Two Companies Ordered to Pay Over $24 Million to King County Small Business Owners

SEATTLE — Two companies and their owners have been ordered to pay over $24 million to King County small business owners.

A King County Superior Court judge has ordered CA Certificate Service and Labor Poster Compliance to more than 15,000 business owners that were deceived by the companies. The judge said that both companies based their business models on deceiving small business owners.

Both companies sent a total of 232,091 letters to residents that appeared to be from the government demanding payments of about $85 each for posters or certificates and implying they were mandatory for businesses. The companies bulked a total of $1.27 million out of area business owners for free posters and certificates that business owners can obtain from state and federal agencies.

The lawsuit was filed by Attorney General Bob Ferguson in March against Florida-based CA Certificate Service and Labor Poster Compliance as well as their owners. The Washington Secretary of State issued an alert about the scam by CA Certificate Service in March of 2019 yet the company continued to do business in the state until Ferguson filed the lawsuit.

King County Superior Court Judge David Whedbee ordered the companies to repay all Washington businesses involved their full payments in addition to pre-judgment interest.

The court found that the companies had committed 232,091 separate violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

The judge also ordered that both companies be permanently blocked from mailing any letters into the state of Washington that are associated in any way with an invoice or a bill that a consumer must pay. The companies also cannot send any more letters that appear to be from a government at any level or a person working for any level of government.

It is believed that the companies made more than $5.3 million in profits from their deceptive schemes across the nation. Although businesses and other states have also been affected by the two companies’ deception, the judgment, in this case, is the first one against the businesses that have resulted in the findings of the companies being liable for breaking the law.

Republican National Committee Files Lawsuit Against Google, Alleging Political Discrimination

For a long time, people have been looking for ways to get rid of spam on their computer. Most people know what this looks like. They include the banner ads that pop up at the top of the screen, the pop-up ads that block the entire window, certain emails we would (rather not) receive, and even the videos that play before we try to watch something on the internet. Spam filters have gotten better during the past few years, and not everyone is happy about it. One example is the Republican National Committee, which has filed a lawsuit against Google.

The lawsuit alleges that Google, one of the largest tech companies in the world, has been suppressing its email ads prior to the midterm elections, which are slated to take place in November. The lawsuit claims that Google has been discriminating against the RNC by placing its emails in spam folders. The lawsuit further claims that this has had a negative impact on its ability to raise money and connect with potential voters.

Google, in contrast, claims that spam filters are generally a result of its users’ actions and not based on political affiliation at all. Google further said that it offered training to teach organizations, regardless of political affiliation, how to send real emails to voters that do not get blocked by spam.

Independent organizations, including North Carolina State University, have found that spam filters and algorithms from Google are more likely to block messages from conservative causes rather than liberal ones. This means that Google’s spam filters could be more likely to place emails from the Republican National Committee in the spam folder. The RNC saw this and took advantage, calling upon the Federal Election Committee to investigate Google before filing a lawsuit.

It remains to be seen how the lawsuit will play out. Even though Google has released a program that is supposed to teach people how to get emails to their target markets, the RNC has decided not to participate in the program. Even though the lawsuit is unlikely to be resolved before the midterm elections play out, it does shine a spotlight on how spam filters may have an impact on politics moving forward.

Court System Orders a Hold on the Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

Student loans have been a hotly debated topic during the past few years. Now, it appears that the Biden Administration is ready to forgive $10,000 or $20,000 per borrower across the board. Even though many people are excited to have a portion of their debt wiped out, it appears that the plan is not quite ready to move forward. Multiple lawsuits have been brought against the administration as a result of the student loan forgiveness plan. Most of the lawsuits allege that the President does not have the authority to cancel student loan debt, as that is a power given to Congress under the Constitution.

On the other hand, one challenge that these lawsuits are going to face is proving that they have the standing to challenge the plan. Recently, a federal court blocked the student loan forgiveness plan from going into effect as the process is litigated. According to the director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, this is largely a procedural matter. The court cannot make a ruling until it has been fully briefed.

The lawsuit claims that there are numerous student loan servicers and companies that manage many of the Federal loans that are going to be forgiven. The lawsuit alleges that these companies are going to be harmed, particularly since some federal student loans were originally funded by private companies.

Even though the lawsuit was originally dismissed because the court system believed that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to challenge the lawsuit, they immediately filed an emergency motion with the Circuit Court of Appeals. They were granted an administrative stay, but this does not mean that the plan has been canceled.

All it means is that the plaintiffs will have an opportunity to explain why they have the standing to challenge the lawsuit. If they do so, then the lawsuit will move forward, and the plaintiffs will have to explain why they feel like the forgiveness plan is unconstitutional. The administration will also have an opportunity to defend the plan. It remains to be seen how the Department of Education is going to orchestrate the student loan forgiveness plan while this lawsuit, along with multiple others, plays out.

As Doctors Start Getting Sued for COVID-19, Which Professionals Are At Risk?

Lawsuits against doctors have been on the rise for many years. In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, lawsuits are only going to become more common. Now, particularly since the nation is recovering from the pandemic, it appears that lawsuits stemming from COVID-19 are on the rise.

Recently, a lawsuit was filed by a patient who arrived at the hospital while pregnant. This patient had respiratory problems, meaning that she had a hard time breathing, caused by the virus. Ultimately, doctors decided it was appropriate to perform an emergency delivery of her baby, which was close to being full term.

Even though her child survived, the woman lost oxygen during the medical situation. As a result, she suffered brain damage. Now, she is suing a number of professionals at the hospital, including her OBGYN, a pulmonologist, and the ICU unit for medical malpractice.

In the lawsuit, the woman claims that there was a failure to adequately recognized her condition, which led to a delay in receiving appropriate treatment. As expected, the physicians disagree. They say that they treated her appropriately. They even go so far as to say that the physicians were heroes in this situation, saving the life of a woman and her unborn child.

Without a doubt, the vast majority of doctors are intelligent, compassionate professionals who would do just about anything for their patients. Unfortunately, not all cases will have a positive outcome, and just because the ideal outcome is not the reality doesn’t necessarily mean that the case was medical malpractice. So, was this case medical malpractice?

To prove medical malpractice, the lawsuit will have to show that the woman suffered damage that was the direct cause of her doctors deviating from the readily accepted standard of care. As lawsuits stemming from the coronavirus pandemic continue to go up, it will be interesting to see which specialties are at risk. It could vary from place to place, depending on the country’s statute of limitations, laws, and standards. It will be important for everyone to keep an eye on this case to see how it plays out, as it could set a precedent for the rest of the country.

What You Need To Know About Filing a Lawsuit After a Car Accident

Every year, car accidents are among the leading causes of injuries and fatalities in the United States. Even though car accidents vary in terms of their scope and severity, the reality is that even a minor motor vehicle accident can result in significant injuries. If you have been hurt in a car accident, you might be looking at repair expenses, medical bills, and lost income. You should not be responsible for these expenses if the accident was not your fault, and that is where a car accident lawsuit can help you.

There are numerous moving parts involved in a lawsuit following a motor vehicle accident. Once an accident has been reported, the insurance company of the at-fault driver is going to start a detailed investigation process. It is important to be vigilant during this process, as insurance companies are always going to look for a way to avoid paying. That is another area where a car accident attorney can help you. They can make sure that you do not put yourself in jeopardy of being paid less than what you are owed.

You can help your attorney by collecting pictures of the accident, asking for a copy of the police report, and keeping a record of all of your expenses. You should also try to get the contact information of eyewitnesses who can support your version of events.

The insurance company will either approve or deny the claim. Regardless of how it plays out, you should get an explanation regarding their calculations. If the insurance company is not going to cover all of your expenses, you need to make sure you are entitled to fair compensation.

A car accident attorney can make sure you receive the best possible settlement from an insurance company. Then, if the settlement from your insurance company is not enough, your lawyer may be able to pursue compensation from the other driver. There may be a statute of limitations regarding your injury claim, which is why you need to reach out to an attorney as soon as possible following your accident. Always see a doctor first, but do not forget to contact a car accident lawyer who can help you.

Manufacturer of Abortion Pharmaceuticals Drops Mississippi Case

When Roe v Wade was overturned in June, it became the responsibility of each state government to determine the legality of abortion within their jurisdiction. Some states, predominantly conservative southern states, immediately passed laws banning abortion. Other states, such as Mississippi, already had laws in place that would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade was overturned. These laws were widely known as “trigger” laws. Mississippi already had fairly restrictive laws regarding abortion, and its laws were facing many legal challenges. However, many of these cases have been dropped after the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the legality of abortion. Now it’s up to each state to determine its abortion laws.

GenBioPro manufactures one of two drugs used for medication-based abortions

Medication-based abortions have been common for many years. This type of abortion is often the method of choice when the pregnancy is less than 10 weeks old. It is known for being a very safe method of abortion, with a maternal fatality rate far lower than that of childbirth. Mifepristone is often used with misoprostol for this purpose. GenBioPro is one of the biggest manufacturers of mifepristone. They had already filed suit against Mississippi in 2020 regarding the laws in the state restricting medication-based abortions. However, it seems they’ll be taking their fight elsewhere.

They dropped their case in the wake of Roe v. Wade

GenBioPro’s case was being heard in the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. However, they have now dropped their case in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision. This is because they may not have the legal justification for the case they had before. Mississippi now has more freedom in creating abortion laws that do not have to conform to federal regulations. Also, this court is known for being one of the most conservative in the country.

GenBioPro likely felt they did not have much chance to win the case now. However, GenBioPro’s case may be refiled in another court. It would probably be refiled in a court that is known for being more progressive. Otherwise, another pharmaceutical manufacturer could file a similar case in a different Court.

$7 Million Class Action Settlement for Google Adwords Invalid Activity

Google agreed to pay $7 million to settle charges that it did not reimburse or credit its AdWords advertisers for fraudulent conduct/invalid activity. The 7$ million class action settlement helps Google AdWords advertisers who were charged for clicks on ads displayed on DoubleClick Ad Exchange websites. Between the timeline December 13, 2013, to April 28, 2022, whose accounts were not subject to an arbitration clause in their terms.

Businesses can advertise on Google search results using Google Ads (Google Adwords). These advertisements show up in pertinent searches and bring in customers for businesses.

Although these adverts can be helpful for companies trying to draw in clients, Google may not adequately reward advertisers. For example, according to a Google AdWords class-action lawsuit, Google refused some advertisers’ refunds or credits for clicks or impressions resulting from “invalid activity” or a breach of Google standards.

Plaintiffs contend that Google should have provided a refund or credit when clicks or impressions were discovered to result from fraudulent sources. In addition, the rules of Google’s advertising, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law were allegedly broken by failing to comply.

Despite refusing to acknowledge wrongdoing, Google consented to settle this class action lawsuit for $7 million. In addition, class members will receive a cash award under the terms of the Google AdWords settlement.

According to the money that class members have spent (on Google AdWords advertisements) on any of the DoubleClick Ad Exchange publisher site, each payment will represent a proportionate share of the net settlement fund. At this moment, there are no payment projections available. But the settlement excludes any payment from class members with less than a $1 proportional share of the settlement fund.

Now the question arises of who qualifies for the settlement? The settlement helps Google AdWords advertisers who were charged for clicks or impressions on ads that appear on DoubleClick Ad Exchange websites. The timeline for that is between December 13, 2013, to April 28, 2022, but whose accounts were not subject to an arbitration clause in their terms. Class members must submit a valid claim form by August 30, 2022, to be eligible for a payout from the Google AdWords settlement.

After settlement payments have been distributed, any extra money will be given to the non-profit advocacy organization Public Justice. The deadline date is August 20, 2022. The settlement’s final approval hearing is slated for October 27, 2022.

Wrongful Life Case Award Can Go Ahead, Rules Washington Supreme Court

Awarding extraordinary damages is appropriate and may go ahead for a “wrongful life” case in which a child was born with severe disabilities after her mother was accidentally given a flu shot instead of a birth control injection. The Washington Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous.

The case in question concerns a woman who went for a routine Depo-Provera injection for birth control but was given a flu shot by mistake by an assistant who had been giving flu shots to other patients. The clinic did not let the woman know about the incorrect shot until a few weeks later, at which point she was pregnant, and she gave birth to a girl with epilepsy, vision impairment, and cognitive delays, among other conditions. The girl, now 10, requires major care that her parents have not been able to afford. The damages topped $10 million, and the Justice Department was ordered to pay because the clinic in question was a federally funded organization for low-income patients.

The Justice Department argued to the 9th Circuit Court that the woman was not actively trying to avoid having a child with severe disabilities and that, other than costs associated with the pregnancy itself, this was not the responsibility of the Justice Department. However, the 9th Circuit Court asked for clarification from the Washington Supreme Court, who unanimously agreed that because congenital birth defects are known to happen, then the risk of the child having congenital disabilities was forseeable.

One other task the Washington Supreme Court took care of at the same time was to change older language that had implied people with congenital defects were somehow not “normal” people.

The decision hasn’t actually been affirmed yet, but the family’s lawyer claimed the decision effectively ended the case. The parents work as a janitor and a fast-food worker, and the case has made it extremely difficult for them to give their daughter proper care. Of the $10 million, $7.5 million are marked for care and education while $2.5 million is marked for damages to the parents.

Challenging Free Speech in the 21st Century

Despite years of political, civil, and technological advances across the globe, the 21st century has ushered in a dangerous and alarming era in which one’s fundamental right to free speech is being challenged.

In Washington state, Professor Stuart Reges is embroiled in a free speech conflict with his employer, the University of Washington (UW). The ongoing clash is over Professor Reges’ course syllabus, which included a land acknowledgment statement referencing his view of the original owner of the land upon which the university currently sits.

The University of Washington encourages its faculty to write land acknowledgments on their course syllabi and even provides an example from which professors may use as a basis. Like his computer science colleagues, Professor Reges wrote a land acknowledgment statement based on the example provided by the school.

Professor Reges’ modified land acknowledgment statement was singled out by the Computer Science Department’s director, who called the message offensive and inappropriate. In fact, according to the director, the mere existence of this revised statement created a toxic environment.

When Reges refused to comply with the director’s request, UW started an investigation. Then the school created a shadow course to compete with Professor Reges, so students could avoid “being forced” to take a specific class from a professor who disagreed with the administration-approved language. Ironically, the issue in question was irrelevant to the contents and objectives of the computer science class as well as the professor’s skill and reputation.

With a higher education motto of Let there be light, the University of Washington’s actions are beyond hypocritical as they infringe upon Professor Reges freedom of speech and expression. While the school has every right to suggest examples for faculty to use, they cannot mandate the faculty to use the university-sanctioned statements; or stay silent for fear of retribution for having differing opinions from the university’s party-line statement.

In the wake of this unfortunate event, Professor Reges has enlisted the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression – FIRE. Together they intend to hold the university accountable for its actions which violate the protections iof Americans’ freedom of speech and expression.