Podcasts about Talc

If you or a family member has a case in Talc, Roundup, Hernia Mesh, or the social media litigation, you've probably heard a settlement number in the news and wondered what it actually means for you. On this episode of Climate Change Environment Science & the Law with Gregg Goldfarb, host Gregg Goldfarb sits down with Steven Smith, Vice President of Broughton Partners, to unpack four major mass tort campaigns that are all reaching critical moments at once. Smith explains why J&J's $5.5 billion Talc settlement is really a floor, not a ceiling — with total payouts from this first wave expected closer to $8 billion, and no cap on what the company pays over time. He breaks down why a recent Supreme Court preemption ruling gutted the "failure to warn" claims in the Roundup litigation, while "design defect" claims may survive, and why the proposed class action's roughly $50,000 average case value has some claimants better off staying out of it. On Hernia Mesh, he details the split between Bard (which resolved lower-value cases early while holding back its biggest claims for a separate, stricter fund) and Covidien, where a recent verdict topped $66 million. And on social media, he walks through how Meta's $16.68 billion settlement with 29 state attorneys general is actually a step toward compensating individual families, not the end of the road. Throughout, Smith and Goldfarb stress that "qualified" is doing a lot of work in every one of these settlements — and that claimants should be talking to their own firm about where their specific case stands before assuming a headline number applies to them. What You'll Learn Why J&J's $5.5B Talc settlement is a floor, not a final number What "qualified" actually means — and why it changes as a case matures How the Supreme Court's preemption ruling reshaped the Roundup litigation Why some Roundup claimants may be better off outside the class action How Bard and Covidien ended up handling hernia mesh cases so differently What the $66 million Covidien verdict signals for pending cases Why Meta's $17B settlement is with states, not the injured kids themselves How to tell if your case is being handled by the right firm What "opting out" of a settlement means, and when it makes sense   Time Stamps: 0:00 – Cold open: $17 billion Meta settlement 0:27 – Intro: Steven Smith joins to break down mass tort settlements 1:22 – Talc / Johnson & Johnson (baby powder settlement, $5.5B+) 12:02 – Roundup (Bayer, Supreme Court ruling, class action) 17:37 – Hernia Mesh (Bard, Covidien, $66M verdict) 22:38 – Social Media (Meta, TikTok, Snapchat — $17B settlement explained)    Steven Smith is Vice President of Broughton Partners, a mass tort marketing and consulting firm, where he has spent nearly 20 years advising law firms and claimants across major litigations including Talc, Roundup, Hernia Mesh, Social Media, Camp Lejeune, PFAS, NEC, and Depo-Provera. Known industry-wide as "The Mass Tort Mentor," he works to help claimants get connected with qualified representation and to help law firms navigate complex, evolving litigation.    Contact / Follow Stephen Smith:  Firm: https://www.broughtonpartners.com/ Phone: 954-224-1733  Email: steve@broughtonpartners.com   Want more conversations that cut through the noise on science, climate, and the issues shaping our future? Subscribe to Climate Change Environment Science & the Law with Gregg Goldfarb for new episodes every week.

Ten years. Three bankruptcies. Multiple trials. A lead plaintiffs' firm disqualified along the way. The Johnson & Johnson talc litigation has produced just about every issue a mass tort can produce, and for the tens of thousands of women waiting on it, the only question that ever mattered was whether it would actually resolve. On this episode of Climate Change Environment Science & the Law, host Gregg Goldfarb sits down with Cameron Stevenson, shareholder at Levin Papantonio and one of the primary attorneys involved in the litigation, to walk through the settlement that finally came together. Stevenson explains what "uncapped" means in practice, why the deal is built for current claimants rather than future ones, and why he believes the dollar for dollar recovery for those claimants is substantially better than what the $8.9 billion bankruptcy proposal would have delivered, since that plan would have absorbed future claims, state AG claims, and Canadian class claims and paid out over roughly 25 years. He also delivers the part of this episode that claimants most need to hear: having a filed case does not automatically mean qualifying. The settlement is built around epithelial ovarian cancer, and Stevenson explains why post-hysterectomy pathology is the document that determines eligibility, and why some cases filed early in the litigation may not make it through. From there, Gregg and Cameron lay out the process step by step: the registration window, the opt-in release, the proof phase, how a case gets plotted on the settlement grid, and the 95% participation threshold the deal has to clear. Stevenson also addresses future diagnoses, why ovarian cancer's long latency means new cases will keep surfacing for decades, and why anyone diagnosed down the road needs to be acutely aware of their own state's statute of limitations. The conversation closes with the reason this episode exists. Attorneys are inundated, calls are rushed, and clients are hanging up unsure of what they were just told. Gregg's call to action is simple: share this with someone who needs it, then take your questions back to your own lawyer.   Join Gregg and Cameron Stevenson on Climate Change Environment Science & the Law as they explore: 0:00 – "It Will Not Qualify" 0:13 – Did Talc Actually Settle? 0:58 – The Settlement Is Real, and It's Finalized 2:18 – Why a Smaller Number Beats the $8.9 Billion Bankruptcy Deal 4:05 – The Diagnoses Still Coming 30 Years From Now 5:22 – The One Document That Decides Your Claim 7:20 – Stop Doing the Math on What You'll Get 7:59 – Inside the Settlement Grid 10:45 – What You Need to Do This Week 11:39 – When the Money Actually Moves 14:47 – The Deadline That Can Still Cost You Everything   Cameron Stevenson is a shareholder at Levin Papantonio and one of the primary attorneys involved in the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder litigation, a mass tort spanning more than a decade, three bankruptcy attempts, and multiple trials. He returns to the show to break down the settlement for the claimants and families who have been waiting on it.   Contact / Follow Cameron Stevenson: Phone: (850) 435-7176 Email: cstephenson@levinlaw.com Firm: Levin Papantonio Website: https://levinlaw.com To hear more mass tort updates and legal issues shaping our communities, subscribe to Climate Change Environment Science & the Law with Gregg Goldfarb.

This week on The Beat, CTSNet Editor-in-Chief Joel Dunning spoke with Timur Kyashif, a cardiac resident at Jena University Hospital in Jena, Germany, about the German Society for Thoracic, Cardiac, and Vascular Surgery Quiz League. Chapters 00:00 Intro 01:17 Oral Board Simulator 01:51 Debate, Talc in Recurrent Pneumothorax 06:08 JANS 1, Multimodal Treatment of PM Guidelines 07:53 JANS 2, En Bloc Stapling Outcomes 10:31 JANS 3, Iatrogenic Atrial Dysfunction 12:57 JANS 4, Excimer Laser Assisted CABG System 14:57 JANS 5, Third Gen Stented Bovine PB 16:48 Video 1, Advances in Thoracic Surgery 17:49 Video 2, Simplified Bentall 18:48 Video 3, Extracardiac Completion Fontan 20:49 Dr. Kyashif, Residents Quiz League 30:49 Competition, Career Center They provide an overview of the league, detailing its structure, frequency, and purpose. The discussion also covers the performance of last year's inaugural competition and previews what participants can expect from this year's sessions, including the topics to be covered and the start date. Additionally, Dr. Kyashi highlights other initiatives he is currently developing for medical students. Joel also highlights recent JANS articles on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2026 expert consensus on the multimodal treatment of pleural mesothelioma, a retrospective study on the contemporary outcomes of en bloc stapling of the pulmonary artery, bronchus, and lymph nodes during lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer, iatrogenic atrial dysfunction after prophylactic left atrial appendage exclusion, and the first prospective safety and effectiveness trial of the excimer laser assisted nonocclusive anastomosis system in coronary artery bypass grafting. In addition, Joel explores robot-assisted left pneumonectomy for post-chemoimmunotherapy proximal adenocarcinoma, off-pump extracardiac completion Fontan, and presentations on the advancements in robotic and complex thoracic surgery from the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery Annual Scientific Meeting 2026. Before closing, Joel highlights upcoming events in CT surgery. JANS Items Mentioned The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2026 Expert Consensus on the Multimodal Treatment of Pleural Mesothelioma Contemporary Outcomes of En Bloc Stapling of the Pulmonary Artery, Bronchus, and Lymph Nodes During Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Study Iatrogenic Atrial Dysfunction After Prophylactic Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion: A Proposed Post-Procedural Atrial Phenotype The First Prospective Safety and Effectiveness Trial of the Excimer Laser Assisted Nonocclusive Anastomosis System in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting CTSNet Content Mentioned ISMICS 2026 | Advancements in Robotic and Complex Thoracic Surgery Robot-Assisted Left Pneumonectomy for Post-Chemoimmunotherapy Proximal Adenocarcinoma Off-Pump Extracardiac Completion Fontan Other Items Mentioned German Society for Thoracic, Cardiac, and Vascular Surgery Quiz League Oral Board AI Simulator CTSNet Innovation Video Competition Career Center CTSNet Events   Disclaimer The information and views presented on CTSNet.org represent the views of the authors and contributors of the material and not of CTSNet. Please review our full disclaimer page here.

Christian Luciano Santiago of Vogelzang Law joins Jon Hansen on Let's Get Legal to discuss legal representation for individuals affected by asbestos exposure. Listen in as Christian reminds listeners that exposure occurs not only in industrial trades but also through asbestos-contaminated household products like talcum-based baby powders and cosmetics, noting the firm’s recent success in upholding a […]

KMOX Legal Analyst Brad Young, Partner at Harris, Young, and Kayser joins Megan Lynch to talk about Johnson and Johnson Talc deal and Meta disregarded its own research on harm to teens in Tennessee and more.

A magnitude 7.1 earthquake hits Japan's Kyushu region. Thousands of migrant children and their sponsors have been arrested by U.S. immigration authorities following tips from the Office of Refugee Resettlement. A new poll shows just one in three Americans back the Iran war. Johnson & Johnson reach a talc settlement that could end a decade of litigation. And Germany plans to tighten sick-note rules. Watch the latest episode of On Assignment ⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠. Listen to the Morning Bid podcast ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Sign up for the Reuters Econ World newsletter ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Listen to the Reuters Econ World podcast ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Visit the ⁠⁠⁠Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement⁠⁠⁠ for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit megaphone.fm/adchoices to opt out of targeted advertising. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Johnson & Johnson is proposing a multi-billion-dollar talc settlement to end a marathon legal fight. AP correspondent Mike Hempen reports.

This Day in Legal History: Sonia Sotomayor Advances to the Supreme CourtOn July 28, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, sending her to the full Senate, which confirmed her the following week. With that confirmation she became the first Hispanic justice—and only the third woman—ever to serve on the Court.Her path to the bench was the stuff of American mythology, and it was central to her nomination. Born in the Bronx to Puerto Rican parents, raised in a housing project, diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at seven and losing her father at nine, she went on to Princeton and Yale Law School, then worked as a Manhattan prosecutor before becoming a federal trial judge and later a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. As a district judge, she famously issued the injunction that ended the 1994–95 Major League Baseball strike. Her confirmation fight, though, turned heavily on a single phrase from an earlier speech—her remark that a “wise Latina” might, with the richness of her experiences, sometimes reach a better conclusion than someone without them. Critics called it bias; supporters called it an honest acknowledgment that lived experience shapes judgment.In the years since, Sotomayor has become one of the Court's most forceful liberal voices, known for pointed dissents on race, criminal justice, and—fittingly for today—the very “shadow docket” at the center of our lead story. She has been among the sharpest critics of the Court deciding major questions through emergency orders with little briefing and no argument. The significance of July 28, 2009 is both symbolic and substantive: symbolic, in that a woman from a Bronx housing project reached the pinnacle of the American legal system and expanded who Americans see reflected on their highest court; and substantive, in that she has spent her tenure insisting the Court explain itself and show its work—an insistence that lands with particular weight in a week when the justices are again being asked to make consequential law on the emergency docket.The Trump administration has escalated its fight over mail-in voting all the way to the Supreme Court, asking the justices on an emergency basis to let its executive order take effect nationwide. This is the direct sequel to yesterday's story: after the First Circuit refused on Saturday to lift the injunction blocking key parts of the March order, the Justice Department went straight to the high Court, asking it to put that injunction on hold while the litigation continues. The order directs federal agencies to build voter-eligibility lists and to restrict Postal Service delivery of ballots not tied to those lists; a coalition of 23 states and D.C. argues the President simply lacks authority to impose federal rules on elections that the Constitution assigns to states and to Congress. What's notable here is the vehicle. This is an emergency application—part of what critics call the “shadow docket,” where the Court decides consequential questions quickly, often with little briefing and no full argument. Regular listeners will remember the shadow docket as a recurring concern precisely because it lets the Court make major law in the shadows. The justices have told the states to respond by August 3, so a decision could come fast. The significance is that one of the most consequential election-administration questions in years—decided against the administration twice below—is now in the hands of a Supreme Court being asked to act on an emergency timeline, months before the midterms.Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow mail-in ballot restrictions | ReutersWashington Post · CNBCJohnson & Johnson has announced a $5.5 billion settlement to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming its talc products caused ovarian cancer—a deal that could finally close out more than a decade of litigation. The settlement would cover roughly 69,000 cases consolidated in New Jersey federal court plus related state cases, amounting to about 99.75% of the remaining talc claims. If you were with us last week, the timing is impossible to miss: just days ago, the federal magistrate judge overseeing those 69,000 cases cast serious doubt on whether the plaintiffs could even prove specific causation, ordering them to explain why their claims shouldn't be dismissed. Days later, J&J puts $5.5 billion on the table. That sequence is a lesson in how litigation leverage works—a favorable evidentiary signal can push a defendant toward a global resolution on its own terms, or embolden it, depending on the read. The mechanics matter: the deal needs acceptance by 95% of the ovarian-cancer claimants and approval from the judge overseeing the federal litigation. And notably, J&J isn't conceding anything—its litigation chief called the claims “meritless,” and the company still denies its talc caused cancer, though it pulled talc-based baby powder from U.S. and Canadian shelves back in 2020. The significance is that after years of trials, appeals, and two failed attempts to offload the liability through bankruptcy, J&J is choosing certainty and closure over continued combat—paying billions to make a decade of litigation risk go away, without ever admitting its product was dangerous.Johnson & Johnson announces $5.5 billion settlement of talc lawsuits | ReutersCBS News · Bloomberg LawA major trial has opened in Nashville, where the state of Tennessee is telling a jury that Meta knew its Instagram platform was harming teenagers and buried the evidence to protect its profits. In opening statements for what's expected to be a seven-week trial in state court, Tennessee's lawyers said Meta's own researchers repeatedly flagged that some teens were using the platform compulsively—linked to eating disorders, depression, and self-harm—yet the company declined to disable engagement features like autoplay, notifications, and infinite scroll, which the state says were designed to keep teens hooked and maximize the ads they saw. Meta's lawyer countered that the company has been transparent about the risks teens face and about the dangerous content it works to find and remove. The legal theory here should sound familiar—it echoes the playbook used against Big Tobacco: the argument that a company's own internal research proves it knew about the harm and chose profit anyway. That's powerful evidence if the jury believes it, which is likely why, according to reporting, there's already been a fight over whether Meta's lawyers tried to keep some of that internal research out. This connects to threads we've followed all month, from the multistate suit seeking enormous penalties to the individual bellwether cases. The significance is that these harm-to-teens claims are now being tested in front of an actual jury, and the outcome will shape how Meta and its peers value the risk—and how aggressively other states and plaintiffs press similar cases.Meta disregarded its own research on teen harm, Tennessee tells jury | ReutersAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I use a striking data point—the Miami metro area's cost of living has reportedly now surpassed greater New York City's—to make a case about how we misunderstand what it means to call a state “low tax.” My core argument is that focusing on a single, highly visible tax like the income tax gives you a badly incomplete picture of whether a place is actually affordable, and for whom.Here's the logic. Florida markets itself relentlessly on having no personal income tax, and rankings like the Tax Foundation's competitiveness index put Florida near the top and New York dead last largely on that basis. But I argue that conflates three very different claims: that Florida collects less through income taxes, that households there bear lower total costs, and that residents end up better off. Only the first is clearly true. The costs a state doesn't cover through an income tax don't vanish—they get shifted, recovered through other levies, or pushed into the private market. It's the same principle as a restaurant that offers “free” parking: the cost of that parking is just baked into the price of the food. When Florida forgoes an income tax, residents still pay—through sales and property taxes, fees, sky-high insurance premiums, and services they have to buy privately that other states provide publicly. And because the income tax is the most progressive major revenue source a state has, replacing it with all of that tends to shift the burden down the income ladder.The comparison I keep coming back to is the everyday cost that a public system absorbs in New York but a family pays out of pocket in Florida. New York guarantees every four-year-old a free, full-day pre-K seat; Florida's program funds about 540 instructional hours—roughly three hours a day—leaving working parents to cover the rest. New York's subsidized transit lets many households skip a car entirely. None of these private substitutes—an insurer, a toll road, a childcare provider—charges you less because you earn less, the way an income tax does. So here's the distributional punchline of my piece: Florida's model is a genuinely great deal if you make ten million dollars a year, because avoiding the income tax dwarfs everything else. But for the merely affluent professional making a few hundred thousand—and certainly for middle- and lower-income households—those insurance bills, tuition payments, and housing costs can quietly eat the whole “tax savings.” My bottom line is that any honest discussion of tax competitiveness has to start with comprehensive household-burden metrics across income levels, not a single headline rate—because “low tax” and “affordable” are not the same thing, and treating them as if they were lets officials sell breaks for the wealthy as broad affordability wins.Miami's Cost of Living Shows Income Tax's Limits as a Metric | Bloomberg Tax 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

This Day in Legal History: Congress Shrinks the Supreme CourtOn July 23, 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, and in doing so did something that sounds almost unimaginable today: it shrank the Supreme Court. The Act provided that the Court would gradually contract from ten justices down to seven, as sitting justices died or retired and their seats simply went unfilled. Yesterday we talked about Franklin Roosevelt's failed attempt to enlarge the Court to overpower it; today's anniversary is the mirror image—Congress reducing the Court's size for pointedly political reasons.The politics were about President Andrew Johnson. Johnson, who had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, was locked in a bitter struggle with the Radical Republicans in Congress over Reconstruction. Congress did not trust him, and one thing it was determined to deny him was the power to shape the Supreme Court. By legislating that upcoming vacancies would go unfilled until the Court shrank to seven, Congress effectively stripped Johnson of any Supreme Court appointments. It was court-unpacking as a weapon of inter-branch warfare—using Congress's control over the Court's size not to change its rulings directly, but to lock a distrusted president out of influencing it.The size of the Supreme Court has never been fixed by the Constitution—it's set by statute, and it has ranged from six at the founding up to ten and back down over the country's first century. After Johnson left office, Congress promptly passed the Judiciary Act of 1869 and settled the number at nine, where it has remained ever since. The significance of July 23, 1866 is that it's the clearest historical example of Congress manipulating the Court's very size for immediate political advantage—and, paired with the 1937 court-packing fight, it bookends the story of how the number nine came to feel sacrosanct even though it never actually was. The Court's independence, it turns out, has always rested partly on a political truce about not touching its structure.A Manhattan federal judge is set to weigh today whether to throw out the Justice Department's subpoenas to New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns about President Trump flying on a Qatari-donated Air Force One. This is the next chapter of a story we covered when the subpoenas first landed: they were issued July 10 by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, and U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian has paused their enforcement pending this afternoon's hearing. The two sides want very different things. Prosecutors have asked the judge merely to put the subpoenas on hold for a couple of weeks, saying the investigation's next steps could shape his decision; the Times wants them quashed outright, arguing they're designed to harass and intimidate journalists in violation of the First Amendment. The legal backdrop is genuinely unsettled. There is no absolute reporter's privilege under federal law—prosecutors correctly note the First Amendment doesn't categorically excuse reporters from testifying in criminal investigations—but courts have long been wary of subpoenas that function as fishing expeditions to unmask sources. The significance is that this hearing is a concrete test of where that line falls, and it lands amid a broader pattern we've tracked all month of friction between the administration and the press. However Judge Subramanian rules, it will be an early data point on how much protection newsgathering gets when the government wants to know who talked.US judge to weigh New York Times subpoenas over Trump plane reporting | ReutersThe teenager at the center of a closely watched lawsuit blaming social media for his depression and anxiety has dropped his claims against Meta just days before trial. The plaintiff, a 15-year-old known in court papers as R.K.C., had originally sued four companies—Google's YouTube, Meta's Instagram, Snap's Snapchat, and ByteDance's TikTok—alleging their platforms were engineered to be addictive and harmed his mental health. YouTube, TikTok, and Snap all reached confidential settlements earlier, which would have left Meta as the lone defendant when the case went before a Los Angeles jury on July 27. Instead, R.K.C. withdrew, ending the case. Here's why this matters beyond one teenager. His was a “bellwether” case—one of a small set of representative lawsuits chosen from a huge pool of similar claims and tried first, so both sides can see how juries react and use those signals to gauge settlement values across the whole litigation. When a marquee bellwether evaporates right before trial, it sends a message, though an ambiguous one: it could reflect a quiet settlement, a weakness in this particular plaintiff's proof, or simply strategic repositioning. The significance is that the sprawling social-media-harm litigation against these platforms rolls on, but this particular test balloon won't be inflated—depriving both the companies and the thousands of other plaintiffs of a data point they were watching closely.Teen plaintiff suing Meta over mental health harms drops his claims against company days before trial | ReutersA federal judge has cast serious doubt on roughly 69,000 lawsuits claiming that Johnson & Johnson's talc products caused ovarian cancer, warning the plaintiffs they must come forward with better evidence or risk having their cases dismissed. U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh in Trenton, New Jersey, zeroed in on a problem at the heart of the litigation: causation. In a mass tort like this, plaintiffs generally have to show not just that a product can cause harm in the abstract—”general causation”—but that it caused this particular plaintiff's disease—”specific causation.” Judge Singh noted that two of the plaintiffs' own expert witnesses, testifying in preparation for a set of bellwether trials, conceded they could not rule out other possible causes of the women's cancers. That's a serious admission, because it goes to whether the experts can offer an opinion that's admissible at all under the rules that make judges the “gatekeepers” of scientific testimony. If you've been listening, this should ring a bell—it's the same expert-gatekeeping battleground we saw in the Tylenol-autism case, just cutting the other direction. Here the judge ordered plaintiffs to explain, by November 19, why their cases shouldn't be tossed for lack of an admissible expert opinion tying J&J's talc to their specific cancers. The significance is that after years of litigation, settlements, and failed bankruptcy maneuvers, the whole edifice of these 69,000 claims may hinge on a question of scientific proof—and the judge just signaled the plaintiffs have a real problem.US judge casts doubt on 69,000 cases alleging J&J talc caused cancer | ReutersAnd finally, in a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I make an argument that runs underneath a lot of the tax stories we've covered lately: the tax code is only as real as its enforcement. My core claim is that defunding the IRS doesn't actually shrink the tax code—it quietly splits it into two.Here's the framing I start with. Washington has a strange way of talking about tax enforcement. Money to help the IRS collect taxes that are already legally owed gets described as spending, waste, or bureaucratic excess—but when Congress cuts that funding and less revenue comes in, the shortfall gets treated like weather, as if it just happened. I think that's exactly backwards. Congress can write whatever rates, deductions, partnership rules, and anti-abuse provisions it likes, but without skilled auditors and functioning technology, a big chunk of those rules becomes purely aspirational.And crucially, that aspiration isn't evenly distributed. For most wage earners, there's almost no room to maneuver: your income is reported by your employer, your taxes are withheld before you ever see the paycheck, and a computer can flag a mismatch without a human ever looking at your return. But wealthier filers and large businesses often operate through partnerships, closely held entities, cross-border transactions, and complex securities arrangements that take specialized expertise and real time to unwind. So my point is that defunding the IRS doesn't create a smaller tax code—it creates two codes: a statutory, basically inescapable one for people whose income is visible, and a negotiated one for people whose finances are complicated enough to delay, obscure, or contest what they owe. Strip out the enforcement capacity, and the nominal rule stays on the books while its practical effect on the highest earners quietly weakens. That's regressive—a backdoor tax cut for the taxpayers best positioned to resist enforcement.There's a new bill, the Stop CHEATERS Act, that would restore enforcement funding, and I think its sponsors are right about the underlying problem. But I argue they should retire the “fair share” language they've wrapped around it. “Fair share” is subjective—reasonable people can argue forever about whether capital gains should get preferential treatment or whether the top rate is too high or too low, and those are legitimate legislative questions. But that's not the issue here. Congress already wrote the laws; taxpayers are already obligated to follow them. The case for funding the IRS isn't about inventing a new standard of fairness after the fact—it's about consistently administering the standards we already have. By leaning on “fair share,” Democrats risk making basic enforcement sound like a partisan redistribution project when the stronger, harder-to-dismiss argument is simply this: if Congress imposes a tax, the government should be funded well enough to collect it. Anything less isn't restraint or a considered policy choice—it's a quiet exemption for those who can afford to fight.The Tax Code Is Only As Real As Its Enforcement | Forbes 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

David Tuong and Arthur Wong break down Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ) earnings beat, highlighting strong growth from key oncology and immunology drugs, including Darzalex and Tremfya. They discuss how the company's pipeline could help offset the upcoming Stelara patent cliff, while also examining medical technology trends and ongoing talc litigation risks.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Send us Fan Mail"Everyone gives Doctor Who shit for sticking some glasses on Millie Gibson but what about Amol Rajan?"Spooky women, sexual deviants and robot dogs abound as Ben and Mark tackle Russell T Davies' A24-lite thriller 73 Yards and Terence Dudley's occult oddity, K-9 & Company.Do either of these companion-centric Doctor Who stories actually have anything to say? Who does Susan Twist's Ncuti Gatwa impression remind us of? And while we're at it, whose house smells of ouzo and johnnies?Support the showFollow us on BlueskyLike us on FacebookBuy us a pint

One of the largest mass tort litigations in U.S. history is heating up, and this episode breaks down exactly what you need to know. From the collapse of Johnson & Johnson's third bankruptcy attempt to the current push for bellwether trials and remands, attorney Cameron Stephenson of Levin Papantonio gives a candid, insider look at where the talc litigation stands and what plaintiffs, attorneys, and affected individuals can expect in the months ahead. Host Greg is joined by Cameron to unpack the science behind asbestos contamination in talc, the latency period for ovarian cancer and mesothelioma diagnoses, why J&J's litigation tactics have drawn fierce criticism, and what a realistic path to settlement actually looks like.   Join Gregg and Cameron on Cut to the Chase as they explore: Why J&J's three bankruptcy attempts were rejected and what that means for plaintiffs The science behind asbestos in talc and how it causes ovarian cancer and mesothelioma What "latent disease" means and why recent diagnoses can still qualify for claims How the MDL remand process works and why it matters for case resolution The current state of state court trials and why plaintiffs have been winning Why J&J attacked Beasley Allen — and what it reveals about their litigation strategy   KEY MOMENTS Intro: Talc mass tort litigation overview Post-bankruptcy update: Back in the MDL How the 3 bankruptcies froze all cases Bellwether trial target: Q3/Q4 + active state court cases Can recently diagnosed patients still file? What is a latent disease & why it matters The asbestos-talc connection explained How asbestos gets into talcum powder (the mining process) J&J's defense vs. the evidence against them MDL, remand & Daubert explained in plain English Wave remand strategy: How to pressure J&J Why plaintiffs' attorneys need to coordinate now The $8.9B offer and why it wasn't enough Hope for plaintiffs: Strong science, angry juries How to contact Cameron Stevenson The attack on Beasley Allen, J&J's scorched earth tactics Closing: Don't wait, justice is coming   Cameron Stephenson is an attorney at Levin Papantonio, one of the country's leading plaintiffs' litigation firms. With a track record of significant courtroom victories, Cameron holds leadership positions in several of the largest mass tort litigations in the U.S., including the talc/ovarian cancer MDL and the Ozempic litigation. Stephenson is an active advocate for coordination among plaintiffs' counsel in the talc litigation, offering trial school resources, deposition packages, and case preparation support to attorneys across the country.   Contact Cameron Stephenson: Phone: (850) 435-7176 Email: cstephenson@levinlaw.com Website: https://levinlaw.com/   Want more insights on leadership, crisis, and the decisions that define careers and companies? Subscribe to Cut to the Chase with Gregg Goldfarb for new episodes every week.

Got feedback that felt vague, unfair, or just plain useless? You're not alone — and you don't have to spiral or dismiss it.  In this episode, I walk you through a 4-step system for processing hard feedback as a new manager, including the TALC framework — four questions that help you separate what's real from what's noise. ✅ Ride it out ✅ Ask for clarity ✅ Run TALC (Truth, Agree, Learn, Control) ✅ Release what isn't yours to carry Because feedback without direction isn't a development plan. It's a hunch. And you're allowed to throw away what isn't helpful to your growth and development. Connect with Jen: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenparnold/ Are you a new leader looking for support? Check out Made to Lead, our 12-week cohort for first time people leaders. New to management? Subscribe for no-BS leadership advice twice a month: https://growth-signals-2.kit.com/22c1e16738 

The latest cosmetics legislation (MoCRA) was supposed to transform beauty safety in the U.S. But while we were all distracted during the 2025 holidays, the FDA quietly withdrew key safety rules from it.In this video, I'm breaking down the "MoCRA Betrayal" and the latest regarding Talc, PFAS, and Formaldehyde.IN THIS EPISODE• The Talc Rule Withdrawal: It's not just asbestos.• Teflon in Your Makeup: The FDA found forever chemicals and took zero action.• Formaldehyde Deadlines: Bans on hair-straightening products stall.• The EU vs. The U.S.: FDA at a standstill while Europe moves forward.The bottom line? We can't wait for regulators to keep us safe. We have to do it ourselves.LINKS & RESOURCES• Download the Switch Natural App: https://switchnatural.onelink.me/uZpY/sw1• Read the MoCRA Betrayal Blog: https://www.switchnatural.com/home/themocrabetrayal• Follow on Instagram for a daily dose of non-toxic intel: https://www.instagram.com/switch.natural

Today we're talking talc… that white powder that is sometimes found in make-up. There's been a lot of chat recently about the safety of talc. So, in this episode we find out why it's in our make-up and cosmetics, and whether we should be avoiding it.BBC journalist Phoebe Keane, who produced the podcast series Talc Tales, explains what talc is and its link to asbestos, a known carcinogen. We also discuss the different tests that are used to determine if talc has been contaminated with asbestos. The World Health Organization has classified talc as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. Several companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Chanel and L'Oreal have been quietly moving away from using talc-based products in recent years. But do consumers care about this? We hear from Savannah, a PhD student and make-up content creator. And what can you use if you want to avoid talc in make-up? Jen Novakovich, a science communicator and cosmetic scientist, suggests some alternatives. Instagram: @bbcwhatintheworld Email: whatintheworld@bbc.co.uk WhatsApp: +44 330 12 33 22 6 Presenter: Iqra Farooq Producers: Mora Morrison and Benita Barden Video producer: Tim Hodges Editor: Verity Wilde and Harriet Oliver

durée : 00:48:01 - Affaires sensibles - par : Fabrice Drouelle - réalisation : Stéphane Cosme, Hélène Bizieau, Frédéric Milano, François Audoin, Valentine Chédebois, Franck Cognard, Rebecca Denantes, Claire Teisseire Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

There has been A LOT happening with talc - from class action lawsuits, regulatory action, a testing proposed rule and its subsequent withdrawal, and so on. There's also been a huge amount of incorrect or misleading reporting on what's been happening, making everything extra confusing... This episode will serve as a 101 update on talc in beauty + a breakdown on WTF is happening. There's a lot! To help me do the topic justice, this weeks episode features toxicologist Lyle Burgoon PhD ATS. Interested in supporting the podcast? Please share, subscribe and write a review if you haven't already! If it's accessible, you can also support my work on Patreon at www.patreon.com/theecowell. Big thank you to all of my patreon supporters for supporting my scicomm!

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Aides ConvictedOn January 21, 1975, three of Richard Nixon's closest aides—H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and former Attorney General John Mitchell—were convicted for their roles in the Watergate cover-up. The charges? Conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. These convictions weren't just about punishing political wrongdoing; they were the direct legal aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Nixon six months earlier. That decision famously held that executive privilege—long seen as a near-impenetrable shield—does not extend to cover-ups and criminal conduct. The message was as clear as it was historic: even the most powerful figures in government are not beyond the reach of the law.The Watergate trials became a masterclass in the tension between power and accountability. These weren't fringe operatives—they were the President's top men, brought down not by partisan maneuvering but by due process. In convicting them, the courts affirmed a fundamental principle: constitutional protections are not carte blanche for corruption. That principle has since been tested repeatedly, often invoked but rarely with the same clarity.While Nixon himself was pardoned by Gerald Ford, his aides faced real legal consequences. And in doing so, they served as a sobering example of what happens when loyalty to power eclipses loyalty to the law.On January 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a high-stakes case involving President Donald Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—an unprecedented move that could reshape the legal boundaries of central bank independence. Trump is challenging a lower court ruling that barred him from removing Cook while her legal challenge continues. At issue is whether a president can dismiss a Fed governor without due process, despite the Federal Reserve Act's “for cause” removal standard, which lacks clear definition.Cook, the first Black woman appointed to the Fed's board (by President Biden in 2022), argues Trump's push is politically motivated, tied to disagreements over monetary policy. Trump cited past mortgage fraud allegations—which Cook denies—as grounds for her removal, but a district court found those likely insufficient and in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. The D.C. Circuit declined to stay that ruling.The case has major implications: no president has ever tried to fire a Fed governor, and the Court's decision could determine how insulated the central bank remains from political interference. It also arrives amid broader questions about the scope of presidential control over independent agencies—and a criminal probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, which many see as part of the same pressure campaign.By way of brief background, a Federal Reserve governor is a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the central banking authority of the United States. The Board is composed of seven governors, each appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve staggered 14-year terms. These governors play a critical role in shaping U.S. monetary policy, overseeing the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and regulating certain financial institutions. Their primary responsibilities include setting the discount rate, influencing the federal funds rate (the interest rate banks charge each other for overnight loans), and voting on key decisions made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—the body that manages the nation's money supply and interest rate targets.Importantly, Fed governors are designed to be insulated from political pressure to preserve the central bank's independence. That's why they can only be removed by the president “for cause”—a vague legal standard that has rarely, if ever, been tested. This structural independence is meant to prevent short-term political interests from influencing decisions that have long-term economic consequences, such as controlling inflation, stabilizing employment, or responding to financial crises. While their work often operates behind the scenes, the policies they help shape impact virtually every corner of the U.S. economy—from mortgage rates to job growth to the value of the dollar.US Supreme Court considers Trump's bid to fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersA court-appointed special master has recommended that women suing Johnson & Johnson over claims its talc-based products caused ovarian cancer should be allowed to present expert testimony supporting that link in upcoming trials. Retired Judge Freda Wolfson found that the plaintiffs' experts used reliable methods and cited statistically significant studies connecting genital talc use to ovarian cancer. The recommendation—part of a sprawling litigation involving over 67,500 cases—moves the lawsuits closer to federal trial, possibly later this year.Wolfson also allowed J&J's experts to present rebuttal testimony, but excluded certain plaintiff theories, such as talc migration via inhalation or links to fragrance chemicals and heavy metals. J&J criticized the ruling and plans to challenge it, arguing that the scientific evidence wasn't rigorously vetted.The litigation has dragged on for years, complicated by failed bankruptcy attempts by J&J to shield itself from liability. While the company denies its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer, prior jury verdicts have yielded multi-billion-dollar awards for plaintiffs, though some have been overturned. The case could become a major bellwether for corporate liability and the legal standard for expert scientific evidence in mass torts.Experts can testify about suspected J&J talc products' cancer link, special master recommends | ReutersLindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned prosecutor and former personal attorney to the president, is leaving her post at the U.S. Justice Department after a federal judge sharply rebuked her for continuing to act as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia beyond her legally allowed interim term. Appointed without Senate confirmation, Halligan's authority expired after 120 days, yet she continued using the title—prompting Judge David Novak to call her conduct a “charade” and warn of potential disciplinary action.Halligan had led politically charged investigations targeting Trump adversaries like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, though those cases were dismissed due to questions over her legitimacy. The Justice Department is appealing those rulings, but the controversy has sparked internal tension, with Novak criticizing the DOJ's recent filings as inflammatory and unprofessional.Her departure follows Senate Democrats' refusal to advance her formal nomination, citing the “blue slip” tradition that allows home-state senators to block nominees. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed Democrats for obstructing Halligan's tenure, while Trump allies hinted at retaliation if the court names a replacement. The episode underscores ongoing friction between the judiciary, the Justice Department, and Trump's efforts to assert political control over federal prosecutions.After judge's rebuke, Trump ally Halligan to leave US Justice Department | ReutersA Massachusetts judge has ruled that Kalshi, a New York-based prediction market platform, cannot offer sports betting services in the state without a proper gambling license. The decision comes after Attorney General Andrea Campbell sued Kalshi, arguing that it was illegally offering unlicensed sports wagers to residents, including users as young as 18. Judge Christopher Barry-Smith agreed, stating that state oversight of sports betting protects public health and financial interests.Kalshi, which allows users to bet on outcomes of events like sports, politics, and the economy, claimed that its operations fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), due to its status as a registered contract market. The judge rejected that argument, ruling that federal oversight of financial instruments does not override state authority to regulate gambling.Kalshi plans to appeal the injunction, which could be finalized following a hearing. This marks the first court-ordered halt of Kalshi's operations in a state, though it faces similar legal challenges elsewhere. The case underscores growing friction between emerging event-based financial markets and traditional gambling laws.Kalshi cannot operate sports-prediction market in Massachusetts, judge rules | 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

This week, we kick things off talking about what a joy it was to watch the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and also how weird our Spotify Wrapped was. We bring back WOYF and share a product from a recent guest that's doing Sara's skin good and a teeny set of brushes that Kirbie can't get enough of. Then: what is really going on with asbestos testing in talc products? There's a lot of misinformation online. We explain what's actually happening and discuss several nuances related to it. Shop this episodeWatch our episodes!CALL or TEXT US: 424-341-0426Instagram: @glossangelspod, @kirbiejohnson, @saratanTwitter: @glossangelespod, @kirbiejohnson, @saratanEmail: glossangelespodcast@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cardy, Matt, and Mat are here to talk all about aliens, lighthouses, toilet cleaners, brick breakers, and chainsaw men. Enjoy! Remember to send us your thoughts about all the new games, TV shows, and films you're enjoying or looking forward to: ign_ukfeedback@ign.com. IGN UK Podcast is a part of the Geek Media Podcast Network, an IGN Entertainment Brand. Visit Geek.com for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this edition of The Naked Scientists: Whether talc-based products - like baby powder - can cause ovarian cancer. Also ahead, the "Sword Dragon of Dorset" found on England's Jurassic Coast. Plus, we'll be finding out about the 'double comet' visible in the night sky... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

A major UK group litigation has been launched against Johnson & Johnson, involving approximately 3,000 claimants who allege they developed cancers due to asbestos-contaminated talc products. The company is accused of negligence and deceit. Johnson & Johnson deny the allegations. The BBC Health reporter, Chloe Hayward, joins Anita Rani to talk about what is known so far.Surrogacy and its impact is the subject of a new report by the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem. In 2023, the global surrogacy market was valued at nearly $15 billion and is projected to reach almost $100 billion in the next eight years. Here in the UK commercial surrogacy is illegal - surrogacy has to be altruistic, meaning only expenses are paid for and the motivation behind it is typically helping someone else. It is legal, however, to have a child in another country where the rules may differ. To discuss the ethics of the practice, Anita is joined by Reem Alsalem and Sarah Jones, CEO of Surrogacy UK.Karen Carney is one of the most capped female footballers for England. The former Lioness joins Anita to talk about how she is using Strictly to help her 'rebuild confidence' after being 'crushed' by the sexist abuse she faced as a football pundit and her vision to improve women's sport.Children with special educational needs from low-income families are facing major inequalities in access to support, according to a new report out today from the Sutton Trust. Anita is joined by Charlotte O'Regan, Senior Schools Engagement Manager at the Sutton Trust, lead author of the report Double Disadvantage, to talk about its findings. Presenter: Anita Rani Producer: Rebecca Myatt

Examining the claim that cabbage family vegetables are bad for the thyroid; Walmart announces sweeping move to reformulate its products without synthetic dyes, sketchy additives; Under Congressional questioning, Google admits to censoring contrary narratives on YouTube during Covid; Children garner psychological benefits from grandparent time; J&J fined nearly $1 billion in landmark talc baby powder lawsuit; Humans are among the few animals who can't make their own vitamin C—why that may be a good thing.

Omiana launches Sol Radiance Bronzer, a talc free bronzer crafted for sensitive skin. The cream-to-powder formula blends seamlessly, adapts to most skin tones, and is enriched with botanicals for a natural, sun-kissed glow without common irritants. Omiana City: Laguna Beach Address: 1968 South Coast Highway Website: https://www.omiana.com

Omiana introduces its talc free blush, crafted for sensitive skin with clean, ingredient-transparent formulas. The collection offers vibrant, buildable color without talc, mica, or synthetic fragrance. Omiana City: Laguna Beach Address: 1968 South Coast Highway Website: https://www.omiana.com

This week we're talking all things cosmetic chemistry with someone who really knows her way around a science lab: Ramya Viswanathan, founder of CMPRESSD Beauty — the zero-waste hair care brand making solid shampoo and conditioner bars that actually perform like your favorite salon formulas on all hair types. With over a decade in product development, formulation, and manufacturing, Ramya's here to school us on ingredient “green flags,” misunderstood actives, and the real tea on shampoo bars.We dig into listener-submitted questions from our Glamgelenos Slack, covering everything from the future of U.S. sunscreen regulations to the next big ingredient trend, whether skincare “dupes” can actually deliver, and if multi-active formulas are really worth it (or just marketing fluff). If you've ever stood in the aisle decoding an ingredient list or wondered what a chemist actually thinks about your favorite products, this episode is your backstage pass to beauty R&D.Shop this episodeWatch our episodes!CALL or TEXT US: 424-341-0426Instagram: @glossangelspod, @kirbiejohnson, @saratanTwitter: @glossangelespod, @kirbiejohnson, @saratanEmail: glossangelespodcast@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Labor Day Weekend kicks off on Wednesday August 27 with a screening of UNION, co-hosted and with a post-screening discussion about labor unionizing with the Troy Area Labor Council. The film is at 7 PM at Picture Lock One, 50 4th St., Troy. Union is a 2024 American documentary film, directed by Brett Story and Stephen Maing. It follows the Amazon Labor Union as they seek to unionize Amazon's JKF8 Warehouse in Staten Island. As Chris Smalls and his fellow organizers formed the Amazon Labor Union and began a union drive at the warehouse, Story saw the opportunity to make a film about “a new generation of labor organizers, a generation that's grown up entirely in the post-Reagan era of union decline and globalized corporate capital, and who would be learning, in real time, how to organize collectively and outside of mainstream union support”. Sean Collins, President of TALC, talks with Mark Dunlea for Hudson Mohawk Magazine.

This Day in Legal History: Medicare and Medicaid Signed into BeingOn July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, creating the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The signing took place at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, with former President Harry S. Truman—an early advocate for national health insurance—present and symbolically receiving the first Medicare card. Medicare was designed to provide hospital and medical insurance to Americans aged 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history. Medicaid, created alongside Medicare, offered healthcare assistance to low-income individuals and families.At the time, nearly half of Americans over 65 had no health insurance. The passage of Medicare was a landmark achievement of Johnson's Great Society initiative and built on decades of political struggle over healthcare reform. The legislation amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act and was strongly opposed by many in the medical establishment and conservative politicians who labeled it as “socialized medicine.” Nevertheless, the program gained rapid popularity and provided immediate relief to millions.Administered by the federal government, Medicare initially had two parts: Part A, covering hospital insurance, and Part B, covering outpatient and physician services. It has since evolved to include prescription drug coverage (Part D) and options for private plans (Medicare Advantage). The law reshaped the American healthcare landscape and established the principle that access to healthcare for seniors was a federal responsibility.The U.S. Senate confirmed Emil Bove, a former lawyer for Donald Trump and senior Justice Department official, to a lifetime seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a narrow 50-49 vote. Bove faced unified Democratic opposition and criticism from over 900 former DOJ employees, who claimed he undermined the department's integrity. His nomination prompted a Democratic walkout during the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote and drew sharp condemnation from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.Despite controversy, Republicans praised Bove's background as a federal terrorism prosecutor and his legal work defending Trump in several criminal cases. His confirmation shifts the appellate court's balance back in favor of Republican appointees. Critics cited Bove's alleged directives that defied judicial authority and political interference in a corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Bove denied wrongdoing in both instances. His confirmation is part of Trump's renewed effort in his second term to reshape the judiciary, following over 230 appointments in his first term. Trump has also nominated another close adviser, Jennifer Mascott, to the same court.Trump lawyer Bove confirmed to US appeals court, overcoming Democratic opposition | ReutersBove Confirmed to Appeals Court After Whistleblowers Emerge (1)A White House crypto task force established by President Trump is set to release a highly anticipated report outlining the administration's policy goals for the digital asset sector. The report, expected Wednesday, will address tokenization, market structure legislation, and a regulatory framework for blockchain-based financial products. Created by executive order shortly after Trump took office in January, the group is led by Bo Hines and includes top officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and SEC Chair Paul Atkins.The document is expected to support expanded use of tokenization, which converts traditional assets like stocks and real estate into blockchain-based tokens. The report may call on the SEC to create a framework enabling firms like Coinbase to offer tokenized securities, though specific language remains under wraps. It will also outline the White House's preferences for crypto legislation currently advancing in Congress, including follow-up to the recently passed stablecoin law.Trump has made pro-crypto policies a centerpiece of his administration, reversing many of the enforcement actions taken under President Biden, such as lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance. While the industry sees the report as a roadmap for mainstream integration, concerns remain about conflicts of interest, particularly given Trump's financial ties to crypto ventures and meme coins. The administration has denied any ethical violations.White House set to unveil closely watched crypto policy report | ReutersThe Trump administration has formally requested the release of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, citing public interest and mounting pressure over the government's handling of the sex trafficking cases. Prosecutors filed late-night motions with U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer, arguing that the sealed testimony should now be disclosed, though the judges had previously asked for stronger legal justification. Grand jury records are typically secret, with limited exceptions for disclosure.Trump said he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the unsealing after the Justice Department reaffirmed its conclusion that Epstein died by suicide and that there was no list of elite clients—a stance that frustrated some Trump supporters who suspect a cover-up. Epstein died in 2019 before his trial; Maxwell, convicted in 2021, is serving a 20-year sentence and has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.In a related effort, a Florida judge recently denied a separate request to release grand jury records from earlier state investigations into Epstein, ruling they did not meet legal exceptions. Even if the federal judges allow the current transcripts to be unsealed, the documents may not reveal new information, since much of the testimony was covered during Maxwell's trial. The transcripts also wouldn't encompass the full scope of investigative material held by the government.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, recently met with Maxwell for two days, reportedly seeking any names or evidence she could provide about others potentially involved. Neither Blanche nor Maxwell's attorney has commented in detail on those meetings.Trump administration asks judges to release Epstein, Maxwell grand jury transcripts | ReutersA Massachusetts jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay over $42 million to Paul Lovell, who developed mesothelioma after decades of using the company's talc products. Lovell and his wife sued in 2021, claiming the talc contained asbestos that he unknowingly inhaled, and accused J&J of failing to warn consumers despite knowing the risks. The jury awarded damages for pain, suffering, and medical costs.J&J denied any wrongdoing, calling the verdict “junk science” and saying its products are asbestos-free and safe, with plans to appeal the decision. The company ended U.S. sales of talc-based baby powder in 2020. This case adds to a string of multi-million-dollar verdicts against J&J in talc-related mesothelioma lawsuits, although some have been overturned on appeal.J&J is facing over 63,000 active lawsuits, and possibly up to 100,000 claims in total, most alleging ovarian cancer from talc use. The company's attempts to resolve the claims through bankruptcy have failed in court three times, including a $10 billion settlement proposal rejected in March. The Lovell case is part of ongoing litigation that continues to test J&J's legal strategy and product safety claims.Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $42M after jury finds talc caused man's cancer | 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

256: Is your makeup killing you? On this episode of Realfoodology, I'm joined by Attorney Whitney Ray Di Bona (or the LowToxLawyer on Instagram) who has represented women who developed terminal cancer due to asbestos in their cosmetics. We talk about why even the ‘clean products' can't always be trusted, and the regulations that could prevent this from happening in the future. Trust me, I know this sounds overwhelming. But I hope you can take away one or two tips from Whitney to start cutting back on the most toxic products so you don't end up in one of these lawsuits. Topics Discussed: → Toxic ingredients in skincare and beauty products  → Whether clean products are actually safe → The truth about botox and filler  → Biggest lawsuits against cosmetics companies → Regulation in the makeup/skincare industry in the U.S. vs. abroad  Sponsored By: →  JASPR | Go to jaspr.co/realfoodology and get $400 off with code REALFOODOLOGY. → Beekeepers Naturals | Go to beekeepersnaturals.com/REALFOODOLOGY or enter code REALFOODOLOGY to get 20% off your order.  → Paleovalley | Save at 15% at paleovalley.com/realfoodology and use code REALFOODOLOGY. → LMNT | Get a free 8-count Sample Pack of LMNT's most popular drink mix flavors with any purchase at drinklmnt.com/realfoodology. → BIOptimizers | They're giving us an exclusive offer! Check out bioptimizers.com/realfoodology and use promo code  REALFOODOLOGY.  → Our Place | Use code REALFOODOLOGY for 10% off at fromourplace.com.  Timestamps:  → 00:00:00 - Introduction   → 00:05:29 - The Top Worst Ingredients Found In Skincare  → 00:06:04 - Mesothelioma Lawsuits Among Young Women  → 00:07:20 - Skincare Product Additives to Avoid → 00:09:15 - What ‘Fragrance' Really Means   → 00:09:53 - Is ‘Clean Fragrance' Actually a Thing?   → 00:12:25 - Cosmetics Regulations in the United States vs. Europe   → 00:16:47 - The Benefits of Natural Deodorant   → 00:17:45 - Skincare Products to Put on High Alert   → 00:18:26 - Concerns about Tampon Ingredients  → 00:23:20 - What To Look out for When Buying Tampons  → 00:25:55 - Suing the Biggest Brands in Makeup and Skincare  → 00:28:25 - Johnson and Johnson Baby Powder Litigation  → 00:34:57 - The Talc to Asbestos Pipeline → 00:38:02 - Asbestos Exposures through Makeup → 00:38:55 - How Clean Are Sephora's Products Actually?  → 00:42:58 - Whitney's Takes on Courtney's Clean Makeup Brands  → 00:44:21 - Whitney's Advice for How to Pick Your Products → 00:45:10 - Clean Hair Care  → 00:48:05 - Identifying Toxins to Eliminate First  → 00:51:00 - Nail Care and Health of Salon Workers  → 00:54:40 - Managing Toxic Load While Being Realistic   → 00:56:26 - Using Informed Consent to Make Choices About Health  → 00:58:05 - Calls for Regulation in Food and Health   → 01:01:40 - Pressuring CPG Companies to Do Better    → 01:04:30 - The Dangers of Botox and Filler  → 01:10:20 - Face Taping / Alternatives to Botox → 01:12:51 - Teens and Twenty-Year-Olds Trying Botox and Filler Check Out Whitney Ray Di Bona: → LowToxLawyer - Instagram   → The Wellness Verdict with Whitney Di Bona Check Out Courtney:  →  LEAVE US A VOICE MESSAGE →  Check Out My new FREE Grocery Guide! →  @realfoodology →  www.realfoodology.com →  My Immune Supplement by 2x4 →  Air Dr Air Purifier →  AquaTru Water Filter →  EWG Tap Water Database Produced By: Drake Peterson

durée : 00:48:01 - Affaires sensibles - par : Fabrice Drouelle, Franck COGNARD - Aujourd'hui dans Affaires Sensibles, le scandale du talc Morhange - réalisé par : Stéphane COSME

On this eye-opening episode of Vitality Radio, Jared breaks down the part of the supplement label most people ignore: other Ingredients. While active ingredients get all the attention, it's often the excipients—binders, fillers, flow agents, coatings, and colorants—that determine whether your supplement is truly clean and effective. Jared exposes why manufacturers use these "inactive" ingredients, how they impact product quality, and which common additives you should avoid. You'll learn how to read this overlooked section of your supplement label and become an informed, empowered consumer.Additional Information:#525: Decoding Supplement Fact Panels and Becoming a More Informed ConsumerOther Ingredients Breakdown Blog PostVisit the podcast website here: VitalityRadio.comYou can follow @vitalitynutritionbountiful and @vitalityradio on Instagram, or Vitality Radio and Vitality Nutrition on Facebook. Join us also in the Vitality Radio Podcast Listener Community on Facebook. Shop the products that Jared mentions at vitalitynutrition.com. Let us know your thoughts about this episode using the hashtag #vitalityradio and please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Thank you!Just a reminder that this podcast is for educational purposes only. The FDA has not evaluated the podcast. The information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. The advice given is not intended to replace the advice of your medical professional.

Send us a textOn today's show we cover lots of questions including…Are cosmetic products filled with microplastics? What do you do about facial hair?Is jojoba oil good to use with retinol?How can a formula with hypochlorous acid and azeleic acid be stable?How do you handle acne at the hair line?Beauty NewsWill printed skin replace animal testing?Is Gelatin the same as a Collagen supplement?Is California going to ban anti-aging products for people under 18?J&J Talc case update - another rejection for a $10 billion settlementRecall newsHenkel recallAcne product recallTime Stamps0:00 - Intro and chit chat 4:45 - Beauty News8:50 - Collagen and Gelatin11:45 - California and kids cosmetics14:15 - Talc lawsuit update16:40 - Recall news21:45 - Listener feedback25:05 - Microplastics and cosmetics31:55 - Facial hair advice37:00 - Jojoba oil and Retinol45:20 - Mixing acids48:45 - Acne and hair lines52:45 - EndingFive Ways to Ask a question -1. Send us a message through Patreon!2. You can record your question on your smart phone and email to thebeautybrains@gmail.com3. Send it to us via social media (see links below)4. Submit it through the following form - Ask a question5. Leave a voice mail message: 872-216-1856Social media accountson Instagram we're at thebeautybrains2018on Twitter, we're thebeautybrainsOn Bluesky we're at thebeautybrainsAnd we have a Facebook pageValerie's ingredient company - Simply IngredientsPerry's other website - Chemists CornerFollow the  Porch Kitty Krew instagram accountSupport the show

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) posted notable strengths in their earnings Tuesday. Jeff Jonas points to the company's pharmaceuticals sector as the highlight, arguing the company has a great pipeline which can withstand tariffs. One overhang: the company's talc lawsuit. Jeff thinks Johnson & Johnson paying the $10 billion settlement is the best route it can make to move forward.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Take our survey! http://bit.ly/glossangeles-surveyHave a question about the beauty industry? Chances are, it's covered in this episode. Our guests today are one of our favorite accounts to follow due to their thorough, fun and accurate content: The Lipstick Lesbians! Product developer Alexis Androulakis and education technology expert Dr. Christina Basias Androulakis join us on the pod — we wish we had several more hours to interview them! They share how nearing bankruptcy ultimately lead to their success (and why you shouldn't self-fund your own brand if at all possible), how Christina encouraged Alexis to begin making content about where products come from and how they work, and then answer listener-submitted questions, including why removing talc has ruined so many of our favorite powder products, why do some products look one way in the bottle but different on the skin, how to find your perfect foundation color match, how tariffs are going to affect product development in the beauty space, and why so many brands launch the same products within a short period of time. Plus, they reveal more about LLab — an 8-hour online master class with a framework developed by Christina and taught by Alexis that shares the nuance of products and is a tool to help everyone from consumers to experts. Shop the episodeWatch our episodes!GlossAngelesPod.comCALL or TEXT US: 424-341-0426Join our Slack to try new products before they launch https://join.slack.com/t/glossangeles/shared_invite/zt-2xtc77p7p-pd4nU1HkJAN971~s9HeZsgJoin our FB GroupInstagram: @glossangelspod, @kirbiejohnson, @saratanTwitter: @glossangelespod, @kirbiejohnson, @saratanEmail: glossangelespodcast@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textOn today's show we cover lots of questions including…Is it ok to use self-tanner under your eyes and around your lips?Are PFAS the ingredients that cause products to self-foam?How can a silicone protect hair up to temperatures of 450 degrees?Are certain types of products worth getting the more expensive product?What is the chemistry of nanoplasty?But first…Beauty NewsFDA proposes new test for talc containing products.Walmart says it won't hit its's emission goals.Five Ways to Ask a question -1. Send us a message through Patreon!2. You can record your question on your smart phone and email to thebeautybrains@gmail.com3. Send it to us via social media (see links below)4. Submit it through the following form - Ask a question5. Leave a voice mail message: 872-216-1856Social media accountson Instagram we're at thebeautybrains2018on Twitter, we're thebeautybrainsAnd we have a Facebook pageValerie's ingredient company - Simply IngredientsPerry's other website - Chemists CornerFollow the  Porch Kitty Krew instagram accountSupport the show

Episode 2427 - First five minutes audio only. Where will Russia stand with the U.S.? -What? Transgender holocaust. -Why did UK schools take out everything referring to Christmas? -Is the detox made simple kit good for you? -Why is Talc and fluoride so bad? -Laken Riley murderer is sentenced to life in prison. -How many are still dying from covid shot? -Short video content on social media positive or negative to the younger generation? -Is mental health affected by being on the internet? -Will they limit the speed of vehicles in the future? Is alcohol ok in moderation ? Great show today!

It's Hump Day! And Sam is live from the Mass Torts Conference in Las Vegas! First, Sam and Emma run through updates on the build of Hurricane Milton as it approaches Florida, Harris' campaign for the right, Biden's commitment to Israel, DOJ vs. Google, Trump's blocking of a Kavanaugh FBI investigation, abortion bans, Boeing machinist's ongoing labor action, Elons cucking to Lula, the ever-crumbling Eric Adams Administration, and the GOP's mass investment in anti-trans attacks, before parsing a little more thoroughly through the impending threat of Hurricane Milton. After touching on the important distinction between mass torts and class action lawsuits, Sam is joined by Attorney Kim Adams with Levin Pappantonio to discuss her ongoing litigation against the Canadian porn company formerly known as MindGeek (now Aylo) for encouraging, facilitating, and helping to disseminate child pornography on their site, unpacking the law (Section 230) that protects platforms from legal liability for third-party content and the tension between that and the active production, curation, boosting, and highlighting of said liable content, not to mention the heightened responsibility for pornography companies to be aware of the content the platform and sponsor. After expanding on the extensive community of impacted parties, be they plaintiffs or potential class members, and exploring the distinction between hosting and publishing, Adams summarizes the case's state right now. Next, Andy Birchfield from Beasley Allen joins, diving right into the ever-ongoing case against Johnson & Johnson for their manufacturing, sale, and promotion of their Talc-based baby powder formula despite internal awareness of the presence of asbestos and the devastating medical impact it can have on mothers and their children, with a particular focus on J&J knowingly marketing this toxic powder as a feminine hygiene product and the resulting development of ovarian cancer amongst consumers. Next, Birchfield dives deep into J&J's implementation of the “Texas Two-Step” legal maneuver to avoid responsibility, splitting off all of its liabilities from its assets into a separate company, before immediately moving said company to the asbestos-liability haven of North Carolina, where it would attempt to declare bankruptcy and render any attempts at accountability or compensation null. Walking through the circle of attrition that this has created in the courts, as we enter a third attempt to declare bankruptcy, Andy and Sam wrap up with the future of this case and the role public pressure, congressional legislation, and the questionable morals of J&J leadership all play in hopefully bringing this to a close. Sam and Emma also expand on the developing story about the Trump White House's obstruction of an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh's allegations of sexual assault. The crew watches Sean Hannity compares abortion restrictions to the draft before chatting with attorneys Brian Barr of Levin Papantonio and the legendary Ben Crump about their representation of Roger Fortson, a U.S. airman shot to death by police. They then discuss the back-and-forth sniping between Kamala Harris and Ron DeSantis over taking a phone call regarding hurricane assistance, and Benjamin Netanyahu benevolently addressing the people of Lebanon (major sarcasm intended). Plus, your IM's!   If you can, donate to the GoFundMe for Palestinian journalist Rakan Abed El Rahman, who spoke with Emma Monday: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-two-press-members-and-their-families-evacuate Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityrep ort Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Givewell: Go to https://Givewell.org to find out more or make a donation. Select PODCAST and enter The Majority Report with Sam Seder at checkout to make sure they know you heard about them from us. Again, that's https://Givewell.org to donate or find out more. Nutrafol: Take the first step towards achieving your hair growth goals. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com/men and enter the promo code TMR.  Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. That's https://Nutrafol.com/men, promo code TMR. Sunset Lake CBD: Sunsetlakecbd is a majority employee owned farm in Vermont, producing 100% pesticide free CBD products. Use code Leftisbest and get 20% off at http://www.sunsetlakecbd.com. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

“LMEs buy time for the sponsor, but I'm increasingly seeing that that's all it really does.” Jon Weber, founder of JFW & Co., doesn't mince words regarding the effectiveness of the popular restructuring strategy. Liability management exercises leave executives with a “sword of Damocles” over their heads, failing to really fix anything and with an aftermath that remains a management distraction, Weber told Bloomberg Intelligence's Phil Brendel, in October's feature interview for the State of Distressed Debt podcast. Weber shared his perspectives, honed at Icahn Enterprises, Goldman Sachs and Elliott Management, on running effective boards and companies post-reorganization (6:30). Prior to that, BI's Noel Hebert and Phil discussed the complete dearth of distressed-debt inventory, as the distressed ratio plummeted to a 5.2% 28-month low in September. The podcast concludes with BI's Negisa Balluku joining Noel and Phil for a roundtable discussion covering J&J's latest Talc news, Hertz make-whole appeal, Audacy, Yellow, Tupperware, Telesat and what qualifies as a consensual release these days (59:00). This podcast is part of BI's FICC Focus series.

Join us each week as we do a quick review of three compelling stories from the pharma world — one good, one bad and one ugly. Up this week:   The good —FDA approves BMS schizophrenia drug  The bad — bluebird bio announces layoffs  The ugly —J&J talc subsidiary files for bankruptcy

This Day in Legal History: Equal Rights Party FormedOn September 20, 1884, a group of American suffragists formed the Equal Rights Party in San Francisco, marking a significant moment in the fight for gender equality in the United States. The party was established with the goal of securing "equal and exact justice" for all citizens, regardless of color, sex, or nationality. A key focus was on amending state laws to recognize women as voters and to ensure equal property rights, aiming to empower women to become self-sufficient rather than remain dependent. In a bold move, the party nominated Mrs. Belva Lockwood as its candidate for U.S. President and Marietta Snow for Vice-President. Lockwood, a lawyer and prominent suffragist, became one of the first women to actively campaign for the presidency. While Grover Cleveland ultimately won the election, Lockwood's candidacy broke new ground. She garnered around 4,149 votes, all cast by male voters, as women did not yet have the right to vote nationally. This event showcased the growing momentum of the women's suffrage movement, which would eventually lead to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, granting women the right to vote. The Equal Rights Party's formation highlighted the early intersection of gender, legal rights, and political advocacy in American history.An Alaska man, Panos Anastasiou, has been indicted for sending over 450 threatening messages to six U.S. Supreme Court justices and two of their family members. The threats, which began in March 2023 and escalated in January 2024, included violent, racist, and homophobic language, as well as calls for assassination and torture. Federal prosecutors allege that the messages were intended to intimidate and retaliate against the justices for their legal decisions. Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized that the threats undermine the judiciary's independence and public officials' safety. While the indictment did not name the specific justices targeted, details in court filings suggest that some threats were directed at Justice Clarence Thomas, referencing racist tropes and his wife's political activism. Anastasiou has been temporarily detained, with prosecutors expressing concern that he poses a flight risk and a continued danger due to his history of threats against public officials. The case follows a growing concern for the security of federal judges, highlighted by recent threats against other Supreme Court justices, including an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022.Alaska Man Charged With Threatening Supreme Court Justices (1)Following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision to ban race-conscious admissions, Harvard Law School saw a drop in students of color, with the percentage decreasing from 51% in 2023 to 43% in the new class. This is the first class admitted after the ruling, which stemmed from cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The data from Harvard does not break down racial groups, leaving unclear how different minority groups were affected. The overall decline translates to about 45 fewer non-white students out of a class of 560, marking the lowest diversity percentage since 2017. Other top law schools have reported mixed results, with some maintaining or increasing their diversity. The University of California, Berkeley School of Law, which has been under a state affirmative action ban since 1996, also reported a decline in students of color. More detailed racial breakdowns from law schools will be provided by the American Bar Association in December.Harvard Law School says enrollment of students of color dropped after affirmative action ban | ReutersIn a long-running lawsuit accusing Google of secretly tracking internet browsing in "incognito" mode, a major dispute remains over legal fees. Plaintiffs' lawyers from firms like Boies Schiller Flexner and Morgan & Morgan are seeking $217 million in fees for securing a settlement that mandates Google to delete billions of records and update privacy disclosures. Google has countered, arguing the fees should be capped at $40 million, claiming the settlement offers no monetary relief for consumers since the lawsuit failed to gain class-action status. Plaintiffs' attorneys claim their work, valued at $62.4 million in time, provides $3 to $6 billion in privacy benefits to consumers. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presides over the case, noted the plaintiffs were not entirely successful but did acknowledge the significance of the privacy reforms. She also questioned some of the billing rates, calling $667 per hour for document review “excessive.” The case is awaiting a final ruling on the fee dispute. Other recent legal fee awards include $107.8 million in a separate Apple settlement and $102 million for attorneys in a stock-lending conspiracy case.Legal Fee Tracker: Google, privacy lawyers clash over $217 million fee bid | ReutersJohnson & Johnson (J&J) has increased its offer to over $8.2 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging that its talc-based baby powder caused cancer, up from a previous $6.5 billion offer. This increase reflects a potential $1.7 billion hike to resolve the litigation, with claimants expected to receive larger payouts and $650 million allocated to cover legal fees. Despite continuing settlement talks, J&J maintains its baby powder is safe and has been marketed appropriately for over 100 years. The company has already secured over 75% support from claimants for a settlement covering cases related to ovarian and other gynecological cancers, which may expedite resolution through bankruptcy courts. Some plaintiffs, however, have yet to agree to the terms. J&J has also settled 95% of claims alleging that its baby powder was contaminated with asbestos, leading to mesothelioma. Analysts expect the additional $1.1 billion increase to be within acceptable limits for investors, contributing to a recent rise in J&J's stock. Total payouts related to the baby powder litigation now exceed $13.4 billion.J&J Lifts Baby Powder Settlement Bid to More Than $8.2 BillionAviation executive Farhad Azima has settled a lawsuit with law firm Dechert and two of its former senior attorneys, Neil Gerrard and David Hughes, over claims they participated in a scheme to hack Azima's emails and use the information in court to harm his business. The terms of the settlement, which was reached in New York, were not disclosed, and Dechert denied any liability in the case. This marks another legal victory for Azima, who previously had British judgments against him thrown out after it was revealed that hackers had been used by Dechert's client, the Gulf emirate of Ras Al Khaimah. Earlier in 2024, Dechert paid Azima £3 million ($3.8 million) to settle a separate case in the U.K. without admitting liability. The firm also settled with journalist Jay Solomon, another hacking victim, last year. Azima continues to pursue legal action against other parties involved in the hacking, including Israeli private investigator Amit Forlit, who faces extradition to the U.S. on related charges.Aviation executive Farhad Azima settles with law firm Dechert over hacking claim | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Franz Liszt.Franz Liszt was one of the most influential and innovative composers and pianists of the 19th century. Known for his breathtaking piano technique and wide-ranging compositions, Liszt's musical legacy includes both virtuosic showpieces and deeply spiritual works. While his early career was defined by dazzling performances across Europe, his later years saw a profound religious transformation. This turn towards spirituality is epitomized by his ordination as a cleric on this date, September 20, 1865, a significant date in his life that influenced his compositional direction.One of Liszt's most introspective and spiritual compositions from this period is Via Crucis, written between 1878 and 1879. It is a moving meditation on the Stations of the Cross, combining minimalistic textures and religious themes. The work strips away the flamboyance of his earlier pieces, reflecting a profound inner contemplation. The opening movement, Vexilla Regis, captures the solemnity and grandeur of Christ's procession to the crucifixion, using austere harmonies and chant-like melodies to evoke deep reflection.As we close this week's program, we'll leave you with Vexilla Regis, the opening theme of Via Crucis. This haunting and reverent piece sets the tone for Liszt's spiritual masterpiece, inviting listeners into a quiet, reflective space. Without further ado, Franz Liszt's Vexilla Regis, from Via Crucis, 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

Human pursuit of body perfection and ideal aesthetics means that we're increasingly resorting to cosmetic interventions to achieve the look we're after. But evidence is mounting that some of these cosmetic and hygiene enhancements might come with a hidden health cost: many have never been subject to rigorous appraisals of the chemicals they contain, meaning that as more people embrace them, some concerning trends are beginning to emerge... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

This Day in Legal History: Chinese Exclusion TreatyOn August 13, 1894, the U.S. Senate ratified the Chinese Exclusion Treaty, marking a significant moment in American immigration history. This treaty was an extension of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was the first significant law restricting immigration into the United States. Under the treaty, China agreed to the exclusion of its laborers from entering the U.S., further cementing the racial and economic discrimination that Chinese immigrants faced. The treaty represented a formal diplomatic agreement between the two nations, wherein China conceded to the exclusion of its citizens in exchange for certain protections for Chinese already residing in America.The Chinese Exclusion Treaty was part of a broader movement in the late 19th century to limit the influx of immigrants, particularly those from Asia, who were seen as economic threats and culturally incompatible by many Americans. The ratification of this treaty reinforced and prolonged the discriminatory practices against Chinese immigrants, contributing to the legal and social marginalization of Chinese communities in the U.S. It wasn't until 1943, during World War II, that these exclusionary policies began to be dismantled, reflecting the deep-seated impact of the treaty and the exclusion laws on American legal and social landscapes.In a recent legal development, a federal judge in California dismissed a consumer lawsuit accusing Google of unlawfully dominating mobile search markets. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence showing how Google's market dominance harmed consumers. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, alleged that Google conspired with Apple to make its search engine the default on iPhones, restricting competition.Although the case was dismissed, Judge Lin indicated that the plaintiffs might have another opportunity to amend their complaint. She referenced a separate ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., which found Google had illegally monopolized the search engine market by paying billions to Apple and other companies for exclusive search engine agreements. This ruling could bolster the plaintiffs' chances if they can provide more concrete evidence of consumer harm in their amended complaint.Despite this setback for the consumers, their attorney, Joseph Alioto, expressed intentions to revise and refile the lawsuit by the court's September 9 deadline. Google has denied the allegations and plans to appeal the D.C. court's decision.Google wins dismissal of US consumer lawsuit over mobile search | ReutersJohnson & Johnson (J&J) and Avon Products Inc. are both embroiled in legal battles over the alleged harmful effects of talc in their products, leading to significant financial and legal repercussions. J&J recently made progress in its efforts to resolve thousands of lawsuits claiming that its talc-based baby powder caused cancer. Over 75% of the plaintiffs have reportedly supported J&J's $6.5 billion settlement plan, which aims to address these claims through a pre-packaged bankruptcy filing. This plan follows J&J's history of legal challenges, including a previous $5 billion payout over similar allegations. Despite this support, J&J still faces hurdles, as its attempts to secure bankruptcy protection have been twice denied in New Jersey courts.Similarly, Avon Products Inc., known for its iconic beauty brand, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware due to the mounting costs of defending against talc-related lawsuits. The company is dealing with 386 individual cases and has already spent $225 million on legal fees and settlements. Avon's financial struggles have led to its bankruptcy filing, as it seeks a permanent solution to the increasing number of lawsuits. The company plans to sell its assets, with Brazil-based Natura & Co. offering to purchase Avon for $125 million and write off $530 million in debt.Both companies' legal strategies highlight the significant impact of talc-related lawsuits on their operations, with J&J seeking a settlement through bankruptcy court and Avon attempting to resolve its liabilities through a similar process.Avon Products Files for Bankruptcy to Wrangle Talc LawsuitsJ&J Gets Plaintiff Backing for $6.5 Billion Baby Powder AccordIn July 2024, OSHA proposed a new rule aimed at enhancing workplace safety by addressing heat-related hazards, which are the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S. The rule, if enacted, would impact businesses with employees exposed to high temperatures, both indoors and outdoors. Key aspects of the rule include requiring employers to implement a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (HIIPP), which would mandate rest breaks, access to shade, drinking water, heat acclimatization procedures, and ongoing heat monitoring.One notable provision is the requirement for employers to provide a paid 15-minute rest break every two hours on days when the heat index reaches 90°F or higher. This has raised questions about how such breaks would interact with the Fair Labor Standards Act, particularly regarding overtime calculations. Additionally, following the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limits agency authority, there may be legal challenges to OSHA's ability to enforce such mandates.The proposed rule has yet to be published in the Federal Register, but once it is, the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback before it is finalized. OSHA has encouraged public participation to ensure the final rule effectively protects workers while being feasible for employers.OSHA Proposes Rule to Regulate Work Heat-Related HazardsIn my column this week, I discuss how applying the marketplace facilitator model, which has improved state sales tax compliance, could similarly enhance federal excise tax collection. Federal excise taxes, particularly on sporting equipment like fishing rods and archery gear, often go uncollected, especially when these items are sold online by foreign merchants. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported that this lack of compliance has resulted in significant revenue loss, funds that are crucial for wildlife conservation efforts.Currently, the responsibility to remit these taxes falls on the consumer, a system that is both confusing and inefficient. To address this, I advocate for legislation that would require online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay to collect and remit these taxes on behalf of consumers. This approach would simplify the process, ensuring more consistent revenue collection and leveling the playing field for domestic sellers who are currently at a disadvantage.Additionally, I propose that the IRS develop a centralized tax calculator accessible to these marketplaces. This tool would automate tax calculations at the point of sale, further reducing administrative burdens and ensuring accurate tax collection. An accompanying information campaign could also educate consumers on their tax obligations and the positive impact of these funds on conservation efforts.To implement these changes effectively, the IRS should consider launching a pilot program, similar to its Direct File initiative, to test the feasibility of this system. This streamlined approach not only promises increased compliance but also ensures that vital conservation projects receive the funding they need to thrive.Streamline Excise Tax on Sporting Equipment to Help Conservation 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

On today's show we cover lots of skin questions including…Does spraying magnesium on your legs help you sleep and relieve nausea?Are Olivada's waterless skincare products, which use pressed olive oil, truly effective and comparable to Botox?Is the new DIY vitamin C serum from Drunk Elephant safe, effective, and likely to be popular among consumers?What are the differences, pros, and cons of Morpheus 8 and Ultherapy for skin tightening?Can cheaper hyaluronic acid products be as effective as more expensive ones?Beauty NewsReef safe sunscreen lawsuitShould you DIY sunscreen?  Talc lawsuit ExtrasSee the IFSCC reef debate hereFive Ways to Ask a question -1. Send us a message through Patreon!2. You can record your question on your smart phone and email to thebeautybrains@gmail.com3. Send it to us via social media (see links below)4. Submit it through the following form - Ask a question5. Leave a voice mail message: 872-216-1856Social media accountson Instagram we're at thebeautybrains2018on Twitter, we're thebeautybrainsAnd we have a Facebook pageValerie's ingredient company - Simply IngredientsPerry's other website - Chemists CornerFollow the  Porch Kitty Krew instagram accountSupport the Show.

This Day in Legal History: Posse Comitatus Act Passed On June 18, 1878, the U.S. Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, a significant piece of legislation that shaped the relationship between the military and civil authorities. The Act made it a felony to use the Army to enforce domestic policies without explicit authorization from Congress or the Constitution. This law emerged from the Reconstruction era's complexities, particularly the federal military's role in enforcing laws in the Southern states post-Civil War. The term "posse comitatus" translates to "power of the county," and the Act aimed to reinforce the principle that civil authorities should maintain law and order without military involvement. The Posse Comitatus Act reflected a commitment to preventing military overreach in civilian matters and preserving democratic governance structures. This principle has influenced various legal and military policies over the years, including modern discussions on the military's role in domestic security. The Act underscores the balance between maintaining national security and protecting civil liberties, a balance that remains a cornerstone of American legal and political thought.Fisker Inc., an electric-vehicle startup, filed for bankruptcy after halting production of its problematic Ocean SUV. The company's filing in Delaware lists assets between $500 million and $1 billion and liabilities between $100 million and $500 million. This bankruptcy protects Fisker from creditors while it plans repayment.Henrik Fisker, known for designing BMW and Aston Martin cars, founded Fisker Inc., his second EV venture to face bankruptcy. His previous company, Fisker Automotive, also went bankrupt in 2013. Fisker Inc. went public in 2020 through a SPAC merger, raising roughly $1 billion and partnering with Magna International Inc. for vehicle manufacturing.Production of the Fisker Ocean SUV began in November 2022 but was plagued by missing features and software bugs. Influential YouTuber Marques Brownlee's negative review in February further damaged the company's reputation. Fisker produced over 10,000 vehicles but delivered fewer than 5,000 to customers. The company tried partnering with franchised dealers but faced significant financial difficulties, warning in February about its uncertain future. Although it secured $150 million from a lender, a potential deal with an automaker fell through. Magna International, a partner, halted further production of the Ocean SUV. Fisker's bankruptcy highlights broader challenges in the EV market, with several other startups also filing for bankruptcy amid slowing sales in the U.S. and Europe.Troubled Electric Vehicle Maker Fisker Files for BankruptcyUnion members at Amazon.com Inc. have voted overwhelmingly to align with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a major U.S. labor organization, in a move that could significantly impact staff contract negotiations. About 98% of the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) members supported this partnership, aimed at securing better jobs and working conditions for Amazon employees.The ALU, which achieved a historic win in 2022 by organizing workers at an Amazon facility in Staten Island, faced setbacks in subsequent elections and internal conflicts. The union struggled to bring Amazon to the negotiating table. However, ALU President Chris Smalls and 15 other officials reached an agreement with Teamsters President Sean O'Brien and his team in Washington. The Teamsters represent approximately 1.3 million people.This collaboration between the ALU and the Teamsters signals a significant step forward in labor organizing efforts at Amazon, potentially increasing pressure on the company to engage in meaningful negotiations with its workers. Amazon did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside normal business hours.Amazon Union Allies With Teamsters in Big Labor AdvanceThe EPA's new limits on PFAS in drinking water are a positive step but more comprehensive regulations are needed to manage the release and disposal of these harmful chemicals. At a recent conference, stakeholders including parents, firefighters, and farmers discussed the need for broader measures to eliminate nonessential PFAS uses and enforce stricter waste management practices.CDC data shows that reducing PFAS in drinking water correlates with lower blood levels of the chemicals in residents, validating the EPA's efforts. However, the current rules do not prevent the release of PFAS into water or apply to private wells, affecting millions of people.Environmental advocates emphasized the necessity of treating PFAS as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA's recent designation of certain PFAS as hazardous under the Superfund law aids cleanup efforts but falls short of comprehensive waste regulation. Proper disposal methods are critical to prevent further contamination, yet data on PFAS waste disposal is limited due to insufficient regulation.Participants called for more stringent discharge permits under the Clean Water Act and quicker implementation of hazardous waste rules. PFAS, widely used in industries like semiconductors and battery production due to their stability and resistance to damage, require robust management to prevent environmental and health risks.Examples of contamination were highlighted, including high PFAS levels from military bases causing serious health issues. The EPA's database on waste transfers shows significant amounts of PFAS-contaminated materials being sent to incinerators and other facilities, underscoring the need for better waste tracking and management.Advocates stress that eliminating unnecessary PFAS uses and implementing strong regulatory measures are essential steps to protect communities and the environment from long-term PFAS contamination.PFAS Drinking Water Limits Praised but More Regulations SoughtIn the ongoing litigation over Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) allegedly cancer-causing baby powders, a new legal battle has emerged over attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs' lawyers accuse J&J of misusing the bankruptcy process to evade liability and are pushing for the crime-fraud exception to force the company to disclose internal communications. This could reveal J&J's strategies to limit liability in around 61,000 talc-related cases. The litigation involves J&J's use of the "Texas Two-Step," where it transfers liabilities to a subsidiary, which then files for bankruptcy. This maneuver has been met with controversy and legal challenges. Plaintiffs' attorneys argue that J&J's actions are fraudulent attempts to avoid liability and are calling for these communications to be made public to bolster their case.In a recent development, the plaintiffs are also seeking to disqualify some lawyers representing J&J and to prevent the company from proceeding with an $11 billion global settlement plan. This settlement, which requires approval from 75% of the plaintiffs, has faced opposition from some plaintiffs' firms.Despite J&J's efforts to resolve the litigation, the plaintiffs' legal team argues that more needs to be done to ensure justice for those affected by the contaminated talc products. They are also challenging J&J's use of bankruptcy as a tactic to force settlements and are pushing for the court to invalidate J&J's attorney-client privilege in this context. The outcome of this legal battle could significantly impact the strategies used in large-scale product liability cases, particularly those involving mass torts and bankruptcy.J&J's Talc Litigation Saga Gets Attorney-Client Privilege TwistThe IRS should adopt a remote-first work model to attract top talent and enhance operational efficiency. The COVID-19 pandemic proved that remote work is not only viable but also desirable for many employees, particularly in the tech sector. As the IRS continues to modernize with advanced technologies like AI and machine learning, it needs to recruit top-tier tech talent. Offering remote work can help attract this talent by allowing employees to work from anywhere, increasing job satisfaction and expanding the pool of potential applicants. The Treasury Department has found that job postings highlighting flexible working arrangements attract more applicants. Additionally, the IRS can save on overhead costs by reducing its physical office footprint, which remains significant despite many employees working remotely part-time. A remote-first approach would also help the IRS compete with private sector tech firms, which have successfully used remote work to attract employees despite offering lower salaries. This flexibility would enable the IRS to draw a diverse workforce, fostering a variety of perspectives and ideas. Existing policies limiting remote work to within 200 miles of an office need reform to maximize employee flexibility. Security is a critical concern, given the sensitive nature of taxpayer information the IRS handles. However, research indicates remote workers are often more aware of cybersecurity practices. To support a remote-first model, the IRS would need to invest in tech infrastructure and rework management and accountability measures to focus on outcomes rather than hours worked. Embracing remote work is essential for the IRS to continue modernizing and improving taxpayer interactions.IRS Should Embrace Remote-First Culture to Recruit Top Talent 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

Join us each week as we do a quick review of three compelling stories from the pharma world — one good, one bad and one ugly. Up this week:  The good — FDA AdComm backs Eli Lilly Alzheimer's drug The bad — Pfizer gene therapy fails phase 3 Duchenne trial The ugly — Talc plaintiffs seek restraining order on J&J bankruptcy tactic

Cedar Creek Cowgirls owned by Michelle Bilbrey and her husband Jim is a makeup company like you've never seen before. The Bilbrey family runs a cow-calf stocker operation in Tennessee and have a cutting horse training and breeding operation. Makeup with a western twist is their specialty and all of the items in their collections are named after notable horses in the cutting industry.  "I know it takes a durable product to last all day in the working pen. That is why I started this journey, combined with my love to boost other Cowgirls' confidence and welcome new Cowgirls to our world. I want to help give you the confidence you need to conquer anything. Whether you're on the ranch, in the arena, or on a night out our products are gentle enough for the smallest cowgirl but made to last for the toughest," says Bilbrey. Michelle talks about her "why" for creating Cedar Creek Cowgirls and how confidence and color go hand in hand.  Cedar Creek Cowgirls products are made to give cowgirls in all walks of life the boost they need to conquer whatever comes their way! "Whether you're introducing your daughter to the world of makeup or looking for a product that is long lasting and easy to blend, Cedar Creek Cowgirls™has got you covered. So why settle for less when you can have the best of both worlds? Try our long-lasting, Talc free cosmetics today and see the difference for yourself!" Jordan Jo and Michelle talk about all things beauty, breakaway roping and mind set. Oh and there's even a special surprise for breakaway ropers in this episode, so get In The LOOP!in the LOOP Podcast hosted by Jordan Jo Hollabaugh, is inspired by the western culture and breakaway roping lifestyle. This podcast highlights the raw, real, truth behind the box of the breakaway roping industry. Bringing you behind the scenes stories of what real life looks like everyday from; breakaway ropers, cowgirls, cowboys, producers, leaders, trailblazers, and the like, all sharing stories of the western culture and lifestyle that they live daily. In The LOOP Podcast & Fabrizio Marketing LLC are not responsible for any losses, damages, or liabilities that may arise from the use of this podcast. Get in the LOOP Podcast with Jordan Jo Get the Newsletter at | www.inthelooprodeo.com/ Like us on Facebook | www.facebook.com/inthelooppodcast.jordanjo Tag us on Instagram | www.instagram.com/inthelooppodcast.jordanjo Follow us on TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@jordanjo.hollabaugh Watch more on our Youtube Channel Watch on Youtube @ JordanJoHollabaugh ...

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. VirginiaOn June 12, 1967, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, were married in Washington, D.C., in 1958 but were arrested upon their return to Virginia for violating the state's anti-miscegenation laws. The Lovings were convicted and sentenced to a year in prison, with the sentence suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. Challenging their conviction, the Lovings argued that Virginia's laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, agreed with the Lovings. The Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes were rooted in racial discrimination and served no legitimate purpose other than to maintain racial segregation. This decision effectively invalidated similar laws in 15 other states, affirming that marriage is a basic civil right that cannot be restricted by racial classifications. The Loving v. Virginia decision was a significant step forward in the civil rights movement, reinforcing the principle that all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law.Paul Weiss has been aggressively recruiting top-tier mergers and acquisitions and private equity partners, hiring over 20 from prominent firms such as Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins. This hiring spree, focused mainly in London and New York, reflects a broader trend of escalating compensation for elite lawyers, with some earning over $20 million annually. To fund these high-profile hires, Paul Weiss revamped its partner pay system and adopted a "black box" approach, where pay details are kept confidential among partners. The firm also introduced a new tier of non-equity partners to retain senior attorneys without sharing profits.This strategy mirrors moves by other top firms like Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Davis Polk & Wardwell, which have adjusted their compensation structures to remain competitive. Paul Weiss's London office has notably expanded, recruiting high-profile partners from Kirkland to build a comprehensive practice there. The firm's longstanding relationship with Apollo Global Management continues to bolster its M&A and private equity profile. Despite lagging behind top deal advisors like Kirkland & Ellis and Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, Paul Weiss's aggressive hiring positions it well for future market share gains.The firm's recruitment efforts underscore the importance of attracting top legal talent to handle complex and lucrative deals, reflecting a fiercely competitive legal market.Paul Weiss Hiring Binge Shows Big Law's Dealmaker Recruiting WarPower grid technologies (GETs) have gained traction recently as a way to integrate more renewable energy and meet increasing power demands without building new transmission lines. Historically, US electric utilities preferred constructing new lines because they offer guaranteed returns and are seen as less risky, despite the high consumer costs and long timelines associated with them. However, grid congestion in 2022 raised consumer bills by nearly $21 billion, pushing utilities to consider GETs. These technologies optimize existing infrastructure, offering significant cost savings and increased grid capacity.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's new rule requires regional grid planners to consider using GETs. Additionally, a White House meeting led to a federal-state initiative involving 21 states to upgrade 100,000 miles of transmission lines in five years. Studies indicate that implementing GETs could save billions annually and facilitate the connection of more clean energy projects.Despite their benefits, GETs face challenges due to the traditional utility business model that favors large capital investments. Some states like Minnesota and Virginia are now mandating GETs in resource planning and offering incentives. Vermont Electric Power Co. and AES Corp. are examples of utilities testing GETs, such as dynamic line ratings and valve technology, to improve efficiency and reliability. As utilities and technology providers collaborate more, the industry aims to reduce the need for new transmission lines and overcome the associated regulatory and logistical hurdles.Grid Upgrades Gain Favor to Meet Power Demands of AI, Clean TechOn June 11, 2024, Elon Musk moved to dismiss his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. The lawsuit, filed in February, accused OpenAI of deviating from its original mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. Musk's attorneys did not provide a reason for the dismissal, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Musk the option to refile later.Musk co-founded OpenAI but has since expressed dissatisfaction with its direction, particularly its focus on profitability following substantial investments from Microsoft. The lawsuit sought to compel OpenAI to release its research and technology to the public and prevent its use for financial gain.OpenAI countered that Musk's claims were baseless and motivated by his desire to compete with OpenAI through his own AI venture, xAI, which recently raised $6 billion in funding. The court was scheduled to hear OpenAI's motion to dismiss the case the day after Musk's withdrawal. Neither OpenAI nor Musk's legal representatives commented on the latest development.Elon Musk withdraws lawsuit against OpenAI | ReutersAdobe faced significant backlash over updates to its terms of use, which users feared allowed the company to seize intellectual property and use data to train AI models. The controversy highlighted the need for clear communication of legal terms, especially in the context of evolving technologies like generative AI. In response, Adobe pledged to revise its terms, explicitly stating it won't train AI models on cloud content, with new terms set to be issued on June 18.The uproar began after Adobe's February update, which included provisions for automated and manual review of user content to screen for illegal material. Users, notified in May, expressed concerns on social media, fearing their confidential content could be exploited. Adobe's general counsel, Dana Rao, emphasized that the language had long been part of Adobe's agreements and was essential for practical tasks like uploading content to the cloud.Industry experts noted that such terms are common among cloud service providers but acknowledged the heightened sensitivity among creatives towards potential misuse of their work for AI. Adobe's commitment to clearer, user-friendly legal terms aims to rebuild trust, recognizing the unique and personal relationship users have with its products. The incident underscores the importance of transparent communication and the need for companies to preemptively address user concerns in the AI era.Adobe Responds to AI Fears With Plans For Updated Legal TermsJohnson & Johnson has agreed to a $700 million settlement with 42 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., resolving an investigation into the marketing of its talc-based products, which were allegedly linked to cancer. The settlement, announced on June 11, 2024, addresses accusations that J&J misled consumers about the safety of its talc products. While J&J did not admit any wrongdoing, it continues to assert that its products are safe and asbestos-free.This settlement, led by Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, marks a significant step in consumer product safety, according to Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody. Despite the settlement, J&J still faces tens of thousands of lawsuits related to its talc products, primarily from women with ovarian cancer and some with mesothelioma. As of March 31, approximately 61,490 individuals were suing the company.J&J ceased the global sale of talc-based baby powder last year, opting for corn starch instead. The company has made several attempts to resolve the litigation, including two failed efforts to use bankruptcy to manage its talc liabilities. On May 1, J&J proposed a $6.48 billion settlement to resolve most of the litigation through a third bankruptcy filing and has allocated an $11 billion reserve for talc liabilities. Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, stated that the company is pursuing various strategies to achieve a comprehensive resolution of the litigation.Johnson & Johnson reaches $700 million talc settlement with US states | 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

DFW airport raises prices, again… Harvey will be retried… Talc settlement?... Schneider sues for defamation… chewingthefat@theblaze.com Celebrity plastic surgery searches… Who Died Today: Richard Tandy 76 / Paul Auster 77 / Joshua Dean 45… Goldblum says row your own boat… No need to bring the snake… Brian Cox – theater is the one true church… Joke of the Day… Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Equipment Manager Andy Barry returns to the Bench for this Eric Ede-hosted game. In it we learn about hyphenated Super Bowl MVP cornerback Something-1973, that friend of the pod Neal Fischer is a perv (sorry Neal), that for the first time both teams were glad not to know the Missing Link theme, that Father Time comes for everyone but not Skip Bayless...yet, and that Josh and Eric provide everyone with a Joint Health Minute. And don't forget that after this podcast ends, go listen to the Pivotal Film podcast. #talc #jj #superbowl #mvp #1973 #fathertime #skipbayless #jointhealthminute #pivotalfilm #podcast https://www.patreon.com/benchwarmerstp https://www.facebook.com/benchwarmerstp https://www.twitter.com/benchwarmerstp https://www.instagram.com/benchwarmerstp/ https://www.teepublic.com/stores/benchwarmers-trivia-podcast

#021 In this episode, I interview Jane the Chemist, a cosmetic chemist known for her expertise in skincare and haircare formulation. We discuss the efficacy and safety of skincare products, the role of cosmetic chemists in the beauty industry, and the importance of understanding ingredient lists. Jane provides insights into the misconceptions surrounding ingredients, such as the demonization of certain "chemicals" and the fear of preservatives. She also shares her thoughts on popular ingredients like retinoids, sulfates, silicones, and hyaluronic acid. We chat comedogenicity, and the safety of Talc, Self Tanners and Lash Serums!Jane's Favorites:Tatcha | Indigo Overnight Repair Mask: https://go.shopmy.us/p-3547026Color Wow | Dream Coat Supernatural Spray: https://go.shopmy.us/p-3044040K18 | Peptide Prep Detox Shampoo: https://go.shopmy.us/p-3146329Olaplex | No 6: https://go.shopmy.us/p-3547070https://www.instagram.com/janethechemist/To watch the video version of this episode head to the Youtube page!Need a full skincare overhaul? Check out our Comprehensive Skincare Routine Digital GuideConnect with me:Amy's Instagramwww.skinthusiast.com