Posted by Natalie Kenny.
The parent company that makes Old Spice, Proctor & Gamble, is being sued by Rodney Colley of Alexandria, Virginia because of a defect in the deodorant. The plaintiff shared photos of himself with burns under his arms which he claims are from Old Spice deodorant. The plaintiff says he suffered “severe rashes, burning, and discomfort” after he used the product and he had to stop using it. In the photo, the rashes look severe.
Procter & Gamble, the parent company that owns Old Spice said that the people who experience rashes and irritation from using the deodorant are in the minority and only make up a small fraction of the company’s overall users. After news broke of this lawsuit, several other individuals came forward with stories about how the Old Spice deodorant gave them rashes and scabbing. The five million dollar lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio and is awaiting trial.
In my opinion, it is not okay for this deodorant to be giving people severe rashes. Even though Proctor & Gamble stated that only a small percentage of users get burns or rashes from the product that is simply not good enough. Consumers should not have to be concerned whether or not they will have a severe reaction to a product that they use every day.
I think that Proctor & Gamble should have to pay for the medical bills of the people who got severe reactions from this product as well as punitive damages to stop them from doing this and to get other companies to make sure their products are safe before selling them to the public.
Natalie is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Romelia Argudo.
Usually when an employee of a certain company works there for a long time, it is to their advantage as they have most likely gained experience for another upcoming job. Except in this case, Arthur Valdez was out of luck when he acquired a new job as Target’s chief supply chain and logistics officer. Having worked for Amazon.com for 16 years, Valdez has left his logistics position in this company and was sued for a breach of a “noncompete agreement.” These agreements ensure that an employee of a company, if they quit, will not compete against their business.
This can get a little tricky when switching positions at Amazon.com and moving to Target which is one of their biggest competitors. Amazon says they wish to prevent him from using the “confidential strategic knowledge” he possess from working in their company in his new job at Target. Because of this, Amazon has sued Valdez for the breech of noncompete agreement that binds him “to an 18-month timeout in which he cannot compete against his former employer.” It is said that over the span of 16 years, Valdez has gained knowledge on “’exact title and topics’ of a top secret meeting dubbed ‘Holiday Lessons Learned,’ which is ‘one of the most confidential aspects of Amazon’s analysis and planning’ and included ‘confidential analysis of Amazon’s competition against Target.’”
Amazon is not happy that Valdez has not specified his new roles he will be playing in Target which can harm Amazon. Most cases like these would settle before they are taken to court or with a lawyer, but until this point, nothing is being resolved and an agreement has not been reached yet. Apart from this, Amazon states “in the filing that Valdez’s 2015 compensation exceeded $1 million.”
Until something is settled for sure, Valdez will start his new position as a logistics executive.
Romelia is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.
Posted by Romelia Argudo.
One of the biggest setbacks for a company can be when they are hit with a lawsuit – especially one that involves settlements for 34 million dollars. Philips Respironics, Inc, known for their sleeping masks given to treat sleep apnea patients, was hit with a 34.8 lawsuit for violating the Anti-Kickback Statute. This “prohibits the knowing and willful payment of any remuneration to induce the referral of services or items that are paid for by a federal healthcare program Medicare. . .” In essence, this statute prohibits any exchange of value to reward the referral of healthcare program business. The United States alleged that Phillips Respironics, Inc. violated this law through means that allowed them to make a bigger profit.
The company sold their machinery to durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers. The deal was if DME suppliers would purchase Philip Respironic’s products, they would get free customer support for their clients to cover any of their needs. But instead, DMEs were charged monthly fees in accordance to the amount of patients that were using products from Philip Respironic’s competitors. So overall, these suppliers were being charged with fees if they supplied patients with products that were competitors of this company. This would drive DME suppliers to purchase more products from this specific sleep mask manufacturer.
US Attorney Bill Nettles says that “this office has made a substantial commitment to combatting fraud.” Not only has this move influence a consumers decision in what to purchase, but other companies as well. This was clear to Dr. Gibran Ameer who brought attention to this case. As a DME supplier worker, he noticed this and is now considered a “whistleblower” for informing US Attorneys of this wrong doing. As a result, Ameer is being rewarded $5.38 million for this moral act.
Special Agent Derrick L. Jackson of the Department of Health and Human Services says that “we will continue to investigate such business arrangements, which threaten the integrity of federal healthcare programs.”
In doing so, this encourages businesses to act as business ethically as much as they can as well as following business law.
Romelia is a marketing major 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 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 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 Brandon Glover.
On February 23rd, 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.
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.