1. Facebook Settles Lawsuit Over Sponsored Stories for $10 Million
By: Associated Press
The Washington Post
6/17/12
Facebook pays $10 million to settle lawsuit over “sponsored stories” ads. Some Facebook users sued, saying that Facebook used their images for commercial activity. Facebook argued that the plaintiffs did not show they were hurt by the practice. Settlement still needs to be approved by a judge. The $10 million will be given to charity.
2. Facebook Settles ‘Sponsored Stories’ Lawsuit for $10 Million
By: Andrew Chow
Reuters
6/18/12
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-decided-idUS212200148520120618
Five Facebook users sued for using their names and images in “sponsored story” advertisements without their consent. Their federal lawsuit claims that this violates California’s “right to publicity” law. Mark Zuckerberg called the method the “Holy Grail” of advertising. COO Sheryl Sandberg stated that the ads are worth two to three times the value of non-endorsed ads on Facebook. Facebook tried to dismissbut a federal judge allowed it to proceed. Under California’s “right of publicity” law, a person or entity that knowingly uses another person’s name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes without consent can be held liable for damages. Plaintiff’s originally wanted suit to become a class action. The settlement will go to an undetermined charity. A legal principle known as cy pres allows funds to go to a charity when payments to the plaintiffs are not feasible.
3. Judges Consider Whether NYC is Under ‘Contract’ to Keep Rent Subsidies
By: Joel Stashenko
New York Law Journal
5/30/12
Whether NYC has an obligation to continue rental subsidies it provides for thousands of once-homeless people is being debated this week at the state Court of Appeals. NYC announced in 2011 that it would stop providing subsidies under its four-year-old Advantage program. Under said program some 16,000 formerly homeless families and individuals—many domestic violence victims—received up to $1k in monthly rent subsidies for as many as 24 months. Aim of the program was to clear residents from homeless shelters and to help them find permanent housing. City rescinded the benefit explaining that it could no longer afford the program after the state and federal governments had withdrawn funding. Class action suit argues that unexpired agreements signed between the city, tenants, and landlords amounted to legally enforceable contracts that obligate the city to continue the rent subsidies. Lower courts disagreed saying the city was not required to continue the program. Appellate Division (1st Dept) held that the “trappings” of the language of the contracts did not bind the city to keep it going.
4. Panel Revives Immigrant’s Post-Conviction Bid
By Andrew Keshner
New York Law Journal
6/7/12
A trial court erred in summarily rejecting a post-conviction challenge from an immigrant facing deportation, a Brooklyn appeals court ruled, finding the defendant’s attempt to avoid removal would be a “rational” reason to refuse a plea deal. Claudio Picca, a lawful permanent resident facing deportation to Italy, argued that he had been given ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial lawyer’s failure to advise him of the immigration consequences in taking a 2001 plea deal for selling drugs. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S Ct 1473 (2010), that an attorney’s failure to advise clients of immigration consequences of plea deals was constitutionally deficient.”The rationality standard” inPadilla “does not allow the courts to substitute their judgment for that of the defendant,” Skelos wrote. “In applying that standard, we do not determine whether a decision to reject a plea of guilty was the best choice, but only whether it is a rational one.”
5. High Court to Decide if ‘Padilla’ Is Retroactive
By The Associated Press
The New York Law Journal
5/1/12
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to apply retroactively Padilla v. Kentucky, its 2010 decision that immigrants have a right to be told that a guilty plea could lead to their deportation. The court agreed to hear an appeal from Roselva Chaidez, who was in the process of being deported when the court decidedPadilla. Chaidez pleaded guilty to fraud in 2004 after falsely claiming to be a passenger in a car wreck. Authorities started deportation procedures while she was applying for U.S. citizenship in 2007. Her lawyer never told her that her fraud conviction may lead to her deportation. Chaidez says she should be able to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision that cemented that principle. Justices will hear arguments in the fall.
6. Legality of Big Soda Ban Stirs Debate
By Samantha Gross
The New York Law Journal
6/18/12
Beyond businesses and industry groups, in theory any individual affected by the ban could bring a legal challenge. But it wouldn’t be enough to simply claim that the ban infringes on personal freedom, said Roderick Hills, a New York University law professor specializing in local government law and New York City. “The court has never struck down a health measure that was designed to protect people from unsafe diets or unsafe foods,” he said. Whether the ban is on rat poison or on sugar, government is allowed to protect people from themselves, he said. Robert Bookman, of the regulatory law firm Pesetsky and Bookman, who has represented the New York Restaurant Association, predicted opponents will argue that the city Health Department is overstepping its authority and infringing on federal or state power. “We have one federal Food and Drug Administration that determines what products are legal or not legal, or safe for consumption or not safe for consumption,” he said. “We cannot have 30,000 or so localities around the country being their own FDAs” without killing the national food industry. Robert Kelner, who is a Law Journal columnist, said he would “would be surprised if several years from now this law is in effect,” suggesting that it would not “stand up” to either legislative or judicial scrutiny. In a statement, Health Department spokeswoman Alexandra Waldhorn said the Board of Health’s responsibilities include “the control of chronic disease and food service establishments.” She added: “Limiting the portion size of sugary beverages served at New York City restaurants is a valid exercise of these authorities.” Bennett Gershman, a constitutional law professor at Pace University, argued the ban runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause.
7. Judge Rejects ‘Unorthodox’ Plea to Permit Service by Facebook
By Mark Hamblett
New York Law Journal
6/12/12
A federal judge has rejected using Facebook as an alternative method of serving process on a party in a lawsuit who has been hard to find. Southern District Judge John Keenan told Chase Bank it could not use the social media website to track down and serve a woman with a history of providing fake or out-of-date addresses and who allegedly obtained a credit card in her mother’s name and then made numerous purchases. N.Y. CPLR § 308(5) allows a court to direct another method of service where service by the traditional methods under § 308 are “impracticable.” Judge said Chase had set forth no facts that would “give the Court a degree of certainty that the Facebook profile its investigator located is in fact maintained by Nicole or that the email address listed on the Facebook profile is operational and accessed by Nicole.”
8. City Bar Issues Opinion on Social Media Research
By Brendan Pierson
The New York Law Journal
6/5/12
Attorneys can use social media to learn about potential jurors as long as they do not communicate with them, according to a new ethics opinion by the New York City Bar. “Just as the Internet and social media appear to facilitate juror misconduct, the same tools have expanded an attorney’s ability to conduct research on potential and sitting jurors, and clients now often expect that attorneys will conduct such research,” the opinion said.
9. ‘Net Lease’ Authorizes Eviction of Arts Group, Panel Concludes
By Brendan Pierson
The New York Law Journal
5/18/12
A developer may begin an eviction proceeding against an arts non-profit from a run-down building on Manhattan’s West Side, a state appellate court ruled. The decision marks the latest twist in a decade-long dispute between the Women’s Interart Center and New York City officials over who will control the building. The building is owned by the city, not by the developer, Clinton Housing Development Fund Corp. However, Clinton Housing has a contract with the city called a “net lease,” under which it manages and maintains the building. The Women’s Interart Center maintains that Clinton Housing’s contract is not a lease at all, but only a management agreement, and that the developer therefore does not have possession of the building and has no standing to evict the arts group. A unanimous decision reversing a ruling by the Supreme Court holds that the contract is in fact a lease. The critical question in determining the existence of a lease establishing a landlord-tenant relationship is whether exclusive control of the premises has passed to the tenant. The terms of the lease make clear that Clinton “had exclusive control and possession of the leased premises,” the judge wrote.
Follow Us!