Johnson & Johnson, one of the most-trusted names in baby care, is facing thousands of lawsuits alleging that its talc-based baby powder of the same name caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. However, the company’s problems do not end there, as a separate lawsuit states that Johnson & Johnson helped fuel the State of Oklahoma’s opioid crisis.

More than 14,000 lawsuits have been filed regarding the company’s talc-based baby powder of the same name. Subpoenas from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have also been filed. However, Johnson & Johnson Chief Financial Officer Joseph Wolk remains optimistic. On a phone call discussing the company’s earnings he told analysts that the talc-based powder is “safe” and the company acted “responsibly.”

“We’ll continue to pursue the defense of the company’s actions, as well as the product going forward,” he said.

Beginning July 22, a federal judge will evaluate expert witnesses from both Johnson & Johnson and the plaintiffs. US District Judge Freda Wolfson in Trenton, New Jersey will review studies and other evidence legal teams plan on submitting to decide what juries will hear. This process will help to ensure that expert witness testimonies are based on sound science.

Johnson & Johnson says it is challenging plaintiffs’ witnesses scientific principles, arguing that it cannot be proven that its baby powder causes cancer. It wants all 22 witnesses dismissed, along with all cases. The federal judge review could provide Johnson & Johnson with a possible way out of more than three-quarters of all outstanding baby powder suits, should she throw out expert witnesses or studies provided by the plaintiffs.

Previous concluded trials have had mixed results for Johnson & Johnson. Last year, a Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $4.6 billion to 22 women who alleged the company’s talc-based baby powders contained asbestos and caused them to develop ovarian cancer.

In a separate lawsuit, the State of Oklahoma is suing Johnson & Johnson for allegedly fueling the state’s opioid crisis. Oklahoma is accusing Johnson & Johnson of acting as the “kingpin” because it sold painkillers and grew and imported raw materials that other opioid manufacturers used.

In response to the lawsuit, Wolk said, “We agree that there’s an epidemic with opiate addiction. However, it’s going to be multiple factorial in terms of the solution set and it’s going to require many sophisticated parties to make sure that we’ve got the right remedies in place for people who suffer from that.”

The Supreme Court ruled in June that a law that would require more prison time for criminals using a gun during a violent crime is unconstitutionally vague. The law in the case was written too vaguely and since it was vague, it violated the guarantee of due process provided by the U.S. Constitution.

Congress passed the most recent version of this law in 1986 and it gave additional penalties for those who committed certain violent crimes while possessing a firearm.

With this ruling, the court nullified the convictions of two different men prosecuted in the state of Texas with charges for their roles in a number of gas station robberies in the state in 2014. Maurice Davis and Andrew Glover, the two defendants, were convicted of multiple robbery charges, two counts of brandishing a shotgun during a violent crime, and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery. Davis was sentenced to 41 years originally and Glover was sentenced to 50 years. Both are now likely to have shorter sentences but the decision doesn’t affect other convictions.

The Supreme Court was divided on the issue, including President Trump’s two nominees. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the majority with the four liberal justices and helped write the decision. The other Trump appointee, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, had a dissent for the court’s conservatives.

The Justice Department said that if the law was struck down then the courts will be inundated with collateral review petitions by some of the most dangerous prisoners in the federal prison system. It can also frustrate efforts to prosecute any future and current violent criminals. Kavanaugh also touched on this argument in his dissent, in which he labeled this ruling “an extraordinary event.” Part of what he said was that the decision of the court makes it harder to prosecute any violent gun crimes. It also means that inmates who have committed these types of crimes will have earlier release dates.

Gorsuch wrote that laws passed by Congress need to give ordinary people notice of the kind of conduct that can land them in prison. He said that a vague law isn’t a law at all. He added that Congress could pass a law that is more specific to address the issue.

Considering Capital One’s ranking as one of the five largest credit card issuers in the U.S., a data breach potentially compromising the information of 106 million customers (roughly 100 million U.S. and 6 million Canadian) is cause for alarm. The fact that it was orchestrated by a solo hacker in Seattle, Paige Thompson, (a former Amazon Web Services employee) is even more disconcerting given the scope of the breach. Thompson could not resist bragging online about her grandiose feat which led to her arrest; she is currently facing fraud charges as well as computer abuse.

Capital One initially revealed the breach’s occurrence on July 19, 2019. The company’s chairman and chief executive, Richard D. Fairbank, issued the following statement: “ I sincerely apologize for the understandable worry this incident must be causing those affected and I am committed to making it right.” The potential cost of this investigation (an estimated amount between $100-$150 million) coupled with the myriad of class action lawsuits will undoubtedly gouge profits from this lucrative company.

In fact, a Capital One customer named Kevin Zosiak of Stamford, CT, filed a class action lawsuit in Washington D.C. almost immediately after the announcement of the data breach. According to Bloomberg LP, Zosiak’s exasperation with Capital One stems from its negligence to protect its customers despite “ample warnings and risks to its systems” through multiple breaches in the past.

The exorbitant cost of this data breach may seem outrageous because the information had allegedly not been distributed yet; however, the damage that may be inflicted on Capital One customers is that it leaves them vulnerable to criminals applying for credit using their personal data. In addition to having access to full names, phone numbers, self-reported income and other sensitive information, criminals could feasibly have access to 140,000 social security numbers and 80,000 bank account numbers. This form of identity theft would wreak havoc on customers, harming their credit and causing, at the very least, a major inconvenience in their daily lives.

Whatever the outcome of the class action lawsuit may be, hopefully the sheer effort involved in rectifying such a crime will make these large companies consider prioritizing the privacy and security of their customers in the future.