Posted by Matthew Carden.

Uber over the past few years has begun to take over for many taxis in many cities across the United States. In Newark, “There’s a war on wheels brewing outside the city’s two largest transit hubs.” This ordinance is referring to both Penn Station and the airport, where thousands of people travel to and from every day. In early January, Evans Anyanwu warned Uber that they were violating a city ordinance because the Uber cars are unlicensed taxis. Because of this, the City has said that they began towing cars on February 22 with no sign of ending the ban. The City was, “pushed largely by unions and other taxicab organization who say their profits have been cut by as much as 80 percent.” The taxi drivers had taken this into their own hands and were most likely the reason that an ordinance like this was put in place, because in January, they protested for regulation outside of Newark Airport.

Uber has not let this ban stop them from continuing their service throughout the Newark area. The article states that, “Uber, however, appears undeterred.” Instead of encouraging their drivers to stop, they have encouraged them to continue taking these routes. With Uber encouraging this practice, they may see their costs go up as they have promised to reimburse the drivers for anything that is to happen because of this ban. Uber in their statement in response to this said, “’Instead of trying to restrict competition and consumer choice, Newark should be welcoming the thousands of drivers who use Uber to earn income and support their families.’”

This situation could turn out to be either good or bad for Uber, but I believe the Newark is in the wrong here. The first question that comes to my mind when I read it is, how do they know it is an Uber? This is a case that Uber can most definitely win because this is similar to a case in New York verse the yellow cabs–and they won that.

Matthew is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Spencer Sink.

Volkswagen is currently in the process of being sued for deliberately manufacturing cars that essentially cheat the emissions test. This case is somewhat similar to the cases with Toyota and General Motors, as Volkswagen will most definitely be forced to compensate the current vehicle owners for selling faulty products. However, we will most likely see even higher punitive damages being paid in the Volkswagen case because of the fact that Volkswagen admitted to intentionally cheating on emissions. The Toyota and General Motors cases were both honest mistakes made by the companies.

Volkswagen was given a short amount of time to attempt to find a way to mechanically fix the issue in the cars, and make them environmentally acceptable. However, even if they did fix the emissions, either the fuel efficiency or the overall vehicle performance would change, forcing Volkswagen to compensate owners for the loss in value.

What Volkswagen did was completely wrong, and must be punished accordingly. Deliberately cheating the emissions tests, and creating excess pollution, is unacceptable. If it were up to me, I would force Volkswagen to pay high punitive damages to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. Volkswagen owners should be compensated accordingly for being blindly brought into this situation.

Spencer is a business law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Caleb Sink.

A Florida jury recently found Gawker Media responsible for $25 million in punitive damages for publishing a sex tape of Hulk Hogan. Hogan, a former professional wrestler claimed he did not know he was being taped. $15 million of was awarded against Gawker Media and the remaining $10 million will be charged against Nick Denton the owner. These punitive damages come in addition to the $115 million the jury imposed last week.

Hogan’s lawyers wanted to add punitive damages despite Gawker Media’s lawyer’s claims that the $115 million was “debilitating” enough for the company. Michael Sullivan stated, “The $115 million judgment is punishment enough and is already far beyond their means.” The company is only worth $83 million buy itself and Nick Denton has a total of $121 million.

In my opinion Gawker Media was in the wrong completely and definitely got what it deserved. However, considering the company is only worth $83 million, I feel as if the punitive damages on top of the $115 million were irrelevant, as it looks as if the company is already going to be depleted of all of its assets anyways.

Gawker Media expects the case to be overturned by an appeals court.

Caleb is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Spencer Sink.

Recently, Arthur Valdez, a former employee of Amazon.com, was hired to work for Target as their chief supply chain and logistics officer–but there may be a problem. The problem is that he could be forced to disclose classified information about Amazon.com and how they run their business. Because of this, Amazon.com sued Valdez for an unspecified amount of money on the grounds of the “non-compete clause” in his employment contract. The non-compete clause states that one cannot work for a rival company of his previous employer until 18 months have passed.  Valdez was hired before the required 18 months had passed.

This is a huge case for Amazon.com, as Target has recently been trying to increase sales in their online store. Valdez, having worked with Amazon.com for 16 years, could most definitely share all of the secrets to success with Target, which would negatively affect the business of Amazon.com. Target is defending Valdez by saying that they have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the secrets of Amazon.com are not disclosed to them.

It is going to be interesting to see what happens with this case. If I had to make a prediction, I would say that Amazon.com will win this case, as I feel that Target has no real evidence supporting their statement that Valdez has not disclosed any information to them.

Spencer is a business law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Robert Santos.

Usually when people go on vacation, they come home with a souvenir of some sort such as a hat or refrigerator magnet. Lauren Guerra will be going home with a little more than a silly souvenir–in fact she will be going home with 3.5 million dollars. This will be a trip to remember for Guerra but not in the way one would want. Although Guerra will be going home a very rich woman, the damage that has been done is something that all the money in the world couldn’t fix.

On October 27, 2013, Lauren Guerra was one of the many passengers on the Star Line Tours of Hollywood bus giving a tour to passengers of Hollywood. These buses are popular and very well known for they give tours of the famous locations in California, and are known for the unique design of not having a roof but a open deck level for tourists to have a better view of sites and take better pictures. Unfortunately this would be Guerra’s biggest regret, for while aboard one of these buses, a tree branch flew into her face leaving her permanently disfigured. She immediately sued the company after hearing of another death on the same type of bus under the same company. In July 2014, and has been in a back and forth battle since then.

The court battle was vigorous and both sides seemed to have fair arguments. Mark Cunningham who is the attorney for the Starline Bus Company argued that Guerra was at fault because she was standing while the bus was in motion and also was drinking prior to being on the bus. Brian Kabateck, who is Guerra’s attorney, responded by admitting his client did indeed have a drink or two before entering the bus. But there was no way anyone could of avoided this injury, sober or not. Guerra’s attorney argued Star Line could have done more to prevent the situation such as having a worker on the second level of the bus, and also having individuals scout to see what type of environment the bus routes consisted of before actually allowing the buses on them. After a day-long discussion among jurors, the court finally awarded Guerra a settlement of 3.5 million dollars.

Something says that whether you weigh the negatives or the positives, Guerra will never forget this vacation.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Robert Santos.

Usually when people go on vacation, they come home with a souvenir of some sort such as a hat or refrigerator magnet. Lauren Guerra will be going home with a little more than a silly souvenir–in fact she will be going home with 3.5 million dollars. This will be a trip to remember for Guerra but not in the way one would want. Although Guerra will be going home a very rich woman, the damage that has been done is something that all the money in the world couldn’t fix.

On October 27, 2013, Lauren Guerra was one of the many passengers on the Star Line Tours of Hollywood bus giving a tour to passengers of Hollywood. These buses are popular and very well known for they give tours of the famous locations in California, and are known for the unique design of not having a roof but a open deck level for tourists to have a better view of sites and take better pictures. Unfortunately this would be Guerra’s biggest regret, for while aboard one of these buses, a tree branch flew into her face leaving her permanently disfigured. She immediately sued the company after hearing of another death on the same type of bus under the same company. In July 2014, and has been in a back and forth battle since then.

The court battle was vigorous and both sides seemed to have fair arguments. Mark Cunningham who is the attorney for the Starline Bus Company argued that Guerra was at fault because she was standing while the bus was in motion and also was drinking prior to being on the bus. Brian Kabateck, who is Guerra’s attorney, responded by admitting his client did indeed have a drink or two before entering the bus. But there was no way anyone could of avoided this injury, sober or not. Guerra’s attorney argued Star Line could have done more to prevent the situation such as having a worker on the second level of the bus, and also having individuals scout to see what type of environment the bus routes consisted of before actually allowing the buses on them. After a day-long discussion among jurors, the court finally awarded Guerra a settlement of 3.5 million dollars.

Something says that whether you weigh the negatives or the positives, Guerra will never forget this vacation.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Brandon Glover.

Andy Beshear, Kentucky Attorney General, claimed that Volkswagen violated consumer protection law through a cheating emission scheme. Beshear is seeking civil penalties and restitution for the owners of the 3500-plus owners of Volkswagen registered in Kentucky. Regulators state that the “software . . . was designed to cheat on required emissions tests.” The suit was filed in Franklin County Circuit Court in Frankfort with belief that Volkswagen, “must be held accountable for false promotion of its vehicles.”

Jeannine Ginivan, a spokeswoman for Volkswagen, stated the company does not normally comment on legal matters. Despite this, she said that the company is “working with federal environment regulators and others to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.”

Beshear, on behalf of the state of Kentucky, is not the only state to file a lawsuit. Texas, New Mexico, New Jersey and West Virginia, have all filed lawsuits as well against Volkswagen. In addition to the aforementioned lawsuits, Volkswagen also faces hundreds of suits from actual vehicle owners. Prior to taking these suits into account, “the company potentially faces more than $20 billion in fines from states and federal regulators.”

Volkswagen confessed that it used illegal software in its “Clean Diesel” engines in September. The software helped vehicles pass emission tests, while emitting nitrogen oxide that proved to be harmful into the atmosphere when operated.

Brandon is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Brandon Glover.

The U.S. District Court in Riverside will be the venue of the case between tech giant Apple Inc., and the U.S. Federal Government. The FBI has requested Apple’s help in bypassing the iPhone encryption security of one of the shooters in the San Bernardino incident. The judge who presided over the initial case, ruled in favor of Apple, stating “prosecutors were stretching an old law ‘to produce impermissibly absurd results.’”

Prosecutors argued that the phone belonging to Farook most likely contained evidence from the attack on December 2, 2015; where he and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered 14 people. The two were later shot and killed in a police shootout. The FBI believes the couple was inspired by the Islamic State, and that the unlocking could reveal details about the attack as well as potential collaborators.

The Federal Government has argued that Apple could easily create a software that could bypass the security of the phone, retain its information, and then destroy it shortly thereafter. However, Apple has responded to that claim, stating “that creating software is a form of speech and being forced to do so violates its First Amendment.”

The federal government is currently appealing the ruling, which will most likely reach the Supreme Court.

Brandon is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Vicki Elter.

The US Justice Department sued to stop Tribune Publishing Co. from buying the Orange County Register and a Southern California newspaper, which were both bankrupt. The department explained that this sale would end competition for both readers and advertisers in this area.

Last year, the Tribune Publishing Co. purchased the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union. With this past sale, and this potential sale of these two other newspapers, the Tribune would have control over the top four largest daily newspapers in Southern California, and would therefore, have a monopoly. The newspaper industry has already faced great struggles due to digital innovations with the internet, and so this purchase would only make things worse.

This deal would create a loss of numerous jobs, and additionally, the Tribune could raise subscription prices as well as advertising rates. Instead of having multiple editors and news companies to benefit the communities, there would only be one editor for a huge area of Southern California. Therefore, this purchase would contribute to a bias in the news.

Vicki is an accounting and management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Brandon Glover.

On February 23^rd, Marc Moschetta filed a lawsuit against big-name company Wal-Mart for, “deceptive business practices.” A jury trial is being sought on the basis of “material misrepresentations.”

Moschetta purchased “Great Value’s ‘100% Grated Parmesan Cheese,’” but it was later found out that it contained 7 to 10% cellulose, which is a filler that stems from wood chips. Issues such as this one are not completely unfamiliar to the legal system. In 2012, a Pennsylvania cheese vendor was investigated for the use of cellulose in their products. The vendor was also accused of mixing in various types of cheeses in their products, while simultaneously testing positive for Listeria.

Bloomberg News has highlighted cellulose findings in various cheese products. Companies such as Whole Foods, Jewel-Osco, and Kraft Heinz as well have been guilty of such findings. Attorney Jason Sultzer, states “[that] the case isn’t about consumers getting sick. Regardless of the price of the product ($2.98), people are still buying the product based on the label.” Sultzer tries to gain public sympathy to the cause by alluding to parents giving it to their kids with their food.

Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove told CNBC, “we know earning customer trust starts with high standards for the products we carry. We take this matter seriously. We will review the allegations once we have received the complaint and will respond appropriately with the court.”

Brandon is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.