Lawsuits
Page: 4
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Jean Catuffe / Getty
Tiger Woods is once again in some messy relationship drama. The iconic golf pro is denying his ex-girlfriend’s claim that they had an oral agreement that she could stick around for years after he cut her off.
By now, you may have learned that their “break up” is the stuff of legend. The ex in question, Erica Herman, was allegedly and infamously instructed to get ready for a short vacation, only to be dropped off at an airport and told the relationship was kaput. Upon trying to return to the home they shared for the past five years, the locks had been changed.
Cold world.
Per current celebrity relationship standards, and despite a signed NDA, she is suing Tiger Woods for a cool $30 million and insists she is supposed to be allowed to stay another five years in the crib she was unceremoniously booted from.
However, Woods is insisting there was never any such agreement in place.
Reports TMZ:
Tiger’s lawyers are challenging Erica Herman, who claimed in her lawsuit Tiger promised to support her and let her live in his house for at least 5 more years in return for services (she did not specify) — this before he broke up with her a few months back.
According to legal docs, Tiger’s lawyers said (BTW the house is partly owned by a trust) … “During their relationship, Mr. Woods invited Ms. Herman to live with him as his guest in the Residence. Mr. Woods never negotiated an oral tenancy agreement with Ms. Herman. Nor was there ever a written tenancy agreement between Mr. Woods or the Trust, on the one hand, and Ms. Herman, on the other hand. Mr. Woods never transferred to Ms. Herman any ownership interest in or rights of possession to the Residence.”
That sounds like lawyer speak for “GTFOH.”
Tiger’s lawyers also assert that Herman’s story that she was driven to an airport was also a tall tale. They say that Tiger actually hooked her up with a stay at a luxury resort and enough cash to get her own place.
Herman is also claiming the NDA isn’t valid due to a sexual assault. That allegation is a separate case that Woods’ lawyers have yet to address.
Expect this to only get uglier.
TikTok is facing a slew of class action lawsuits alleging it tracks and harvests troves of personal information on users through its in-app browser.
In the most recent suit filed on Wednesday, users allege TikTok has “secretly amassed massive amounts of highly invasive information and data by tracking their activities on third-party websites.” At least a dozen class actions have been filed since November alleging violations of the federal wiretap act, among other claims.
TikTok remains under fire by the government due to concerns that data it collects on American users can be leveraged by the Chinese government to advance its interests. The company could, for example, be forced to tweak its algorithm to boost content that undermines U.S. democratic institutions or muffles criticism of China and its allies, according to lawmakers. A bipartisan bill backed by the White House was introduced on Tuesday that would establish a unified process for reviewing and addressing technology that could be subject to foreign influence. Under the measure, Chinese parent company ByteDance could be forced to sell TikTok or the platform could be completely banned, though that would face significant hurdles.
The first suit, known as Recht v. TikTok, was filed in November. It was based on a report from Felix Krause, a software researcher who found that the company injects lines of code that commands the platform to copy user activity on external websites. Of the seven popular apps he tested — including Instagram, Snapchat, Amazon — he found that only TikTok monitored keystrokes.
The named plaintiff in the complaint, California resident Austin Recht, says he clicked on an ad to a third-party website, where he bought merchandise after he entered private data that included his credit card information. Tiktok “surreptitiously collected data associated” with his activity on the third-party site accessed through the platform’s in-app browser, according to the complaint.
The class actions detail how TikTok intercepts and harvests data. The in-app browser inserts code into the websites visited by users with the purpose of tracking “every detail about [their] activity,” Recht claims.
“In the case of online purchase transactions, this would include all of the details of the purchase, the name of the purchaser, their address, telephone number, credit card or bank information, usernames, passwords, dates of birth,” reads the complaint filed in California federal court.
The data isn’t limited to purchase information and extends to private information about users’ health, the suit alleges. When users click on a link to Planned Parenthood on TikTok, for example, their activity on the site is tracked and harvested. This could identify users looking for abortion services or those looking for information about gender identity, according to the suit.
TikTok has faced legal action for illegally harvesting user data. In 2020, it was sued for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, a state statute that prohibits private companies from collecting users biometric identifiers without first obtaining consent. It settled the litigation for $92 million.
In response to suits alleging violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, Tiktok has said that the purported class members are covered under the settlement for those who sued for violations of the Illinois privacy law because it “addressed all user data collected through the app.”
Though the plaintiffs in the suit don’t allege any injury, the Federal Wiretap Act doesn’t require proof of actual harm to recover monetary damages. The law prohibits the intentional interception of communications, which includes personal information.
Some of the suits also allege violations of state invasion of privacy and competition laws. A hearing has been set for March 30 on whether the litigation should be consolidated.
In California, TikTok could face massive damages if there’s a data leak. Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, companies that mishandle personal data face statutory damages ranging from $100 to $750 for each consumer per incident.
TikTok didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
This article originally appeared on THR.com.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Michael Owens / Getty
Brett Favre is adding more credentials to his personal “This guy is thee absolute worst,” allegedly, file. The former NFL quarterback is suing Shannon Sharpe and others for their commentary on the allegations that he intercepted funds that should have gone to welfare recipients.
Buy now you may have heard about Favre allegedly finessed funds intended for the poor and used them instead to build a new volleyball gym for his daughter’s college team at the University of Southern Mississippi, his alma mater.
Reports TMZ:
Favre filed the lawsuits earlier this week in Mississippi — naming state auditor Shad White as a defendant in one of the suits as well.
The Green Bay Packers legend claims in the suits all three defamed him when talking about his alleged role in a welfare funds scandal in Mississippi.
Favre said McAfee made some of the remarks on his podcast, alleging the former NFL punter said the ex-QB was “stealing from poor people in Mississippi.”
The Hall of Famer claimed Sharpe muttered defamatory comments on his FS1 show — when he said Sharpe called Favre a “sorry mofo to steal from the lowest of the low.”
As for White, Favre says the Mississippi official has “shamelessly and falsely” attacked him for months “in a brazen attempt to leverage the media attention generated by Favre’s celebrity to further his own political career.”
In the Mississippi welfare fraud scandal, Favre is accused of pocketing millions, which he is adamantly denying. There is no word on exactly how much Favre is seeking in damages.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Michael Buckner / Getty
Writer and director Kenya Barris reportedly ran into a little family drama during the premiere of his newest Netflix project, You People—ironically, a film about family drama.
A source told Page Six that after the film ended and while Kenya Barris was basking in the glory of his hit film while surrounded by his audience and photographers, a process server disguised as paparazzi hit the Black-ish creator with court documents filed by Barris’ sister, Colette Barris. And, well, that must have been em-Barris-ing. (Please don’t block me.)
From Page Six:
In court docs seen by Page Six, Colette has accused Kenya of “breach of contract.”
Related Stories
Her court filing says that on Feb. 22, 2021, the siblings entered into a legal agreement, adding, “The parties in pertinent part agreed ‘not to communicate any disparaging remarks about each other or about any matters that led to this Agreement.’”
The papers go on to allege, “In or around June 2022, [Kenya] stated to a third party that (1) Plaintiff was a ’70-year-old no talent hack’ and (2) Plaintiff had not earned the ‘right to be a show creator’ but instead ‘ wanted to go to the front of the line.’”
However, the bad blood stretches back further, as they’ve reportedly been in at least one previous legal dispute.
Imagine having such an estranged relationship with your own sibling that you have to come to a legally-binding agreement not to talk bad about each other. Then you get sued for allegedly breaking that agreement.
Kind of makes you want to call up your sib just to say “I love you,” don’t it?
Well, let’s just hope the Barris family can work things out.
Anyway, the red carpet premiere was also attended by You People stars Eddie Murphy, Nia Long, Lauren London, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and David Duchovny, as well as guests Elliott Gould, Anthony Anderson, Cedric the Entertainer and rapper Yung Miami.
The Justice Department and eight states sued Google on Tuesday, alleging that its dominance in digital advertising harms competition as well as consumers and advertisers — including the U.S. government.
The government alleges that Google’s plan to assert dominance has been to “neutralize or eliminate” rivals through acquisitions and to force advertisers to use its products by making it difficult to use competitors’ products.
The antitrust suit was filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press conference Tuesday that Google’s dominance in the ad market means fewer publishers are able to offer their products without charging subscription or other fees, because they can’t rely on competition in the advertising market to keep ad prices low.
As a result of Google’s dominance, he said, “website creators earn less and advertisers pay more.”
The department’s suit accuses Google of unlawfully monopolizing the way ads are served online by excluding competitors. This includes its 2008 acquisition of DoubleClick, a dominant ad server, and subsequent rollout of technology that locks in the split-second bidding process for ads that get served on Web pages.
Google’s ad manager lets large publishers who have significant direct sales manage their advertisements. The ad exchange, meanwhile, is a real-time marketplace to buy and sell online display ads.
The lawsuit demands that Google break off three different businesses from its core business of search, YouTube and other products such as Gmail: the buying and selling of ads and ownership of the exchange where that business is transacted.
Garland said that “for 15 years, Google has pursued a course of anti-competitive conduct” that has halted the rise of rival technologies and manipulated the mechanics of online ad auctions to force advertisers and publishers to use its tools.
In so doing, he added, “Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct” that has “severely weakened,” if not destroyed competition in the ad tech industry.
Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, said in a statement that the suit “doubles down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”
Dina Srinivasan, a Yale University fellow and adtech expert, said the lawsuit is “huge” because it aligns the entire nation — state and federal governments — in a bipartisan legal offensive against Google.
This is the latest legal action taken against Google by either the Justice Department or local state governments. In October 2020, for instance, the Trump administration and eleven state attorneys general sued Google for violating antitrust laws, alleging anticompetitive practices in the search and search advertising markets.
The lawsuit in essence aligns the Biden administration and new states with the 35 states and District of Colombia that sued Google in December 2020 over the exact same issues.
The states taking part in the suit include California, Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee.
A former Atlantic Records talent scout is suing over allegations that label co-founder Ahmet Ertegun sexually assaulted her repeatedly from the 1980s to the 2000s – and that his conduct was enabled by a “boys will be boys” culture at the company.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in Manhattan court, Jan Roeg said Ertegun (who died in 2006) assaulted her on their first meeting in 1983 and that his abuse then continued for “decades” after that. She says Atlantic had “ample opportunities” to observe his behavior, but “did not act” to protect its female employees.
“The permissive ‘boys will be boys’ attitude that prevailed at companies such as Atlantic Records was not just about having harmless fun,” her lawyers wrote. “Instead, it gave license to powerful figures like [Ertegun] to physically and sexually abuse women with impunity, with no fear of repercussions or opposition from the people who depended on his company for their livelihood and lifestyle.”
Roeg’s lawsuit was filed under the New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a new law that created a one-year window for alleged abuse victims to file long-delayed lawsuits that would normally be barred by the statute of limitations. The statute just went into effect last week, and more high-profile cases in the music industry are expected over the next year.
The complaint contained extensive details of alleged misconduct by Ertegun, who co-founded Atlantic in 1947 and went on to become one of the industry’s most powerful executives. After the first incident, the complaint says he “violently sexually assaulted Ms. Roeg at his Upper East Side home.” On at least two occasions, she says she found him “openly masturbating in his office.”
But she says he made very clear that she could not push back: “Women who wanted to do business with Atlantic had to play along with Mr. Ertegun’s sexual desires, and could not rock the boat with a complaint or lawsuit.”
In addition to naming Ertegun’s estate as a defendant, the case also directly names Atlantic Records, which is a unit Warner Music Group. Her lawyers say the company failed to take action to rein him in – and that the company even took actions to cover up his misconduct.
“Atlantic’s top executives and other management had ample opportunities to observe Mr. Ertegun’s drunken, abusive conduct and hateful attitude towards women, including in Company meetings in which he would openly brag about and recount in detail sexually exploitative escapades he engaged in backstage at concerts and the like,” her lawyers wrote. “Atlantic also is known to have regularly paid money to women accusing Mr. Ertegun of sexual misconduct, both before and after his abuse of Ms. Roeg had begun.”
In a statement to Billboard, a representative for Warner Music Group said the company takes such allegations “very seriously” and stressed that the allegations dated years into the past. As is often the case in such long-delayed lawsuits, Atlantic’s corporate structure, polices and executives have changed dramatically in the years since the alleged misconduct took place.
“These allegations date back nearly 40 years, to before WMG was a standalone company. We are speaking with people who were there at the time, taking into consideration that many key individuals are deceased or into their 80s and 90s,” WMG wrote in the statement. “To ensure a safe, equitable, and inclusive working environment, we have a comprehensive Code of Conduct, and mandatory workplace training, to which all of our employees must adhere. We regularly evaluate how we can evolve our policies to ensure our work environment is free from discrimination and harassment.”
A representative for Ertegun’s estate could not be located for comment. But in a statement released to Rolling Stone, an attorney for the late executive’s widow said the case was “meritless and will be be vigorously defended on her behalf.”
A celebrity accountant is suing Kanye West for $4.5 million in allegedly unpaid fees, claiming the embattled artist and entrepreneur abruptly fired him just weeks after hiring him and told him he was “insane” if he thought he would stick to their agreement.
In a lawsuit filed Oct. 21, Thomas St. John claims he was hired in May by Yeezy LLC to serve as its chief financial officer for an 18-month contract with a $300,000 per month fee. He says he demanded those guarantees because of the “risks” of working with West and to assure the star “would not simply walk away.”
But St. John claims that West then did exactly that. At a June meeting at the pricey Malibu restaurant Nobu Ryokan, the accountant claims West “became heated and aggressive” and then abruptly terminated his new CFO.
“He screamed at Mr. St. John and made clear he no longer wanted to work with Plaintiff,” St. John’s lawyers wrote. “When confronted by the 18-month commitment that had just been made, Mr. West stated words to the effect of ‘the 18 month term was bullsh–’ and ‘you’re insane for even thinking I would stick to it.’”
If the new lawsuit is any indication, it looks like St. John plans to stick to it. He says West has made just three of the 18 payments he owes — and is demanding that a court order him to pay the $4.5 million owed on the deal.
Even though it involves millions of dollars, St. John’s new lawsuit might barely even register on the list of problems currently facing the once-beloved rapper.
After a string of antisemitic statements earlier this month, West has lost nearly every aspect of his once-formidable business empire. His representatives at CAA have dropped him, and his signature fashion partnerships with Adidas, The Gap and Balenciaga have all been terminated. It’s hard to know if he’ll even have lawyers to rep him in the current case, since many of his attorneys have begun to cut ties as well.
Even before the current whirlwind, West was already being accused of stiffing business partners. In early July, the high-end fashion rental service David Casavant Archive said West never returned more than a dozen “esteemed” items and owed $400,000 in late fees. A few weeks later, the production company Phantom Labs said the star owed $7.1 million for work done on his cancelled Coachella and other events.
A spokesperson for West could not be located to comment on the new lawsuit. Multiple former press representatives for West have recently told Billboard that they no longer work with him.