recognized and protected by law. Justice Kennedy again wrote the majority opinion, describing marriage as “the foundation of the family” and emphasizing that the right to marry has been recognized as vital in our history and tradition. He wrote about the personal dignity of same-sex couples and their commitment to each other: “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.”For most of American history, the law told millions of Americans they weren't allowed to marry the person they loved. The law denied same-sex couples basic rights that heterosexual couples took for granted—hospital visitation, inheritance, tax benefits, the ability to make medical decisions for each other. Windsor and Obergefell said that's unconstitutional. They affirmed that equal protection of the law means you can't be denied basic rights because of who you love.These two decisions, decided on the same date two years apart, represent one of the most dramatic shifts in constitutional law in decades. They show how the Constitution evolves to protect fundamental rights, and they demonstrate that the arc of justice, though long, bends toward equality. Millions of same-sex couples across America now have the legal right to marry, to have their marriages recognized, and to be treated equally under the law. For many, these decisions represented not just legal victories but personal affirmations that their relationships, their love, and their families matter.The Supreme Court has signaled its approval of restrictive immigration policies, suggesting the Trump administration will succeed in making immigration law more difficult for immigrants and more favorable to enforcement.The Supreme Court has been reviewing several immigration cases involving Trump administration policies designed to restrict immigration. Based on recent oral arguments and the Court's questioning during those arguments, many observers believe the Court will side with the Trump administration on immigration issues. This represents a significant shift. For decades, the courts have sometimes limited executive power over immigration, recognizing that even though the President has broad authority over immigration, the Constitution still applies. Immigrants have constitutional rights, including due process protections before being deported. But the current Supreme Court appears skeptical of these limitations.The President does have significant power over immigration—deciding who can enter the country and who must leave. But the Constitution doesn't disappear just because immigration is involved. People facing deportation deserve notice, a chance to be heard, and due process. The Supreme Court appears to be tilting toward giving the Trump administration even broader immigration power, with fewer constitutional protections for immigrants. This signals that restrictive immigration policies will likely succeed in the courts.If the Court rules in favor of the administration's immigration policies, it will embolden more restrictive immigration enforcement. Immigrant communities will face greater risks of deportation. The ruling will signal that courts defer heavily to the Executive Branch on immigration matters, even when constitutional rights are at stake. This represents one of the most significant shifts in immigration law in decades, moving away from judicial protection of immigrants' constitutional rights and toward deference to executive immigration enforcement.On immigration, Supreme Court accedes to Trump's restrictive agenda | Reuters The Supreme Court has ruled to expand Second Amendment protections and has indicated it intends to take more gun rights cases in the coming years. This signals a fundamental shift in how the Court views the right to bear arms.For decades, the Second Amendment was interpreted as primarily protecting gun ownership for militia purposes. But in 2008, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for lawful purposes like self-defense. That decision was controversial—it overturned decades of precedent and limited gun regulations. Since Heller, courts have struggled with the question: If people have a constitutional right to own guns, what gun regulations can the government still impose? The Supreme Court has now signaled it's willing to expand Second Amendment protections even further. The Court has indicated it will hear more gun rights cases, and recent decisions and comments suggest the Court will protect gun ownership rights broadly.The Constitution protects free speech, but you can still have laws against yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The question with the Second Amendment is: What reasonable regulations can the government impose while still respecting the constitutional right? Gun rights advocates say any regulation is an unconstitutional restriction. Gun safety advocates say common-sense regulations like background checks and waiting periods are reasonable. The Supreme Court is signaling it will take the gun rights side of that debate and will continue expanding Second Amendment protections beyond what was previously recognized.This signals that many gun regulations that have existed for years—regulations that public opinion supports—may be struck down as unconstitutional. States will lose authority to regulate firearms. The Court's expansion of Second Amendment rights will make it harder for the government to pass gun safety legislation. This represents a dramatic constitutional shift away from allowing gun regulations and toward treating gun ownership as a nearly absolute right. It will likely lead to more mass shooting deaths if gun safety measures are struck down, but it reflects the current Supreme Court's deep commitment to gun rights.US Supreme Court expands Second Amendment rights, eyes more gun cases | Reuters A federal judge has ordered that settlement records in a real estate class action case be unsealed and made available to the public. The ruling represents a victory for transparency and accountability.In class action lawsuits, many companies settle rather than go to trial. The settlement typically includes both money paid to class members and a “confidentiality agreement” that keeps the details of the settlement secret. These confidentiality clauses often protect the company's reputation by keeping the details of what went wrong hidden from the public. In this real estate class action, a federal judge decided that the public's right to know outweighs the company's interest in keeping the settlement secret.If a company deceives consumers or engages in unfair practices, and then settles the lawsuit while keeping the details secret, the public never learns what happened. Other consumers stay in the dark about the company's practices. The company's wrongdoing goes unexamined. The judge found that when a company settles a public lawsuit involving alleged harm to consumers, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing what the company did and what it agreed to pay. Transparency protects consumers and holds companies accountable. Settlements should not be used as a tool to hide corporate wrongdoing. The order to unseal the settlement records means the public can now read the details of what the company allegedly did, what harm it caused, and what it agreed to pay.This ruling protects the public's right to information about corporate misconduct. It makes it harder for companies to settle lawsuits while keeping their wrongdoing secret. It encourages companies to settle in ways that are fair, because they know the details will be public. As more settlement records are unsealed, companies will face pressure to behave more honestly, knowing their practices may be exposed in court documents. This decision represents an important check on corporate power and a protection of consumer interests.US judge orders unsealing of settlement-related records in real estate class action | Reuters 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

The sound of regional Australia. News and analysis from the ABC's network of regional reporters.

Coverage that provides news and analysis of national issues significant to regional Australians.

This Day in Legal History: Susan B. Anthony Fined for VotingOn this day in 1873, in a federal courtroom in Canandaigua, New York, Judge Ward Hunt fined Susan B. Anthony one hundred dollars for the crime of voting. Anthony had walked into a polling place in Rochester on November 5, 1872, and cast a ballot for Ulysses S. Grant. She was arrested two weeks later under a federal statute, the Enforcement Act of 1870, that made it a crime to “knowingly” vote without being legally entitled to. Her defense was straightforward: the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified four years earlier, said that all persons born in the United States were citizens, and citizenship carried with it the right to vote. Judge Hunt did not let the jury decide. He directed a verdict of guilty without even letting them deliberate — something that would be plainly unconstitutional today — and then asked Anthony if she had anything to say before sentence was passed.She did.She told the court that it had trampled on her natural rights, her civil rights, her political rights, and her judicial rights, and that under such circumstances she would never pay a dollar of the unjust penalty.She never did.Hunt declined to jail her for nonpayment, which would have given her the path to appeal she wanted, and the case died without ever reaching the Supreme Court. The Nineteenth Amendment, which finally guaranteed women the right to vote, was ratified forty-seven years later, in 1920 — fourteen years after Anthony's death. The lesson lawyers usually take from the case is procedural — about directed verdicts, about appellate review, about the ways a determined trial judge can keep a constitutional question off the docket. The lesson worth keeping today is broader. The legal system that one generation treats as obvious common sense is the one a later generation looks back on and cannot understand how anyone thought was just. Anthony lost in court and won in history. That happens more often than the daily case law makes it look.A federal judge in Michigan ruled Wednesday against Polymarket, a platform that lets people place bets on the outcomes of sports games. Here's what happened: Polymarket had tried to convince Michigan's regulators that what it does is not really gambling — it's a sophisticated financial product called a “swap,” something only the federal government regulates. Polymarket's argument was: we're not a sportsbook, we're a financial market, just like commodity futures markets. A wheat farmer, for example, might use that kind of contract to lock in a price for next year's harvest. Michigan's gaming regulators weren't buying it. They said Polymarket looked and acted like an illegal sportsbook — people betting on sports without a license — and shut it down. Polymarket went to federal court asking the judge to block Michigan from enforcing the law while the lawsuit continues. The judge said no.He found that Polymarket's argument didn't make sense; if something is a bet on a football game, calling it something else doesn't change what it is. The judge also said that even if Polymarket lost the Michigan market, that's a business loss that money can compensate — not the kind of serious, immediate harm that would justify stopping Michigan from enforcing its own gambling laws. This case matters because it will help determine how the federal government and individual states regulate online prediction markets going forward. Right now, companies like Polymarket are in legal limbo, unable to operate in states that say they're gambling, while arguing they should operate under federal financial rules. The courts need to settle which it is.Mich. Judge Opens Door For Prediction Market EnforcementAn Illinois federal judge ruled Wednesday that a class action lawsuit can proceed against an advertising-technology company that allegedly snuck Americans' personal information to PDD Holdings, the Chinese parent company of the discount-shopping app Temu. Think of it this way: when you visit websites or use apps, tracking code collects information about you — what you click on, what you buy, where you're located. That's normal ad-tech business. But this company allegedly took that data and secretly sent it to China for the Chinese parent company's benefit. The lawsuit uses two legal theories. First: the federal wiretap law makes it illegal to secretly intercept someone's communications or data without permission — and the plaintiffs argue this is exactly what happened.The company embedded invisible code on websites that grabbed user data without asking. Second: there's a new government regulation that forbids sending Americans' sensitive personal data to countries the U.S. government considers hostile. China is on that list. The company argued the lawsuit should be dismissed, claiming what it does is standard advertising practice and not really interception. The judge disagreed. He said the lawsuit makes plausible claims of wrongdoing and can proceed. Why this matters: this is one of the first big tests of whether tech companies can keep hiding data-sharing practices in fine-print privacy policies. The judge is signaling that burying consent in a privacy policy probably isn't enough if you're secretly sending data to foreign adversaries. The case will now move to discovery — where lawyers dig through company records — and that's usually expensive enough to push companies toward settlement.Ad Seller Can't Shake Wiretap Suit Over Temu Data TransfersA class action lawsuit filed Wednesday accuses Hilton Grand Vacations — the timeshare and vacation club subsidiary of Hilton Hotels — of repeatedly calling consumers who had registered their phone numbers on the federal Do Not Call list. This is a straightforward violation of federal law. The Do Not Call list is the registry that exists specifically so people can stop getting telemarketing calls. If your number is on that list, companies can't call you to pitch products unless you've done business with them recently or given them permission. Hilton allegedly ignored that. According to the complaint, the company and its marketing contractors called people repeatedly, sometimes years after their numbers were registered on the Do Not Call list, pitching timeshare vacation packages. Here's why the damages can be huge: the federal law lets you sue for $500 per violation — per call. If a company makes a mistake and thinks the violation was intentional, the damages triple to $1,500 per call. In a class action involving thousands of unwanted calls, those numbers balloon fast. Hilton and other timeshare companies have historically tried to escape liability by claiming their contractors made the calls, not Hilton itself. But courts increasingly reject that defense. If Hilton controlled the marketing campaign and the contractors worked on Hilton's behalf, Hilton is responsible. The law here is actually simpler than most litigation: a company's obligation is clear, and the violation is easy to prove if calls were made to numbers on the federal Do Not Call list.Hilton Facing Class Action Over Marketing Calls 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

Plus: The U.K. moves to ban minors under 16 from major social media platforms next year. And Fox Corp to buy streaming service Roku for $22 billion. Imani Moise hosts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CJAD 800 legal contributor Chris Dimakos is a lawyer and managing partner at Dimakos Law Group. He can be heard regularly on Montreal Now with Aaron Rand.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.  

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-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.

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 […]

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).

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