Facebook knew of problems with how it measured viewership of video ads for more than a year before it revealed them in 2016, according to a complaint filed by advertisers.
Advertisers allege that Facebook knew for more than a year about problems measuring viewership of video ads before disclosing the issue.
Facebook Inc. knew of problems in how it measured viewership of video ads on its platform for more than a year before it disclosed them in 2016, according to a complaint filed Tuesday by advertisers.
A group of small advertisers filed a lawsuit in California federal court in 2016, alleging the tech giant engaged in unfair business conduct by disseminating inaccurate metrics that significantly overestimated the amount of time users were spending watching video ads.
The plaintiffs later added a fraud claim, and in Tuesday’s court filing they alleged Facebook knew of irregularities in its video metrics by January 2015 and understood the nature of the miscalculation within a few months, but failed to disclose the information for over a year.
The filing followed the plaintiffs’ review of some 80,000 pages of internal Facebook records that they obtained as part of court proceedings.
The complaint, which cites the internal Facebook documents, also alleges that the scale of the miscalculation was far worse than understood.
“Facebook’s internal efforts behind the scenes reflect a company mentality of reckless indifference toward the accuracy of its metrics,” the plaintiffs said in Tuesday’s filing.
In a statement, a Facebook spokeswoman said, “Suggestions that we in any way tried to hide this issue from our partners are false. We told our customers about the error when we discovered it—and updated our help center to explain the issue.”
Facebook said the lawsuit is without merit and has moved to dismiss the fraud claim.
The plaintiffs in the case include Crowd Siren, a small Las Vegas marketing agency, and Jonathan Murdough, a Pennsylvania resident who purchased Facebook video ads.
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status and punitive damages, stemmed from a September 2016 Wall Street Journal report that said Facebook had vastly overestimated average viewing time for video ads. Facebook disclosed the issue in a post on its advertiser help center that August.
Cohen Milstein’s Consumer Protection team is Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel in this case.
The case name is: LLE One, LLC v. Facebook, Case. No.: 4:16-cv-06232-JSW, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division
- First case to succeed against online gun dealer, anti-gun-violence advocate says
- Industry changes, legislative efforts may follow
An online gun dealer and an Oregon pawn shop will change their business practices and pay $750,000 to the family of a woman killed in a shooting, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and other attorneys for the family said.
“This is the first case that we’re aware of that was successful against an online gun dealer,” Jonathan Lowy, vice president of litigation at the Brady Center and co-counsel in the case, told Bloomberg Law.
The settlement could provide a guidepost for voluntary changes by online gun dealers and for state legislative efforts, Lowy said, noting that Internet commerce is getting bigger in the gun market and is “a huge problem.”
The case established a gun seller’s potential liability even when the shooter fired a different weapon from the one the company sold, according to the Brady Center and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, which also represented the family.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington, D.C. – In April 2013, Kirsten Englund was shot and killed by a mentally troubled man whose mother had illegally purchased two guns on his behalf. Today, Kirsten’s family is announcing a landmark settlement in their lawsuit against J&G Sales, a national online gun dealer, and World Pawn Exchange, a firearms dealer in Oregon. Kirsten’s family had settled earlier with the mother of the shooter. As a result of the case, the first of its kind addressing the legal liability of federally licensed firearms dealers selling guns over the Internet, important legal precedent has now been established on gun dealer responsibility and a message has been sent to the gun industry about the care required to safely sell guns online.
The suit created new legal precedent that gun dealers can be held liable for the death of victims when they illegally sell guns over the Internet. It was also the first ruling to hold that both dealers involved in an online sale, the dealer who took the online order and the local dealer who completed the transfer, could be liable for a deadly shooting even if the gun they negligently sold was not fired, and if they negligently failed to report a suspicious gun sale to law enforcement. The litigation also was notable for permitting plaintiffs to pursue punitive damages against the gun sellers following an evidentiary hearing.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and the D’Amore Law Group brought the lawsuit in 2016 and recently settled all claims on behalf of the Englund family. In addition to the significant business reforms being implemented as a result of the suit, the settlement also includes a substantial monetary settlement from all defendants in excess of $750,000.
Jonathan Lowy, Vice President of Litigation at the Brady Center and co-counsel for the estate of Kirsten Englund, stated, “If it were not so easy for a dangerously mentally troubled killer to obtain a gun on the Internet, Kirsten Englund would be alive today, with her two sons and loving family. As a result of this lawsuit, two gun dealers have agreed to significantly reform their business practices to make it harder for dangerous people to get guns, online or in a gun store. This settlement sends a resounding message to gun dealers across the country that there’s more they can and should do to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and if they act irresponsibly, they will be held accountable if innocent people are hurt or killed. This case is the latest in a string of impactful lawsuits by brave victims and survivors of gun violence who have channeled their grief into action, and forced gun sellers to be more careful to keep guns out of the wrong hands.”
Julie Goldsmith Reiser, a partner at Cohen Milstein, added, “Cohen Milstein is proud of the results we have achieved for the Englund Family in this lawsuit. For over two and a half years, Cohen Milstein and the Brady Center litigated this case on a pro bono basis, and overcame a number of novel and challenging legal issues to provide a sense of justice to the Englund family and meaningful business reforms that will make tragedies like this one less likely in the future.”
Raymond M. Sarola, an associate at Cohen Milstein, further noted, “By bringing this lawsuit, the Englund Family has established – for the first time – that gun dealers who sell online must follow the same laws that apply to in-person gun sales. Two Oregon judges rejected the defendants’ efforts to have the case dismissed, holding that neither the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, nor any other law or legal principle insulates gun dealers from liability when they engage in straw sales. This sends a strong message to the gun industry that whether they sell guns in a store or over the Internet, if those sales do not comply with the law and someone is harmed as a result, the dealers will be held responsible in court.”
As part of the settlement, both gun dealers will implement important business reforms that will make it more difficult for dangerous people to get guns. J&G Sales, the online firearms dealer in Arizona that sold the gun that was transferred to World Pawn Exchange before being provided to Kirsten Englund’s murderer, has agreed to implement critical business reforms, including:
- Updating its employee manual to reflect new processes related to Internet sales to help employees identify and escalate suspicious purchasers/purchases;
- Updating its invoice system to provide clarification to the transferring gun dealer regarding the person the gun must be transferred to; and
- Updating its online ordering system to require buyers to confirm, under penalty of law, that they are purchasing the gun for themselves or as a gift for a spouse, child or grandchild.
World Pawn Exchange, the gun dealer in Oregon that transferred the gun used in the murder, has agreed to, among other reforms:
- No longer transfer firearms ordered from online sellers;
- Recognize that it has an important role in preventing dangerous people from obtaining firearms and keeping its community safe; and
- Publicly recommend that all gun dealers – including online sellers – go beyond the legal minimums to implement the safest business practices to prevent guns from being obtained by criminals, straw purchasers, and other persons who pose a danger to themselves or others.
During the course of the litigation, the Englund family won several important, precedent-setting victories in court. Those include:
- In June 2017, Multnomah County Judge Michael A. Greenlick denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In a first-of-its-kind ruling in Oregon, Judge Greenlick held that both gun dealers could be held liable for Kirsten’s death under general principles of negligence law. It was also a first-in-the-nation ruling that an online gun dealer could be liable for a shooting where it shipped a gun to another dealer, and it created precedent in holding that both dealers could be liable for the shooting even though the gun they negligently sold was not fired, since the gun they negligently sold could have emboldened the killer.
- In August 2018, Coos County Judge Martin Stone denied J&G’s motion for summary judgment. It was a first-in-the-nation ruling that a jury could hear claims against an online gun dealer who negligently sold guns that were supplied to the shooter. The ruling also created precedent in holding that the dealer could be liable for negligently selling a gun that was not fired, since a jury could find law enforcement could have seized the murder weapon if the dealer had notified law enforcement of a suspicious gun sale.
- In June 2018, Judge Stone granted the plaintiff’s motion to include punitive damages, meaning that the Court held that a jury could find that dealer defendants knew or should have known that a straw purchase was underway, calling several signs a “pretty clear red flag.”
+++++
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is dedicated to reducing gun injuries and deaths in America by stemming all of the causes of gun violence. Through its legal work, the Brady Center works in the courts to reform dangerous and reckless gun industry practices that give criminals and dangerous individuals access to guns. Brady’s legal team has won rulings in courts across the country holding that gun companies can be held accountable for shootings that result from their negligence, including in the Supreme Courts of Kansas, Indiana, and Alaska, and lower courts in New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, West Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is recognized as one of the premier law firms in the country handling major, complex plaintiff-side litigation. With more than 90 attorneys, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Philadelphia, PA, and Raleigh, NC.
Tom D’Amore, a leading plaintiffs’ trial attorney based in Portland, OR, is the founder of the D’Amore Law Group.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Max Samis, Press Secretary
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
(o) 202-370-8128
(c) 202-681-2528
A U.S. judge on Thursday ordered Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and four other large banks to face an antitrust lawsuit by investors who said they conspired to stifle competition in the nearly $2 trillion stock lending market.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in Manhattan rejected the banks’ arguments that the investors, led by several pension funds, made implausible allegations and sued too late, and that the defendants’ activity was reasonable.
The plaintiffs accused units of Goldman, JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN.S), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and UBS Group AG (UBSG.S) of conspiring since 2009 to keep the stock lending market “in the stone age” by boycotting the startup platforms AQS, Data Explorers and SL-x.
. . .
Michael Eisenkraft, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email: “We are pleased with the judge’s ruling and look forward to prosecuting the case.”
Contact: Jill Abrams, Director, Consumer Protection Unit, (802) 828-1106
AG Alleges Deceptive and Unfair Acts and Public Nuisance
Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan announced that today his office filed a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act and public nuisance law concerning Purdue’s marketing and promotion of opioids. Purdue is the manufacturer of Oxycontin.
“The State of Vermont has been hit hard by the opioid epidemic. We have made strides in the areas of prevention, treatment, and enforcement, but corporate accountability is also necessary. I look forward to telling Vermont’s story,” Attorney General Donovan said.
The lawsuit is based on Purdue’s behavior surrounding marketing of OxyContin and its other long-acting opioid products for the treatment of chronic pain, including:
- Minimizing the serious risk of addiction;
- Denying or failing to disclose the dangers of opioids at higher doses, which increased the risk of addiction and overdose;
- Overstating the effectiveness of screening tools for preventing addiction, giving prescribers unwarranted confidence that they could safely prescribe opioids; and
- Exaggerating the effectiveness of abuse-deterrent opioid formulations at preventing abuse and addiction.
Before the introduction of Oxycontin to the market in 1996, opioids were prescribed for post-surgical, end-of-life, or cancer pain. But by 2012, opioids were among the most prescribed drugs, and 90% of opioids were given —not just for these extreme circumstances—but for all types of chronic pain, including for routine conditions such as moderate lower back pain. This resulted in extreme spikes in opioid use. In 2015, there were nearly 500,000 opioid prescriptions dispensed in Vermont. According to the Centers for Disease Control, by 2016, there were 58.6 opioid prescriptions dispensed for every 100 Vermont residents.
The State’s complaint also points to what might have been Purdue’s most egregious conduct: tainting the science with misinformation. “Purdue convinced the medical community and the public to believe unsubstantiated statements about the safety and benefits of long-term opioid use. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any scientific evidence to support the safety or efficacy of opioid use for longer than 12 weeks,” Attorney General Donovan said.
The lawsuit was filed in Chittenden County Superior Court. See a copy of the State’s complaint. The State has retained the law firms of Cohen Milstein and Zimmerman Reed as co-counsel in this matter.
The €4.34 billion ($5.06 billion) fine levied by the European Union against Alphabet Google highlights the differences with the U.S. in how the two regions view their roles in antitrust regulation, said an attorney who previously worked in the antitrust unit at the U.S. Department of Justice.
The fine announced Wednesday shows the EU’s willingness to rein in the operations of big tech companies, whereas the U.S. takes a more hands-off approach. This divergence in philosophy means it’s unlikely Google will suffer any ramifications in the U.S. due to the EU’s decision, said Ben Brown, co-chair of the antitrust practice at law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.
The U.S. enforcement agencies have generally “taken a hands-off approach,” said Mr. Brown, while the consensus in the American antitrust community it is unlikely similar cases will be litigated in the U.S.. “And with this administration, or any administration for that matter, you would be unlikely to see any kinds of enforcement actions,” he said.
The EU antitrust regulator determined Google abused the dominance of its Android operating system to promote and entrench the company’s cash-cow search engine. Brussels ordered Google to rip up parts of agreements with mobile-phone makers and telecommunications operators.
Regulators said the deals effectively force those companies to pre-install the Google search engine and its Chrome browser in versions of Android that Google provides, free of charge, for use in phones and other devices. That means Google may have to stop offering incentives to manufacturers to pre-install its software in Europe, said Mr. Brown.
While Google may have to stop offering incentives to handset manufacturers to preinstall its search engine and Chrome browser, it wouldn’t necessarily have to stop making those offers in the U.S., said Mr. Brown.
“They can adopt different business practices for different sides of the Atlantic,” he said. “The broader application of this rule will have some benefits for competition in Europe, but it won’t translate” in the U.S.
A civil rights group filed suit Thursday against a Florida sheriff and school district, claiming that juvenile suspects are unjustly kept in solitary confinement without cause and denied a proper education as they await trial as adults.
The Human Rights Defense Center filed suit in federal court against Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and the county school district on behalf of three boys who are 16 and 17. The three are listed only by their initials and are awaiting trial on felony charges that the lawsuit does not disclose.
The lawsuit alleges that the three were kept in solitary for up to seven months and only allowed out of their 6-foot by 12-foot (2-meter by 4-meter) cells for an hour three days a week to exercise alone on a caged basketball court.
…
Ted Leopold, a lawyer representing the three, said the sheriff is “committing a horrible breach” of the teens’ constitutional rights, including the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, by jailing them in the same manner as “hard-core convicts who have been put away for life.”
“They have not been convicted of anything yet,” Leopold said.
The DBR’s annual Distinguished Leaders awards recognize the great performances and valuable leadership of noteworthy South Florida attorneys.
The Daily Business Review’s Distinguished Leaders awards recognize lawyers who achieved impressive results in 2017 and demonstrated clear leadership skills that helped them achieve those results. The award is about highlighting South Florida lawyers who demonstrated great performances as well as valuable leadership skills while doing it.
…
LESLIE M. KROEGER
Title: Partner
Firm: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
What is the one word people use to describe you?
That’s a great question, and I’m not sure that I know of just one word. I think people would describe me as compassionate, focused, a leader or driven, but probably most of all professional. One of the nicest compliments paid by a colleague is recently being described as “accessible.” She further explained that I always make myself available, that I’m easy to talk to and that I have the ability to make challenging information or issues easy to understand.
What is your favorite thing about being in the legal profession?
My ability to help people who otherwise would have no voice. My work allows me to fight for those who often have no one else to turn to.
Two female former employees of AT&T Mobility LLC this week accused the company of discriminating against pregnant women, alleging that they were both fired for missing work because of pregnancy-related medical care. One of the women claims she was fired from her job at a store in Las Vegas for taking time off to deal with her infant son’s emergency medical care, and another alleges she endured discriminatory harassment while pregnant and was fired from an Indiana store two days after returning from maternity leave.
Cynthia Allen and Katia Hills say the subsidiary of telecommunications giant AT&T penalized them under the company’s nationwide “Sales Attendance Guidelines” policy, a “no-fault” system that assigns points for all absences unless they are “excused.” There is no “grace period.”
The women allege that AT&T Mobility’s attendance policy discriminates against pregnant women and is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). They have filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana; Hills worked at a retail store in Elkhart, Ind.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project represent the plaintiffs in this matter.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Federal Class-Action Lawsuit Alleges “No-Fault” Attendance Policy Unfairly Discriminates Against Pregnant Women
FORT WAYNE, IN – Two female former employees of AT&T Mobility LLC (NYSE: T) today accused the subsidiary of telecommunications giant AT&T, Inc. of violating the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The women allege that AT&T Mobility’s “no fault” attendance policy, which assigns point-based demerits for late arrivals, early departures, or absences, discriminates against pregnant women. Both women were fired after accruing points for missing work due to pregnancy-related medical care, and, in the case of one of the women, also due to her infant son’s emergency medical care. The women filed their pregnancy discrimination claim on behalf of all female non-managerial employees in the company’s corporate retail stores nationwide, and they seek redress for all of these employees whose rights have been violated. The case has broad, national implications for the legal boundaries of “no-fault” attendance policies.
The two named plaintiffs, Katia Hills and Cynthia Allen, were both penalized under the company’s nationwide “Sales Attendance Guidelines” policy. The policy exempts a number of absences from the point system, ranging from jury duty to short-term disability – but does not mention pregnancy. Under the PDA, companies cannot treat pregnant and non-pregnant employees differently in extending employment benefits such as exemptions from disciplinary policies. Under the FMLA, which grants up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave for eligible employees to care for their own serious medical condition or that of an immediate family member, employers may neither interfere with employees’ right to take such leave nor retaliate against them for doing so.
“AT&T Mobility is essentially punishing women for being pregnant,” said Kalpana Kotagal, partner in Cohen Milstein’s Civil Rights & Employment practice group and Co-Lead Counsel representing the plaintiffs. “Employers of course have every right to discipline employees who are habitually late or absent, but the law recognizes that pregnancy, like disability and other protected characteristics, can’t and shouldn’t be penalized in the same way.”
“Workers aren’t machines. They’re human beings,” added Gillian Thomas, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Women’s Rights Project and Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs. “Human beings get pregnant, they get sick, and they have family members who depend on them for their well-being. AT&T Mobility’s policy needs to change to recognize that reality and comply with the legal obligations that come with it.”
As detailed in the class action complaint filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hills was employed at an AT&T Mobility retail store in Elkhart, Indiana from April 2014 until July 2015. Already a high-performing employee who had been promoted to a sales position, in October 2014, she became pregnant. Her pregnancy resulted in severe nausea and other symptoms that caused her to be late or occasionally miss work and also required that she attend numerous medical appointments and physical therapy. Despite eventually developing a pregnancy-related disability as well as qualifying for intermittent leave under FMLA, Hills had accrued several points by the time she went out on maternity leave. She also experienced persistent hostility to her pregnancy: her manager told her “women don’t come back to work after giving birth” and urged her not to take all the leave afforded her under the FMLA. She also was harassed by a male coworker about her changing body.
Hills gave birth to her son in June 2015. Two days after she returned from maternity leave in July, her manager told her that the company had given her points for two pre-leave, pregnancy-related absences, and fired her.
“I was dedicated to my work at AT&T Mobility, but when I decided to bring a child into this world, the company asked me to choose between my job and having a safe pregnancy,” said plaintiff Katia Hills. “I know I’m not alone, and that’s why I’m standing up. The attendance policies are too rigid for women whose bodies are undergoing so many changes. AT&T needs to prove it cares about female workers, and changing this unfair policy has to be the first step.”
The second plaintiff, Cynthia Allen, worked at AT&T Mobility retail stores in New York City starting in December 2012 before transferring to a Las Vegas store in April 2017. When she became pregnant in March 2016, she sought information about excused absences and FMLA under AT&T Mobility’s attendance policy, but she was subjected to hostility.
When severe pregnancy-related illnesses required Allen to take time off prior to her son’s December 2016 birth, she submitted documentation from her health providers and was never informed of any point accruals. But when she returned from maternity leave in February 2017, Allen was informed she’d been put on “final notice” due to the pre-birth absences. The following month, after missing two days to take her son for emergency medical care, she was terminated.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (including the revision of AT&T Mobility’s attendance policies throughout the country), compensation for loss of income, compensatory and consequential damages, punitive and liquidated damages, and coverage of attorneys’ fees. A ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor also would put on notice the countless other employers nationwide who utilize “no-fault” attendance policies that their policies must make the necessary exceptions for absences due to pregnancy and intermittent family leave.
The plaintiffs are represented by Lenora M. Lapidus and Gillian Thomas of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, Joseph M. Sellers, Kalpana Kotagal and Miriam R. Nemeth of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; and Lynn Toops of Cohen and Malad, LLP.
About the ACLU Women’s Rights Project
The ACLU Women’s Rights Project (“WRP”) was co-founded in 1972 by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Through litigation, advocacy, and public education, WRP pushes for change and systemic reform in institutions that perpetuate discrimination against women, focusing its work in the areas of employment, violence against women, and education. For additional information, visit www.aclu.org/issues/womens-rights.
About Cohen Milstein
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is recognized as one of the premier law firms in the country handling major, complex plaintiff-side litigation. With more than 90 attorneys, Cohen Milstein has offices in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Ill., New York, N.Y., Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., Philadelphia, Pa., and Raleigh, N.C. For additional information, visit www.cohenmilstein.com or call 202.408.4600.
Media Contacts:
Denise Luu / 310-905-3193
or
Thomas Dresslar / 212-284-7387
###