Posted by Siya Patel.

On September 10, 2022, 21-year-old college student Sarah Katz bought and consumed Panera Bread’s Charged Lemonades, passing away later that day. The lawsuit filed by her parents says that “the company ‘failed to properly warn’ customers about the potential dangers of Charged Lemonade and misleadingly marketing the drink as ‘clean.’” Katz had a preexisting heart condition known as Long QT Type 1 Syndrome since the age of five. She took daily medication and avoided any energy drinks or highly caffeinated drinks in general. Her condition affects the electrical system that controls the person’s heartbeat. According to the medical examination report, the cause of death was arrhythmia caused by the Long QT Syndrome. The report had no mention of the Charged Lemonade.

About two months after the death, Charged Lemonade gained a lot of traction on social media, especially TikTok. Many users were shocked to learn about the caffeine content in the drink. The FDA advises that “most healthy adults can safely consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine per day, or about four or five cups of regular coffee, depending on the brand and roast.” The large 30-ounce cup contains 390 milligrams, and the regular 20-ounce cup contains 260 milligrams of caffeine. The large serving “has more caffeine than a 12-ounce Red Bull and a 16-ounce Monster Energy Drink combined.” At the Panera location where Ms. Kantz bought the drink, the drink was “offered next to beverages that did not have caffeine or had less caffeine. It was not advertised as an energy drink. It was unclear how much of the drink Ms. Kantz consumed because she subscribed to Panera’s Unlimited Sip Club, which allows free refills at the self-serve station.

The complaint also mentions that the caffeine content could have potentially also been altered by the manner in which the drink was prepared. Panera workers mixed the drink at the restaurant itself which caused a lack of quality control. After drinking the lemonade, Ms. Katz went into cardiac arrest in a restaurant. She was taken to a hospital where she suffered a second cardiac arrest, ultimately leading to her death. On the Panera website, the lemonades are described as energy drinks, but they are also marked to contain clean caffeine. The actual caffeine content of each size is not listed.

Siya is a dual Diplomacy and Economics major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/us/panera-caffeine-charged-lemonade-death.html Links to an external site.

Posted by Logan Murray.

In September of 2022 a college student at the University of Pennsylvania, Sarah Katz, died after drinking one of Panera Bread’s Charged Lemonades. Katz had a heart condition for most of her life and was known for being very cautious and attentive when it came to what she consumed. Her parents state that Katz would not have known that the Panera Bread Charged Lemonades were an energy drink and likely thought it had a safe amount of caffeine.

Amanda Holpuch of the New York Times details the facts of the case. Holpuch writes, “The lawsuit said that the company “failed to properly warn” customers about the potential dangers of its Charged Lemonade and misleadingly marketed the drink as “clean,” even though the large size has more caffeine than a 12-ounce Red Bull and a 16-ounce Monster Energy Drink combined” (Holpuch). Both Red Bulls and Monster Energy Drinks are widely marketed and commonly thought of as energy drinks. It is alarming that a Charged Lemonade has as much caffeine as both drinks combined and is not marketed similarly. Holpuch addressed Katz condition stating, “Ms. Katz’s heart condition, Long QT Type 1 Syndrome, affects the electrical system that controls a person’s heartbeat, the complaint said. She was diagnosed with the condition when she was 5 years old, took daily medication and avoided energy drinks and other highly caffeinated beverages, the complaint said” (Holpuch). This is an important fact because it shows that Katz was attentive when it came to avoiding highly caffeinated drinks and would have avoided the Charged Lemonade as well if she was aware of its contents.

Holpuch also outlines the safety of the Charged Lemonade in the general sense. She writes, “About two months after Ms. Katz’s death, Charged Lemonade attracted widespread attention and media coverage after a video was posted on TikTok by a user who was shocked by the drink’s unexpected caffeine content […] Sarah Baus said in the video that she routinely drank the lemonade, but had only just learned about how much caffeine was in it” (Holpuch). I think this two-month timeline is also valuable to see how Panera Bread may not have changed it’s transparency practices following Katz death. Holpuch continues, “According to the [FDA], most “healthy adults” can safely consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine per day” (Holpuch). The large 30-ounce Charged Lemonade contains 390 milligrams of caffeine. Holpuch also notes, “[T]he legal complaint said, the drink was offered next to beverages that did not have caffeine, or had less caffeine. It was not advertised as an energy drink […] The caffeine content could also have been affected by how the drink was prepared, according to the complaint, because Panera workers mix it at the restaurant, which caused “a lack of quality control”’ (Holpuch). The Charged Lemonade’s placement next to non-caffeinated drinks is potentially misleading to consumers and the lack of quality control is alarming due to how close a large Charged Lemonade is to the FDA stated maximum safe amount of caffeine (10 milligram difference). I would not be surprised if Panera Bread settled this lawsuit rather quickly.

Logan is a Sports Management & Mathematical Finance Major, Legal Studies Minor, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.

https://www.law.com/therecorder/2023/10/12/family-of-man-killed-in-october-2021-plane-crash-files-product-liability-lawsuit-against-textron/

Posted by Catriona Larouche.

In early October, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued “an important decision making clear that in a breach of a contract dispute, the aggrieved party may recover more in damages than the parties’ contract permits, such as punitive, incidental, and consequential damages”. For a long time, it remained unclear in Tennessee whether sophisticated parties negotiating goods and services contracts would prohibit recovery of consequential, incidental, and other damages beyond what was included in their contract. Consequently, parties entering a contract could decide what recovery they might receive in the event of a breach without resorting to common law or statutory liability for other damages, placing some parties at a disadvantage.

Let’s assume the scenario where there is a sophisticated contract between two parties. Company A agrees to provide a service to Company B but fails to meet deadlines and breaches the contract. Shortly after signing the contract, Company A knew it would not be able to fulfill its duties to the contract. At the time of the contract signing, Company B did not anticipate such a breach and used a standard services agreement limiting them to damages of the price paid and excluding any consequential, incidental, and punitive damages. In this case, Company B has already paid Company A, and now, due to the breach, company B cannot fulfill its promises to its clients. As a result, Company B incurs a greater loss that is beyond the contract terms. In this case, the newly Tennessee Supreme Court decision would indeed help Company B in retrieving its losses not covered in the original contract. This past scenario is exactly what happened on September 28th, 2023, in the ruling of Commercial Painting Inc. The Weitz Company LLc case.

It is also crucial to keep in mind the economic loss doctrine in product liability cases. Since 2009, the Tennessee courts, for example in the Lincoln General Ins. Co. v. Detroit Diesel Corp. case has changed the economic loss liability doctrine in product liability cases. This doctrine says that when damages from a breach of contract are only economic damages, the plaintiff has no action under tort law. Therefore, if a defective product only damages itself, meaning it does not cause personal injury, the owner is in the same position as if it never had the product. The remedy in these cases should be limited to what was specified in the contract. Unfortunately, the economic loss doctrine is flexible and can be challenging in certain cases where it is difficult to differentiate recoverable tort damages or not.

In my opinion, I do believe this ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court is fair. It assures that parties need to be held responsible for their actions and that the party who suffers from the breach gains reasonable damages. On the other hand, if only economic damages are present, the law will not provide other remedies, which I do also think is a fair decision.

In conclusion, the aim of this decision it to prevent parties from evading responsibility for their actions and to ensure that parties suffering from the breach of contract are properly supported, even if the remedies were not explicitly written in the contract.

Catriona is an International Business Major and Legal Studies in Business Minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.

https://www.adamsandreese.com/news-knowledge/allen-woods-tennessee-supreme-court-economic-loss-doctrine Links to an external site.

Posted by Emilia Fedasz

“Family of Man Killed in October 2021 Plane Crash Files Product Liability Lawsuit Against Textron” is a legal news article written by Allison Dunn and published by Law.com. The article describes the filing of a Product Liability Lawsuit against Textron, the aviation company that cleared a plane for departure which would later crash.

The plane was being flown by Sugata Das from Yuma, Arizona when it crashed on a street in California, killing Das and his passenger, Steven Krueger. On behalf of Krueger, his brothers and sister filed a complaint in the San Diego Superior Court alleging strict product liability and negligence against Textron and employees, who are unidentified and may be responsible for tort. The plaintiffs allege that Textron serviced the plane and the plane’s replacement parts. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, only a preliminary report has been completed and the cause for the crash has not yet been determined. The plaintiffs do not allege a specific defect in the complaint, but they allege that there were defects in the “engine and/or component/replacement parts were a substantial factor in causing the loss, damage and injuries to Plaintiff…and as such, Defendants, and each of them, are strictly liable therefor.” The plaintiffs also allege that Textron and Textron’s employees were negligent in the process of manufacture, assembly, and inspection.

The family of Krueger seek noneconomic damages for his loss and economic damages for the loss of financial support and/or loss of inheritance as well as a judgement in their favor to cover the cost of the funeral and burial, his wrongful death, survival damages, the expenses of bringing the litigation, and pre and post judgment interest. The Counsel for Textron has not been yet announced and Stephanie Harder, a spokesperson for Textron Aviation, declined to comment.

Emilia is a Finance and Business Law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Posted by Colin Byrne.

In this article from August 29^th of 2023, It explains a huge products liability case involving the Military, the Government, and the company at blame, 3M. The company, 3M, supplied the military earplugs that were supposed to keep the soldiers from losing their hearing. This product was supposed to let the soldiers hear soft whispers and noises, but loud noises like explosions where not heard. In the end that is not what happened.

Multiple soldiers experienced a decrease in their hearing and started having problems, leading to this lawsuit. “The earplug litigation represents the largest mass tort in U.S. history. There have been more than 300,000 claims in which veterans accuse 3M and Aearo Technologies, a company acquired by 3M in 2008, of producing faulty earplugs that failed to protect their hearing from noise damage when they received them from the U.S. military.” (fox business) As explained in this quote from the article, you can clearly see the severity of this case. The company which the suit is against, 3M, is ordered to pay 50 million dollars to Army Veterans. Along with 9.1 million to the to the U.S government to resolve the allegations.

 3M though, continued to try and get out of the allegations and the money owed. Stating that if the earplugs were worn properly, the lasting injuries would not have occurred. It was found that the earplugs would imperceptibly become loose in a person’s ear. After all of the allegations 3M shares dropped over 11%, compared to the S&P 500’s 17% rise. Overall, I think the final say was correct. There was no warning on the earplugs saying they may cause hearing loss. With the result of the people losing their hearing, 3M is well within the realm of being sued and got the fair treatment for their faulty product.

Colin is a sports management major with a legal studies in business minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Products Liability 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/3m-settles-military-earplugs-case-hearing-loss-complaintsLinks to an external site.

Posted by Jihad N. Hasan.

Many of us are aware of Nike’s strategic manufacturing practices and their innovative tactics to save money. The reality is that it costs Nike $3 to make a pair of shoes. The truth is that hundreds of Uyghur women were being forced to make these Nike shoes. They could not return home and they also would be risking their lives if they ever chose to speak up. Today, it is stated that these conditions are no longer existent. Given the fact that information given to auditors can be fabricated and that Nike continues to separate themselves from this situation, provides me with the assumption that they have something to hide.

Quite honestly, I believe that these processes are shameful. It seems as if these corporations are only looking for money. Many individuals possess little to no sympathy for another’s predicament as long as they are putting money in their pockets. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

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

Posted by Ryan Gibbons.

DeepMind’s Mustafa Suleyman left the company in August of 2019. With little to no reason, the co-founder decided to walk away from his company. DeepMind is an artificial intelligence company which was founded in 2010. In 2014, it was acquired by Google. People assumed Suleyman would return to the company a short while after his departure, but that has not been the case. Suleyman took a job with Google, being in AI policy role. However, the switch may not be as out of the blue as people thought.

A report from the Wall Street Journal cited that Suleyman had his management duties and responsibilities taken away due to bullying his staff. To add on, Google and DeepMind confirmed these claims, also stating that a legal team was hired to investigate the situation. When asked to speak on the matter, Suleyman did not have anything to say. However, he did speak to the Wall Street Journal stating, “response to questions from The Wall Street Journal he said he “accepted feedback that, as a co-founder at DeepMind, I drove people too hard and at times my management style was not constructive.””

This story relates back to ethics in the workplace. When a company first starts out, they want to create an ethical code of conduct. The company should create a conduct to show what is expected at the workplace ethically, and communicate it to the employees. Employees should also be made aware of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which allows employees to confidentially go to court if the company is committing illegal or unethical acts. While it was great that DeepMind was able to figure out what Suleyman was doing, perhaps the situation could have been avoided all together if they took time to go over ethics at the workplace with their staff.

Ryan is a political science major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Posted by Jennie Neilsen.

To loosen child-labor restrictions and to make it easier for minors to work without a permit, Arkansas enacted a new state law entitled the Youth Hiring Act. According to the article, this new law “ended a requirement that businesses must obtain a work permit from the Department of Labor and Licensing if they want to employ a child under 16 years old” (Flores & Calfas). Before the Youth Hiring Act was passed in Arkansas, a parent or guardian would have to co-sign for their child to receive a working permit and then employers would have to tell the state how many days and hours the minor was expected to work. Those in favor of this law believe that lightening the child-labor requirements removes an unnecessary burden for businesses and enables parents to make decisions for their children without permission from the government. Those opposed to this new law argue that it removed an essential, protective measure that helped to ensure the hours worked by minors were not violating federal child labor laws. More states like Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio are now beginning to introduce similar bills that seek to ease child-labor protections and alter the hours minors can work.

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders believes that protecting children is very important, but that the state’s permit requirement was a huge burden for parents and businesses. Governor Sanders has made it clear that all protective child-labor laws still apply, and businesses are expected to comply to these laws as always. Proponents of the Youth Hiring Act believe that it is positive because legislation is modernizing state law and more people are being exposed to the workforce, aiding industries that are experiencing work shortages. Senator Tim Schaffer, a sponsor of the bill, is quoted saying, “giving more power to these families, to the schools and the employers, more power and more flexibility, is really what they want” (Flores & Calfas). Yet, with more power comes more responsibility. Opponents still worry that certain parents will choose to take advantage of the Youth Hiring Act and exploit their children for more money. They also worry that this new state law will expose children to more dangerous jobs and longer shifts. The Arkansas Department of Labor and Licensing has not yet responded to such concerns.

In my opinion, the Youth Hiring Act may serve as a positive change for Arkansas so long as the state regulates federal child labor laws and ensures that children are not being exploited by adults. I agree with the proponents who argue that lightening the child-labor requirements removes an unnecessary burden for businesses and enables parents to make decisions for their children without permission from the government. Families, schools, and employers need more flexibility to combat the work shortage and to increase productivity in a safe, moral, and legal way for children. The Youth Hiring Act is not going against protective child labor laws, but rather, modernizing state law to improve upon how children are legally able to work.

Jennie is a finance and technology student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Article Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/states-look-to-ease-some-child-labor-laws-amid-tight-market-a46322c6?page=1

Posted by Michael Picariello.

Former star Washington running back Clinton Portis, along with nine other former NFL players, have been charged with healthcare fraud after a $3.9 million scheme that involved the players submitting false claims to the NFL health program. The former athletes asked for reimbursements for around $40,000 to $50,000 for medical equipment that was never actually purchased by fabricating documentation submitted to the NFL. According to the CNBC article, this healthcare system has been in place for a while as it states, “The allegedly bogus claims were submitted to the Gene Upshaw National Football League Health Reimbursement Account Plan, which since 2006 has provided tax-free reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical costs of former players, their wives, and dependents of up to $350,000 per player” (CNBC). The players abused a system that the NFL uses to help former players as football is the most physically taxing sport that has long-term effects on an athlete.

The plan paid over $3.4 million from June 2017 to December 2018, but the fraud was stopped when the health insurer Cigna became suspicious. Some of the claims were for equipment used to treat horses so the company stopped paying the claims and notified authorities. The article states, “Information is charging devices regularly used against defendants who have reached an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty (CNBC). Six players have agreed to plead guilty and make a deal with prosecutors as four other former players have been arrested. Charges against the players include healthcare fraud and wire fraud with five being accused as the ringleaders.

The scheme devised by these 10 former players including a former star running back in Clinton Portis was proven to be highly illegal after there were missteps in their process of the fraud allowing Cigna to find these false claims. I think that players who surely made a good amount of money during their playing career should not be taking advantage of a system that is in place to help people with actual health issues. Football players struggle with many lingering issues after they retire, most notably CTE which affects the brain and can change a person for life, the fact that people were abusing the system to help people in actual need is embarrassing. The players involved should be prosecuted to the highest extent and be brought to justice for the mistakes they made. I think the Eastern District of Kentucky is handling this situation perfectly and making sure that this never happens again.

Michael is a marketing and finance student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/12/former-nfl-players-criminally-charged-with-health-care-claims-fraud.html

Posted by Jimmy Sali.

In the 2021-22 NBA season, the Boston Celtics ended with a 51-31 record, all the way as the second seed in their conference. At the helm of this was head coach Ime Udoka. Udoka got himself into some controversy just weeks before the beginning of the 2022-23 season, when news broke of a scandal he’d been involved in with a female member of the Celtics staff. He had an “inappropriate relation with a female team employee,” and “violated team policies” in the process. Due to this, he’d been suspended for at least one year away from the team and would not serve as their head coach, despite a successful season and NBA Finals appearance months prior to the scandal. Joe Mazzulla served as interim coach for a majority of the ongoing NBA season, and has now been granted a multi-year extension with the team. Udoka is no longer with the Celtics at all.

An investigation into the Udoka allegations was conducted all throughout the summer. This was done by an unspecified, independent law firm. Considering the relationship, though sexual, was apparently consensual on both ends, many questions are raised by the public on whether Udoka deserved the suspension or not. Udoka has a wife outside of the league, but cheating is not typically something that can be regulated by a job. From the Celtics public release, it was noted that the situation was part of a larger issue within the organization. The owner of the team, Wyc Grousbeck, promised to ensure that policy violations did not grow further than the isolated Ime Udoka cheating scandal.

From the perspective of women within the organization, strides had to be made by the Celtics to ensure they were supported and protected from social media accusations. Grousbeck himself, even after a legal investigation, admitted that the suspension came from “conscience and gut feel, because there’s no clear guidelines.” A situation like this continues to be in hot debate, but down to an ethical issue, Udoka had to be suspended from the team. The Celtics without him have continued to find success thus far this season, boasting a 47-21 record at the time of writing and once again second in the East.

Jimmy is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Original Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/sports/basketball/ime-udoka-boston-celtics.html