Tag Archives: CASE1

Business

UK court sets scene for $14 bln-plus class action against Mastercard

Leave a comment

  • Britain’s first consumer class action authorised
  • UK Supreme Court overruled objections to case in December
  • Claimants allege Mastercard overcharged 46 million people

LONDON, Aug 18 (Reuters) – A London court on Wednesday approved a 10 billion pound-plus ($14 billion-plus) class action against global payments processor Mastercard (MA.N) that claimants said could entitle 46 million British adults to roughly 300 pounds each if it is successful.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) had been expected to certify Britain’s first mass consumer class action, brought by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, after the UK Supreme Court overruled objections to it in December. read more

The decision to finally authorise the five-year case as a collective action establishes a standard for a string of other proposed class actions that have been stalled in its wake.

“Mastercard has thrown everything at trying to prevent this claim going forward, but today its efforts have failed,” Merricks said in a statement.

“The tribunal’s ruling heralds the start of an era of consumer-focused class actions which will help to hold big business to account in areas that really matter.”

Mastercard said the “spurious” claim was being driven by lawyers and backed by organisations “primarily focused on making money for themselves”.

Merricks alleges Mastercard charged excessive “interchange” fees – the fees retailers pay credit card companies when consumers use a card to shop – between May 1992 and June 2008 and that those fees were passed on to consumers as retailers raised prices.

But Merricks failed to expand the scope of the case by adding the estates of the deceased and compound interest to the claim. Mastercard said this reduced the claim’s size to around 10 billion pounds. The claimants put it at 15 billion pounds.

“The decision today reduces the value of this spurious claim by more than 35%,” Mastercard said in a statement.

“Mastercard is confident that over the coming months a review of key facts will further significantly reduce the size and viability of the claim.”

($1 = 0.7265 pounds)

Reporting by Kirstin Ridley; Editing by Steve Orlofsky

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Business

Ford counterattacks in ‘cruise’ dispute with GM

Leave a comment

DETROIT, Aug 13 (Reuters) – Ford Motor Co (F.N) said late on Friday it will ask the U.S. Patent Office to rescind trademarks obtained by rival General Motors Co (GM.N) for the terms “Cruise” and “Super Cruise,” escalating a brawl GM began by suing Ford over its use of “Blue Cruise” for an automated driving system.

The legal fight between the two Detroit automakers turns on whether “cruise” is a generic term for technology that allows the car to take over some share of driving tasks from a human motorist.

The clash underscores the intensity of competition among established automakers to be seen as leaders in automated driving technology, competitive with Silicon Valley rivals Tesla Inc (TSLA.O), Alphabet Inc(GOOGL.O) ‘s Waymo unit and others.

GM filed a federal suit against Ford on July 24, accusing Ford of violating GM trademarks by using the name “Blue Cruise” for a system that enables hands-free driving. read more

GM had previously trademarked “Super Cruise” for its hands-free, partially automated driving technology. It also has trademarked “Cruise,” the name of its robo-taxi unit in San Francisco.

Ford reiterated on Friday its position that GM’s suit is frivolous. The effort to nullify GM’s trademarks for the use of the word “cruise” takes the fight to a new level.

“To defend itself, Ford has no choice but to ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to rescind both of GM’s “Cruise” and “Super Cruise” trademark registrations that should have never been registered in the first place,” Ford said. “Any number of companies use the word ‘cruise’ in connection with driver assist technology.”

Among the examples Ford cited: “Predictive Cruise,” marketed by Mack Trucks; “Smart Cruise Control” marketed by Hyundai Motor Co (005380.KS), and Autocruise, used by auto supplier ZF Friedrichshafen AG.

GM said Friday that Super Cruise “has had a well established commercial presence since 2017,” and added in a statement that the company “remains committed to vigorously defending our brands and protecting the equity our products and technology have earned over several years in the market and that won’t change.”

Reporting by Joe White; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Daniel Wallis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

World

Australia to offer redress payments to some of its ‘Stolen Generation’

Leave a comment

Members of the Australian Aboriginal community of Ramingining can be seen near their homes in East Arnhem Land, located east of the Northern Territory city of Darwin, Australia November 24, 2014. REUTERS/David Gray

CANBERRA, Aug 5 (Reuters) – Australia said on Thursday it will offer redress payments of A$75,000 ($55,000) to some members of its Indigenous population who were forcibly removed from their families as children.

More than 100,000 Indigenous children were taken from their families and communities between the early 1900s and about 1970, described by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a “great stain on our nation’s soul” during a formal apology to the so-called ‘Stolen Generation’ in 2008.

Amid mounting criticism and moves to seek compensation through the courts, Australia said eligible survivors would be entitled to a one-off A$75,000 payment for the harm caused by their forced removal, and a further A$7,000 to support their healing.

“This is a long called-for step, recognising the bond between healing, dignity and the health and well-being of members of the Stolen Generations, their families and their communities,” said Prime Minister Scott Morrison in parliament on Thursday.

“To say formally, not just that we’re deeply sorry for what happened, but that we will take responsibility for it.”

The reparations will cover people who are still alive and were under 18 and removed from their families while living in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. Most Australian states have their own compensation schemes.

Indigenous groups welcomed the payments, but cautioned more work needs to be done.

“It’s something, but it’s not everything. It won’t provide that end state of a healed nation, but there is hope,” said Fiona Cornfort, CEO of the Healing Foundation, a representative group for some members of the Stolen Generation.

The redress payments came as part of Australia’s pledge to spend an additional A$1 billion to improve the lives of its Indigenous population.

Australia last year said it would reset its policies towards Indigenous Australians after acknowledging a decade of efforts to improve metrics such as life expectancy and education had failed.

Australia’s 700,000 Indigenous people track near the bottom of its near 26 million citizens in almost every economic and social indicator.

The life expectancy of Indigenous Australians is eight years shorter than for non-Indigenous people and they are over-represented in prison, government statistics show.

($1 = 1.3554 Australian dollars)

Reporting by Renju Jose and Colin Packham; Editing by Karishma Singh

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Business

Zoom reaches $85 mln settlement of lawsuit over user privacy, ‘Zoombombing’

Leave a comment

Small toy figures are seen in front of Zoom logo in this illustration picture taken March 15, 2021. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

Aug 1 (Reuters) – Zoom Video Communications Inc (ZM.O) agreed to pay $85 million and bolster its security practices to settle a lawsuit claiming it violated users’ privacy rights by sharing personal data with Facebook, Google and LinkedIn, and letting hackers disrupt Zoom meetings in a practice called Zoombombing.

A preliminary settlement filed on Saturday afternoon requires approval by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California.

Subscribers in the proposed class action would be eligible for 15% refunds on their core subscriptions or $25, whichever is larger, while others could receive up to $15.

Zoom agreed to security measures including alerting users when meeting hosts or other participants use third-party apps in meetings, and to provide specialized training to employees on privacy and data handling.

The San Jose-based company denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. It did not immediately respond on Sunday to a request for comment.

Saturday’s settlement came after Koh on March 11 let the plaintiffs pursue some contract-based claims. read more

Though Zoom collected about $1.3 billion in Zoom Meetings subscriptions from class members, the plaintiffs’ lawyers called the $85 million settlement reasonable given the litigation risks. They intend to seek up to $21.25 million for legal fees.

Zoombombing is where outsiders hijack Zoom meetings and display pornography, use racist language or post other disturbing content.

Koh said Zoom was “mostly” immune for Zoombombing under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability over user content.

Zoom’s customer base has grown sixfold since the COVID-19 pandemic forced more people to work from home.

The company had 497,000 customers with more than 10 employees in April 2021, up from 81,900 in January 2020. It has said user growth could slow or decline as more people get vaccines and return to work or school in-person.

The case is In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc Privacy Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 20-02155.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Andrea Ricci

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here