Legal News
Page: 5
Author Jillian Lauren, the wife of Weezer bassist Scott Shriner, has been officially charged with two felony counts following a bizarre shootout with police at her Los Angeles home in April. Lauren, whose full name is Jillian Lauren Shriner, pled not guilty during a Tuesday (May 13) court hearing to the charges: discharge of a […]
A federal appeals court has kept in place an injunction blocking Florida from enforcing a law that would restrict drag shows in the state, saying the statute likely interferes with First Amendment-protected free speech.
In a lengthy opinion released Tuesday (May 13), two out of three judges on a panel for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court injunction that bars Florida from enforcing its so-called Protection of Children Act. The statute aimed to prohibit children from attending “lewd” live performances at restaurants and bars, with Governor Ron DeSantis and state lawmakers singling out drag shows in public statements on the law.
A Florida federal judge sided with restaurant chain Hamburger Mary’s in 2023, finding that the law is overly broad and thus tramples on free speech. And in Tuesday’s ruling, two appellate judges — Robin S. Rosenbaum and Nancy G. Abudu — agreed.
Trending on Billboard
“By providing only vague guidance as to which performances it prohibits, the act wields a shotgun when the First Amendment allows a scalpel at most,” wrote Judge Rosenbaum for the majority.
Tuesday’s ruling means the 2023 injunction will remain in effect for now, and Florida cannot enforce this law while the Hamburger Mary’s lawsuit continues. Discovery has concluded in the case, though a trial date has not been set.
“Obviously, we’re thrilled that the injunction is going to remain in place for the duration of this litigation,” Melissa Stewart, an attorney for Hamburger Mary’s, tells Billboard. “That means that the citizens of Florida will have their First Amendment rights while we finish litigating this case.”
Representatives for the state of Florida did not immediately return requests for comment.
First Amendment law allows governments to restrict “obscene” speech, but only when that speech encompasses “patently offensive” sexual material that appeals to a “prurient interest” and lacks serious artistic or political value.
The Eleventh Circuit majority says that because the Florida law targets an undefined mass of “lewd” shows, it could be used to squash all kinds of constitutionally-protected speech that does not meet the strict “obscenity” standard.
The opinion notes, for example, that a Florida enforcement agency previously revoked one venue’s liquor license after deeming “lewd” a performance in which a drag artist known as “Jimbo” mimicked giving birth to a pile of baloney.
The majority says that while Jimbo’s performance is a “bit odd (and hammy in every sense of the word),” it “cannot be deemed ‘obscene.’”
“One of the act’s sponsors’ stated intent to target ‘Drag Queen Story Time’ also helps show the potential breadth of a term like ‘lewd conduct,’” Judge Rosenbaum wrote. “Of course, one legislator’s interpretation of the act does not an authoritative construction make. But it does betray how much protected speech may fall within the act’s [scope].”
Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat of the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, writing in a dissent that the majority opinion is wrong because it “reads the statute in the broadest possible way.”
Even if Florida’s statute is unclear, Judge Tjoflat continued, the proper remedy would be to ask the Florida Supreme Court to step in and offer an analysis rather than block enforcement completely.
Florida is among a number of red states that have enacted legislation restricting drag performances in recent years. A similar Tennessee law was also blocked by a judge in 2023, though the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it a year later.
Sean “Diddy” Combs’ ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura took the witness stand Tuesday (May 13) at the rap mogul’s sex trafficking trial, telling jurors that Combs “controlled a lot of my life” and subjected her to repeated “physical abuse.”
Ventura, an R&B singer who dated Combs for 11 years, is at the very center of the case against him — in which prosecutors say the superstar used his music empire “feed his every desire,” including by forcing Ventura and other women to have sex with male escorts — events allegedly known as “freak offs.”
Just a day after the trial began, Ventura took the witness stand to tell jurors she felt she had no choice but to participate in those sexual encounters — at times because she was in love with Combs and wanted to please him, but also because she feared blackmail, physical violence and other blowback.
“Sean controlled a lot of my life, whether it was career, the way I dressed — everything,” Ventura, visibly pregnant with her third child, testified. “I just didn’t have much say in it at the time.”
Sometimes emotional, Ventura testified that “violent arguments” with Combs “too often” led to “physical abuse” that included him punching, kicking and dragging her. She also offered more details about the freak offs, including that some lasted days: “The freak offs became a job,” she said, “where there wasn’t any space to do anything else but to recover and just try to feel like normal again.”
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation aimed at facilitating the elaborate freak offs, in which Combs and others would allegedly ply Ventura and other victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex with escorts while he masturbated. Prosecutors also claim the star and his associates used violence, money and blackmail to keep victims silent and under his control.
It was Ventura’s civil lawsuit, filed in November 2023, that first raised those allegations against Diddy. Her case, which accused the star of rape and years of physical abuse, was quickly settled with a large payment from Combs, but it sparked a flood of additional suits from other alleged victims and set into motion the criminal probe that led to his indictment.
Once one of the music industry’s most powerful men, Combs is formally accused in the case of racketeering conspiracy (a so-called RICO charge), sex trafficking and violating a federal prostitution statute. If convicted on all of the charges, he faces a potential life prison sentence.
The trial, expected to last two months, kicked off Monday (May 12) with opening statements, during which prosecutors told jurors that Combs and his associates used “coercive and criminal” conduct to make the freak offs happen: “For twenty years, the defendant, with the help of his trusted inner circle, committed crime after crime,” prosecutor Emily A. Johnson told the jury. Prosecutors also quickly played a 2016 surveillance video of Combs beating Ventura at a Los Angeles hotel.
When it was their turn, defense attorneys told jurors that Ventura and other victims had consensually taken part in the sex parties. They admitted that Diddy committed domestic violence during “toxic” relationships with the women and that he certainly had unusual sexual preferences, but said those did not amount to racketeering or sex trafficking: “Sean Combs is a complicated man, but this is not a complicated case,” said defense attorney Teny Geragos.
Following Tuesday morning’s testimony, Ventura is expected to testify more in the afternoon and for several days after that. When prosecutors are finished questioning her, Combs’ attorneys will have a chance to cross-examine her. They will likely seek to cast doubt on her credibility and portray her as a willing participant in the freak offs.
After Ventura’s testimony is complete, prosecutors will continue to call other witnesses, including a second alleged freak off victim identified by the pseudonym “Jane” and an alleged employee victim identified by the pseudonym “Mia.”
Taylor Swift’s longtime lawyers are asking a court to throw out a subpoena they were served by Justin Baldoni in his feud with Blake Lively over the movie It Ends With Us, just a few days after Swift’s own reps slammed Baldoni for targeting the pop star with a similar subpoena.
The Washington, D.C.-based law firm Venable, which has represented Swift for more than a decade, revealed in a Monday (May 12) motion that Baldoni’s lawyers served it with a subpoena on April 29 seeking all communications between the firm on one side and Lively, the actress’ husband Ryan Reynolds and/or their attorney Michael Gottlieb on the other.
The subpoena specifically name-drops Douglas Baldridge, a Venable partner who’s worked with Swift since 2013 and recently returned to the firm after a stint as general counsel at her company, 13 Management.
Trending on Billboard
“Venable had nothing to do with the film at issue or any of the claims or defenses asserted in the underlying lawsuit,” wrote the firm in a so-called motion to quash, which, if granted, would throw out the document request. “There is no reason for this subpoena other than to distract from the facts of the case and impose undue burden and expense on a non-party.”
The law firm described Baldoni’s subpoena as a “fishing expedition,” noting that “even if Venable were somehow involved (again, it is not),” the documents that Baldoni seeks should be sourced from Lively and Reynolds themselves. The actor power couple is supporting Venable in its quest to throw out Baldoni’s subpoena, calling it an “abuse of the discovery process” in a court filing on Tuesday (May 13).
Revelations of the Venable subpoena come just a few days after Swift’s representatives confirmed that she, too, had been served with a document request in the Baldoni-Lively feud. Mirroring the language in Venable’s motion, a representative for Swift said she had no involvement in It Ends With Us and slammed the subpoena as “designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”Venable did not immediately return a request for comment, nor did reps for Swift, Lively, Reynolds or Baldoni.
The It Ends With Us legal battle began when Lively launched bombshell claims in December, alleging that Baldoni, her co-star and director on the movie released last summer, sexually harassed her on set and then orchestrated a public relations smear campaign to retaliate against her after she complained.
Baldoni vehemently denied the claims and countersued Lively for defamation and other wrongdoing in January. Baldoni’s suit said Lively leveraged her close relationship with a “megacelebrity friend,” presumed to be Swift, to take control of the movie.
The Baldoni filing includes text messages concerning an alleged meeting attended by “Ryan and Taylor,” seemingly referencing Reynolds and Swift. In one message sent by Lively, the actress called Swift and Reynolds her “most trusted partners” and compared them to the “dragons” in the show Game of Thrones.
“The message could not have been clearer,” Baldoni’s lawyers wrote in the countersuit. “Baldoni was not just dealing with Lively. He was also facing Lively’s ‘dragons,’ two of the most influential and wealthy celebrities in the world, who were not afraid to make things very difficult for him.”
A modern iteration of Grammy-winning band The Kingston Trio is suing a Los Angeles music attorney for fraud, saying he lied about having an “inside track” to book the folk group at the Greek Theatre last summer.
The lawsuit was filed in California federal court on Friday (May 9) by Trident Concert Productions LLC, a concert promotion company for the lineup that performs as The Kingston Trio following the death of all the legendary folk band’s original members.
The new Kingston Trio claims it retained music lawyer David A. Helfant back in 2023 to help the group secure concert dates at Los Angeles’ famed Greek Theatre the following summer. According to the lawsuit, Helfant promised that he had an “inside track” for booking acts at the venue.
Trending on Billboard
“Helfant did not have expertise or the inside track or any superior knowledge about how to secure concert dates at the Greek Theater,” writes the group’s current attorney, Konrad L. Trope. “Instead, Helfant created an overinflated bill, along with convincing Trident that it needed to retain a former Greek Theatergeneral manager who could provide inside access.”
The group claims Helfant fraudulently convinced them to pay a hefty $650 per hour billing rate, plus $10,000 to a consultant who supposedly could help “grease the wheels” at the Greek Theatre.
In reality, says The Kingston Trio, neither Helfant nor his consultant had any “inside track.” But that didn’t even matter; according to the group, the Greek Theatre actually has a transparent booking protocol that allows anybody to bid for dates online.
The group was eventually able to secure two August 2024 dates at the Greek Theater using this public bidding system. But the group claims Helfant’s misdeeds delayed the booking process significantly, giving them only seven months to promote the shows.
“Helfant did not help, but rather hindered plaintiff’s efforts,” the lawsuit says.
To make matters worse, the group claims Helfant also spent precious hours pitching his other clients to work as cinematographers on a concert documentary that was to be filmed during the shows, but the pitches lacked proper disclosures about the regulations around private film investors, the lawsuit alleges.
The Kingston Trio is suing Helfant for breach of contract and fraud and asking for at least $250,000 in damages.
Reached for comment on Monday (May 12), Helfant tells Billboard that the allegations in the lawsuit are “are completely without merit.”
“I am confident that when the facts come to light in this action, I will prevail,” says Helfant.
The Kingston Trio, established by Bob Shane, Dave Guard and Nick Reynolds in San Francisco in the 1950s, charted 17 folk songs on the Billboard Hot 100 and won two Grammy Awards for its No. 1 hit, “Tom Dooley.”
All three original members of The Kingston Trio have died, with Shane the last to pass away in 2020. The group continues to perform under a new lineup that’s currently made up of Mike Marvin, Tim Gorelangton and Buddy Woodward.
The sex trafficking trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs kicked off Monday in a Manhattan federal courthouse, where federal prosecutors told jurors that the once-powerful mogul used his music empire for decades to “feed his every desire.”
On the first day of a trial expected to last two months, prosecutors painted a picture of a man who used “coercive and criminal conduct” to force at least two women to engage in drug-fueled sex parties called “freak offs.”
“For twenty years, the defendant, with the help of his trusted inner circle, committed crime after crime,” prosecutor Emily A. Johnson told the jury during her opening statements. “That’s what we’re here about today. That’s what this case is about.”
Trending on Billboard
Responding for Combs was defense attorney Teny Geragos, who admitted that the star had a “toxic” relationship with former girlfriend Cassie Ventura — including openly acknowledging that it included “domestic violence” — but said he was simply not guilty of racketeering or sex trafficking.
“Sean Combs is a complicated man, but this is not a complicated case,” Geragos told the jury. “We take full responsibility that there was domestic violence. Domestic violence is not sex trafficking.”
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation that aimed to “fulfill his sexual desires.” The case centers on elaborate “freak off” parties in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex, as well as on alleged acts of violence to keep victims silent.
The star, once one of the music industry’s most powerful men, is formally accused of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and violating a federal prostitution statute. If convicted on all of the charges, Combs faces a potential life prison sentence.
At opening statements, prosecutors accused Combs of victimizing at least two women, including Cassie and an unnamed victim listed under a Jane Doe pseudonym. They said he used “lies, drugs, threats, and violence” to coerce the women into routinely engaging in sex with male sex workers in “dark hotel rooms.”
To keep both women silent, Johnson told the jury that Combs threatened to release videos of the encounters, one of many moves that she said kept them under his control: “It had the power to ruin her life.”
But Geragos told a very different story, repeatedly stressing that Cassie and other alleged victims had consensually chosen to have relationships with Combs and partake in what she termed his “swinger lifestyle.”
“That may not be what you like to do in your bedroom,” Geragos told the jurors. “She was not being trafficked.”
The trial will continue Monday afternoon, potentially with testimony from Cassie herself.
Billboard will update this story with more details from the trial as it unfolds.
Taylor Swift has been hit with a subpoena that officially drags her into the tense legal drama between her friend Blake Lively and Lively’s It Ends With Us director and co-star Justin Baldoni. And the pop star’s reps aren’t happy, saying the move is “designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”
The subpoena, reportedly sent to Swift by Baldoni’s legal team, makes her a witness in the messy legal battle over alleged sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation stemming from It Ends With Us, which was released last year.
But Swift’s representatives say she has no place in the fight between Baldoni and Lively.
“Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film, she did not even see ‘It Ends With Us’ until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history,” a spokesperson for Swift tells Billboard.
“The connection Taylor had to this film was permitting the use of one song, ‘My Tears Ricochet,’” Swift’s rep adds. “Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”
The It Ends With Us litigation dates back to December, when Lively brought claims alleging Baldoni sexually harassed her on the set of the film and then orchestrated a public relations smear campaign to retaliate against her after she complained.
Baldoni vehemently denied the claims and countersued Lively for defamation and other wrongdoing in January. Baldoni’s suit said Lively leveraged her close relationship with a “megacelebrity friend,” presumed to be Swift, to take control of the movie.
The Baldoni filing includes text messages concerning an alleged meeting attended by “Ryan and Taylor,” seemingly referencing Swift and Lively’s husband, Ryan Reynolds. In one message sent by Lively, the actress called Swift and Reynolds her “most trusted partners,” comparing them to the “dragons” in the show Game of Thrones.
“The message could not have been clearer,” Baldoni’s lawyers wrote in the countersuit. “Baldoni was not just dealing with Lively. He was also facing Lively’s ‘dragons,’ two of the most influential and wealthy celebrities in the world, who were not afraid to make things very difficult for him.”
Baldoni and Lively’s lawyers did not immediately return requests for comment Friday (May 9).
An anonymous artist is suing Uproxx for $15 million, claiming the media company’s production director sexually assaulted and harassed her at industry events, including a music festival, as well as at a Miguel video shoot.
In a lawsuit submitted to state court in Los Angeles on Thursday (May 8), the lawyer for a woman going by Jane Doe says she’s the victim of a “sustained campaign of sexual harassment, assault, stalking, fraud and workplace misconduct” by Uproxx creative production director Steven Victor Vasquez Jr.
“Defendants’ actions encompassing coerced sexual encounters, nonconsensual distribution of intimate images and persistent stalking constitute a profound violation of plaintiff’s fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, privacy and professional dignity,” writes Doe’s attorney, James Bohm. “These acts have inflicted severe emotional trauma, physical harm and substantial economic loss.”
Doe, a Phoenix-based artist published by Warner Chappell, allegedly met Vasquez at a February 2024 Grammy brunch event hosted by Uproxx. Warner Music Group (WMG) owned Uproxx at the time but has since sold the entertainment news and production company. (WMG is not named as a defendant in the complaint.)
According to Doe’s attorney, Vasquez lured her into a series of unwanted sexual encounters by promising to secure her collaborations with Uproxx and lucrative deals with brands like Sour Patch Kids, Zillow, Sparkling Ice and McDonald’s.
In June 2024, for example, Vasquez allegedly convinced Doe to attend “The Gorge music festival” (seemingly Beyond Wonderland at The Gorge) with him in Washington state. There, he apparently “pressured her to share a room, plied her with alcohol and psychedelic mushrooms and appeared naked in her bed without consent, committing sexual assault.”
Doe’s lawyer says Vasquez also forced her to look at pornographic images while on a trip to the Dominican Republic and engaged in other inappropriate behavior during an Uproxx event at Howard University and a video shoot for the R&B singer Miguel.
“Vasquez gaslighted plaintiff, accused her of fictitious affairs, attempted to terminate an employee for complimenting her and pressured her for unprotected sex,” writes Bohm.
The lawsuit says Doe tried to cut off contact with Vasquez in December 2024, but he flew to her home in Arizona and demanded sexual favors, leading her to call the Phoenix Police Department. Vasquez continued to harass her with “messages, videos, sexually explicit images and gifts” through April 2025, Doe’s lawyer alleges.
The lawsuit brings a total of 16 claims, including sexual harassment, sexual battery and stalking, and it seeks more than $15 million in damages from both Vasquez and Uproxx.
Bohm declined to comment on the lawsuit Friday (May 9). Vasquez and Uproxx’s representatives did not immediately respond to Billboard’s requests for comment.
A spokesperson for the Phoenix Police Department confirmed to Billboard that it did receive a report about the alleged December 2024 incident but says no arrests were made.
Live Nation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling last year that said the concert giant couldn’t enforce “opaque and unfair” arbitration agreements against ticketbuyers, warning the justices that the scathing ruling “creates massive uncertainty.”
The decision, issued in October by a lower court, said the contracts Live Nation had forced concertgoers to sign – requiring them to resolve disputes via private arbitration — were “so dense, convoluted and internally contradictory” that they were “borderline unintelligible.”
But in a petition to the Supreme Court this week, Live Nation says that the decision must be reversed, warning it would have “far-reaching consequences” for how arbitration works and could potentially cause massive headaches for companies that have long relied on such agreements.
“If allowed to stand, the decision below will enable mass arbitration plaintiffs to continue their abusive strategy of racking up procedural costs to the point of forcing the defendant to capitulate to a settlement, rather than proving their allegations,” Live Nation’s lawyers write. “These highly disruptive consequences reinforce the need for review.”
The appeal to the Supreme Court comes in a class-action lawsuit accusing Live Nation of violating federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for concert tickets and engaging in “predatory” behavior. Filed in 2022 on behalf of “hundreds of thousands if not millions” of ticket buyers, the case claims Live Nation and Ticketmaster abused their dominance to charge “extraordinarily high” prices to consumers.
Faced with those allegations, Live Nation argued that fans had waived their right to sue in court when they bought their tickets because they had signed arbitration agreements — a common requirement when purchasing tickets and other services from many companies.
In rejecting that argument in October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Live Nation’s agreements were “unconscionable and unenforceable” since they would make it “impossible” for fans to fairly pursue claims against the company.
“Forced to accept terms that can be changed without notice, a plaintiff then must arbitrate under … opaque and unfair rules,” the appeals court wrote at the time. “The rules and the terms are so overly harsh or one-sided as to unequivocally represent a systematic effort to impose arbitration as an inferior forum.”
The ruling described Live Nation’s agreements in scathing terms, calling them “so dense, convoluted and internally contradictory to be borderline unintelligible” and “poorly drafted and riddled with typos.” The terms were so confusing, the court said, that Live Nation’s own attorneys had “struggled to explain the rules” during a court hearing.
The criticism centered on Live Nation’s decision to alter its terms of use to require fans to submit to “novel and unusual” procedures for “mass arbitration.” That new process, offered by an upstart arbitration firm called New Era ADR, was aimed at handling many cases at once rather than individually, which Live Nation believed was necessitated by aggressive tactics from lawyers representing huge numbers of concertgoers.
But in rejecting that new process, the Ninth Circuit said Live Nation was essentially trying to have its cake and eat it too: “Defendants sought to gain in arbitration some of the advantages of class-wide litigation while suffering few of its disadvantages.”
In this week’s petition to the Supreme Court, it was Live Nation’s turn to level criticism – calling the Ninth Circuit’s ruling a “deeply flawed decision” that exemplified the kind of “judicial hostility” to private arbitration that’s prohibited under federal law.
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision below flouts [federal arbitration law], defies this court’s precedents, and threatens to block sensible measures for addressing the new phenomenon of mass arbitration filings,” the company’s lawyers write.
The plaintiffs in the case will file a response in the weeks ahead, and the justices will decide whether to take the case at some point in the next few months. Reps for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment.
Bad Bunny is facing a lawsuit over allegations that a track from his chart-topping Un Verano Sin Ti featured an unlicensed sample from a Nigerian artist – and that the superstar’s reps later “stonewalled” efforts to resolve the problem.
In a copyright case filed May 2 in Los Angeles federal court, attorneys for the artist Dera (Ezeani Chidera Godfrey) claim that Bad Bunny’s “Enséñame a Bailar” illegally sampled from a 2019 track called “Empty My Pocket.”
Dera’s lawyers say they’ve raised the issue with reps for Bad Bunny and others behind the song, but that they’ve “turned a blind eye” and left him with “no choice but to file this lawsuit.”
Trending on Billboard
“It is not very often that a musical artist of Bad Bunny’s caliber and sophistication uses someone else’s music without permission, and then ignores the person’s efforts to resolve the problem,” writes Dera’s attorney Robert A. Jacobs, a litigator at the top music law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips. “Such a response is especially surprising when the unauthorized use pervades the entirety of the musical artist’s work. Unfortunately, these are the circumstances here.”
The lawsuit also names as defendants The Orchard, which distributed the album, and Bad Bunny’s Rimas Entertainment, among others. Representatives for both Bad Bunny and The Orchard did not immediately return requests for comment.
Released in 2022, Un Verano Sin Ti was a mega-hit – spending 13 weeks atop the Billboard 200 and more than 150 weeks total on the album chart. “Enséñame a Bailar” was a hit in its own right, charting on the Hot 100 for two weeks and earning 72 million views on YouTube.
In his lawsuit, Dera says Bad Bunny’s song was essentially built on top of his “Empty My Pocket” – that the usage is so “extensive” that the sampling itself is “beyond question.”
“Plaintiffs’ works comprise virtually the entirety of the musical bed and a portion of the lyrics in the infringing recording and infringing composition, and, as such, account for a significant portion of the appeal of the infringing works,” his lawyers write.
They claim access to Dera’s song was provided producer Lakizo (Lekan Adesina), but that he had no authority to clear the use of the sample: “Lakizo … is not an author of ‘Empty My Pocket’ … and does not have – and never had – the right to prepare or authorize others to prepare derivative works.”
According to the lawsuit, when Dera discovered the unauthorized sample he tried to negotiate a good-faith resolution with Bad Bunny’s team, saying he wanted to “address past unauthorized uses” but also “allow future uses.” He says he also “unconditionally complied” with requests to substantiate his claim, including sharing documents showing that Lakizo had not been authorized to clear the sample.
“Despite plaintiffs’ cooperation, these defendants stonewalled plaintiffs after receiving the requested information, making clear that plaintiffs’ only option for obtaining redress for the violation of their rights would be through the courts,” Dera’s lawyers write.