|

Sex traffickers are as capable as the rest of us of using technology for their businesses, including social media. But what if we could prevent them from using social media for their sex trafficking?

Annie McAdams is a personal injury attorney based out of Houston, TX who has sued insurance companies, drunk drivers, restaurants, and real estate developers. Now she’s taking on Facebook and other major tech companies.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 says internet companies are not responsible for what their users post, but according to McAdams, separate laws should exist that require Facebook and other tech companies to warn users about pimps using Facebook and Instagram to lure minors into sex work and that they should do more to foil the pimps in those attempts.

The logic McAdams uses is that if someone sells a lawnmower to someone else, and in the course of using that lawnmower a blade flies off and injures someone, the law requires the seller to take responsibility for the accident, to warn users, and to take action to prevent it from happening again. But those same, basic protections don’t apply to sex trafficking over the internet. Continue reading ›

|

A recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit federal court of appeals adds another arrow to class action defendants’ quiver by making it more difficult for plaintiffs to establish standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The appellate court ruled that a single text message did not cause sufficient harm to sue in federal court.

In Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019), the plaintiff, John Salcedo, received a single form text message from his former attorney offering a discount on the attorney’s services. After receiving the message, Salcedo filed suit in the district court alleging that the text message violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Salcedo sought to prosecute the suit on behalf of a putative class of the attorney’s former clients who also received unsolicited text messages from the attorney in the past four years. He alleged that the text message caused him to “waste his time answering or otherwise addressing the message” and infringed upon his “right to enjoy the full utility of his cellular device” and sought statutory penalties of $500 to $1,500 for each text message as damages.

After the defendant unsuccessfully moved to have the case dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, the district court permitted the defendant to file an interlocutory appeal recognizing that the question of standing “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion.” The three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit did not buy the plaintiff’s standing arguments.

In a detailed opinion, the panel examined its own precedent, the legislative history of the TCPA, and the history of Article III’s standing requirement. Any discussion of standing would not be complete without an examination of the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins. At the conclusion of this examination, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations about a single text message failed to state a “concrete injury-in-fact” necessary for federal jurisdiction.

Continue reading ›

|

In a putative class action recently filed in a Florida federal district court against fast-food chain Burger King, the tagline for the Impossible Whopper of “100% Whopper, 0% Beef” is misleading. According to the plaintiff, Philip Williams, although Burger King advertises the Impossible Whopper as being a meat-free option, it is contaminated by meat by-product because it gets cooked on the same grill as other meat products.

The lawsuit accuses Burger King of “false and misleading business practices” and benefiting monetarily from claiming to offer customers a vegan option that in reality is not actually vegan. The plaintiff seeks to represent himself and a class of other vegans who ordered the Impossible Whopper from Burger King. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for all class members who bought the Impossible Whopper, as well as the imposition of an injunction requiring Burger King to “plainly disclose” that it uses the same grill to cook both the Impossible Whopper and meat burgers.

According to the complaint, the Burger King that the plaintiff visited did not have signage at the drive-thru indicating that the plant-based burger would be cooked on the same grill as meat. The Burger King website notes that “a non-broiler method of preparation is available upon request,” for customers ordering the Impossible Whopper. Despite noting this on its website, the plaintiff alleges that no one told him that the Impossible Whopper was cooked on the same grill as the meat burgers and that if he had known this fact, he would not have ordered it. The suit further claims that other vegans would not have purchased the Impossible Whopper either if they had known. The lawsuit cites similar complaints made by several other consumers online about the burger chain’s preparation of the Impossible Whopper. The complaint requests an order requiring Burger King to return all the profits it made from selling the meat-free alternative, including the money that Mr. Williams paid. Continue reading ›

|

Labor unions are supposed to negotiate with employers on behalf of the workers, but according to a recent lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler, the officials of the United Auto Workers union (UAW) allegedly exploited their position to line their own pockets, rather than negotiate better terms for their workers. According to the lawsuit, filed by General Motors, Fiat Chrysler allegedly bribed UAW officials in order to get more favorable rates than their competitors.

Gary Jones, the former president of the UAW, has not been charged by the Justice Department, but he came under scrutiny when federal prosecutors found that union officers from a regional office Jones used to lead had charged more than $1 million in personal spending, including luxury travel. Jones took a leave of absence in November after the FBI raided his home in August and has since resigned as president of the UAW while the union was working to force him out of that position.

Several officers of the UAW and three people who used to work as executives for Fiat Chrysler have all pleaded guilty in cases that revealed that both the auto company and the union siphoned off millions of dollars (some of which was intended for a training center) for personal luxuries, including extravagant travel and meals. Continue reading ›

|

A federal judge for the Northern District of Illinois has given final approval to three major cruise lines and a travel agency of a $12.5 million class-action settlement. The defendants were accused of bombarding consumers nationwide with prerecorded telemarketing calls promoting cruise trips without their consent.

Defendants Carnival Corporation, Royal Caribbean Cruises Limited, Norwegian Cruise Lines Limited, and Resort Marketing Group, the travel agency that allegedly operated the auto-dialing system, contributed to the settlement fund together. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ use of unsolicited robocalls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

More than 270,000 valid claims were filed following the initial approval of the settlement in July 2017. According to documents filed in support of the settlement, a total 274,851 valid claims were filed. According to Judge Andrea R. Wood, the judge overseeing the case, this works out to roughly $22 per claim. Continue reading ›

|

Politics is an ugly business and campaigns are often littered with smears and negative advertisements. For Joseph J. Tirio, the race for McHenry County Clerk got particularly ugly and resulted in the publishing of three allegedly defamatory flyers in opposition to Tirio’s candidacy leading up to the 2018 primary election.

The first flyer depicted Tirio as a burglar wearing a mask and gloves and alleged that “Crooked Joe Tirio” had a “secret taxpayer-funded slush fund” and that he was “just another crooked politician.” The back of the flyer stated, in part, that Tirio allegedly used the slush fund to hire four employees and pay for a personal vacation to New Mexico.

In the second flyer, Tirio was again depicted wearing a burglar mask and gloves. It went on to allege that “crooked Joe Tirio” and “his Chicago style politics” were “destroying the GOP with Chicago style sleaze.” The flyer contained a number of allegedly defamatory statements including “Slush fund,” “Taxpayer-funded vacations,” and “Moneyman for the racist campaigns of Brettman & Schuster,” and that “Tirio is the moneyman behind the campaign of RACISM & HATE.” Continue reading ›

|

In early 2017, the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), 15 U.S.C. §45b, took effect. With the passage of this law, the Federal Trade Commission has begun using the CRFA to crack down on businesses that use non-disparagement provisions in consumer contracts to attempt to prevent consumers from posting negative reviews in order to make a product seem more favorable than it really is. To date the FTC has launched numerous investigations into suspected violations of the CRFA and has brought and settled a handful of administrative actions against companies.

The CRFA is meant to protect consumers’ ability to share their honest opinions about a business’s products, services, or conduct in any forum, including in online reviews and via social media. According to the FTC the CRFA:

makes provisions of form contracts between sellers and individual consumers void from inception if the provisions: (1) prohibit or restrict individuals from reviewing sellers’ goods, services, or conduct; (2) impose penalties or fees on individuals for such reviews; or (3) require individuals to transfer intellectual property rights in such reviews. The Act also bars sellers from offering form contracts with such provisions. The Act contains certain exceptions, including for contract provisions that bar the submission of confidential, private, or unlawful information. Continue reading ›

|

Real product reviews are a great tool for helping consumers make better, informed decisions. Many of these reviews come from real customers who really used the product. Other reviews, however—particularly those on websites, in blogs, and on social media—are not from legitimate customers but come from companies that use fake reviews to paint a pretty picture of their products and boost their bottom line.

Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) set its sights on a cosmetic company accused of posting fake consumer reviews of its own products online. According to a leaked internal email, the CEO of the company allegedly pressured employees to post positive reviews of new products that the company had recently released and even provided detailed instructions regarding what the employees should write about the product in reviews as well as how to avoid having the reviews traced back to the company’s IP address by using a VPN. Continue reading ›

|

A federal judge reversed himself and reinstated part of a defamation lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann against The Washington Post. The lawsuit alleged that the newspaper libeled the teen in its coverage of his encounter with a Native American activist at the Lincoln Memorial earlier this year.

The federal judge assigned to the case, Judge William O. Bertelsman, originally dismissed the suit back in July on First Amendment grounds. After a request for reconsideration, the Judge reversed himself saying that the libel suit could go forward while narrowing the scope of the suit from 33 published statements to three.

As we previously wrote, the suit alleged that the paper “targeted and bullied” the 16-year-old in articles it published following in the aftermath of an incident involving Nathan Phillips, a Native American advocate, and the teen who was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. The incident occurred while the teen was on a school trip with classmates from Covington Catholic High School to the National Mall where they encountered Phillips on the memorial’s steps. The original complaint sought $250 million in damages.

The specifics of what occurred between Phillips and the students was disputed and media coverage of the encounter, including by The Washington Post, sparked heated debate around the country. In his July opinion, Judge Bertelsman accepted Sandmann’s version of the encounter as is required when ruling on a motion to dismiss. Despite accepting the plaintiff’s description of the encounter, the judge ruled that none of the 33 statements identified in the complaint were defamatory and most constituted constitutionally protected opinion.

Based on a proposed First Amended Complaint filed in connection with the motion to reconsider, Judge Bertelsman reconsidered his previous ruling and granted the plaintiff the ability to seek discovery from The Washington Post on three of 33 allegedly libelous statements reported by the paper. In a five-page written order, the judge identified the three allegedly defamatory statements identified in the amended complaint being reinstated, specifically statements that Sandmann had “blocked” Phillips as he ascended the stairs of the Lincoln Memorial and “would not allow him to retreat.” “Suffice to say that the Court has given this matter careful review and concludes that ‘justice requires’ that discovery be had regarding these statements and their context,” the judge explained.

The order also found that the proposed amended complaint offered by Sandmann beefed up and clarified its allegations concerning actual malice on the part of The Washington Post. “The Court also notes that the proposed First Amended Complaint makes specific allegations concerning the state of mind of Phillips, the principal source of these statements,” the court wrote. “It alleges in greater detail than the original complaint that Phillips deliberately lied concerning the events at issue, and that he had an unsavory reputation which, but for the defendant’s negligence or malice, would have alerted defendant to this fact.” Continue reading ›

|

Earlier this year, a federal grand jury indicted pioneer of self-driving car technology and serial entrepreneur, Anthony Levandowski, with trade secret theft. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California charged Levandowski with 33 counts of theft and attempted theft of trade secrets from Google under 18 U.S.C. § 1832 of the Economic Espionage Act (EEA).

According to the indictment, Levandowski allegedly downloaded more than 14,000 files containing crucial information about Google’s autonomous-vehicle research before leaving the company in 2016. The indictment also alleges that Levandowski then made an unauthorized transfer of the files to his personal laptop. Some of the files that Levandowski allegedly took from Google included private schematics for proprietary circuit boards and designs for light sensor technology, known as Lidar, which is used in self-driving cars.

Levandowski joined Uber in 2016 after leaving Google when Uber bought his new self-driving trucking start-up, “Otto.” Levandowski has repeatedly asserted that he never disclosed the download, nor made use of the information while he was at Uber. If convicted, Levandowski faces a maximum sentence of 10 years and a fine of $250,000, plus restitution, for each violation, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Levandowski’s attorneys issued a statement on his behalf stating he is innocent of the charges.

“He didn’t steal anything, from anyone,” the statement reads. “This case rehashes claims already discredited in a civil case that settled more than a year and a half ago. The downloads at issue occurred while Anthony was still working at Google—when he and his team were authorized to use the information. None of these supposedly secret files ever went to Uber or to any other company.” Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design