Netflix released its movie about the Panama Papers on October 18th, and while fictional versions of Jürgen Mossack and Ramón Fonseca narrate the story of the movie to “tell their side”, the real-life Mossack and Fonseca are suing Netflix for defamation.

Mossack and Fonseca are the two lawyers who founded and ran the law firm Mossack Fonseca out of Panama. Their law firm controlled the finances for companies for people all over the world. These are known as offshore accounts, and while they are legal, the Panama Papers revealed that some of the companies allegedly held by the law firm existed only on paper and did not produce or sell anything. These are known as shell corporations and they were allegedly used by Mossack Fonseca’s clients to hide illegal dealings, such as fraud and evading international sanctions, as well as evading taxes.

In Netflix’s movie, “The Laundromat”, both Mossack and Fonseca insist their law firm holds so many companies they don’t even know what each of them does, thereby insisting they are innocent of any crimes their clients may have committed. Continue reading ›

As consumers have started to recognize the unhealthy effects of consuming corn syrup, more and more food and beverage manufacturers have removed or limited its use in their products. While beer has never been considered a health food, the battle over corn syrup appears to have made its way to the world of beer, starting with Anheuser-Busch’s Superbowl commercial showing an order of corn syrup being delivered by mistake to the castle of the fictional medieval king of Bud Light. The king then leads a quest to remedy the mistake by personally taking the corn syrup to the fictional king of MillerCoors.

MillerCoors, a brewer based out of Chicago, responded, first with its own ad campaign, then with a lawsuit alleging false advertising.

The legal battle between the two beer giants recently took another turn when Anheuser-Busch sued MillerCoors for allegedly stealing trade secrets. According to the lawsuit, an employee of an Anheuser-Busch brewery allegedly shared recipes with an employee of MillerCoors.

That employee is no longer working for Anheuser-Busch, although if the allegations are true, they might be able to get a job with MillerCoors. Continue reading ›

Jared Pozner, who lost his 6-year-old son, Noah, in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, has had to deal with attacks from everyone from the hosts of radio shows to the authors of books claiming he’s lying about his son’s death. In addition to the HONR Networking, an advocacy group that puts pressure on social media sites like Facebook to remove false or misleading information about the Sandy Hook shooting, Pozner and several other families of the victims have filed defamation lawsuits against their accusers all over the country.

The largest defamation lawsuit is against Alex Jones, the host, and owner of Infowars, a radio show and website that have allegedly been spreading false information about Sandy Hook and other mass shootings and accused the families of lying about their children’s deaths. That lawsuit is still working its way through the court system, but in the meantime, Pozner recently won a smaller lawsuit against James Fetzer. Continue reading ›

While buying a used car might sound like a great way to save money, a new investigation allegedly found that buying from AutoNation could mean the possibility of buying a car that AutoNation knows is defective (or is subject to recall) but never bothered to have repaired or to resolve the recall issue.

There is a federal law that prevents auto dealers from selling new defective automobiles, but there is no such law to prevent anyone from selling used cars with defects. A new federal bill was recently introduced that would close that loophole, but we have yet to see what the fate of that bill will be. In the meantime, some states have local laws against selling defective vehicles (new or otherwise), so if you live in a state with such protections and you recently bought a defective used car, you can sue the dealer that sold you the defective vehicle. Continue reading ›

The Federal Trade Commission is asking the Second Circuit federal appeals court to uphold a finding that 1-800 Contacts violated antitrust law by preventing rivals from using its trademarked name in search ads. Meanwhile, 1-800 Contacts is also defending against a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of consumers centering on the same conduct, but also naming additional retailers as defendants, including National Vision, Vision Direct, Luxxotica and Walgreens. Luxxotica recently agreed to pay $5.9 million to settle the claims against it in the lawsuit and National Vision settled for $7 million in 2017.

The dispute centers on 1-800 Contacts’s business practices dating back to 2004, when it brought or threatened legal action against numerous rivals accusing them of infringing its trademarks by purchasing search ads using the phrase “1-800 Contacts” to trigger a pay-per-click search ad. From 2004 through 2013, the company sued or threatened to sue at least 13 competitors over alleged trademark infringement on various search engines. 1-800 Contacts asserted that the act of purchasing ad words using its registered mark violated its trademark. In most cases, the rival companies responded to these threats or lawsuits by agreeing to enter agreements requiring them to cease bidding on search engine ad words using the 1-800 Contacts mark. Only Lens.com fought back and largely prevailed in the suit. Continue reading ›

As we enter the final quarter of 2019, employers must begin to look ahead and begin preparing for a number of new employment laws that will take effect January 1, 2020. Even though employers have nearly 100 days to review and revise their employment policies, they should start familiarizing themselves now with the new requirements, training management in compliance, and preparing to implement any new procedures come the start of 2020. Continue reading ›

A retailer’s plan for calculating commissions for its sales associates did not violate the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act because the relevant portion of the statute concerned only deductions from an employee’s wages, and not the method used to calculate the employee’s gross pay prior to deductions.

The Tile Shop, LLC sells tile and related materials and accessories. It operates 128 retail stores across 31 states. Each store employs a manager, one or two assistant managers, and a staff of sales associates. Sales associates and assistant managers are primarily responsible for sales. The Tile Shop pays its sales associates and assistant managers pursuant to a “Sales Associate Pay Plan.” The company gives prospective employees a copy of the plan with its offer letter. The plan explains how the company compensates its sales staff, primarily through commissions but also with bonuses on sales of certain products and periodic incentives. The Shop pays employees on a semimonthly basis. Continue reading ›

 

Online dating sites are an increasingly common way people seek to find romance. But, according to the Federal Trade Commission, these sites could also be a source of scams or a haven for scammers. The FTC recently filed a lawsuit against the company that owns popular dating sites and apps such as Match.com, Tinder, OKCupid, and PlentyOfFish, alleging that the company used fake advertisements designed to trick consumers into believing someone had shown interest in them and purchase a paid subscriptions on Match.com.

According to the FTC’s complaint, many consumers received emails or instant messages containing attention-grabbing text such as: “He just emailed you! You caught his eye and now he’s expressed interest in you… Could he be the one?” (referred to as “You caught his eye”-type notices in the complaint) Although Match allows consumers to create free accounts, to actually read these messages Match required consumers to upgrade to paid subscriptions. For many consumers hoping to find that special someone, the representation that specific suitors were already eager to meet them proved impossible to pass up. Many consumers responded to these emails and messages, often paying more than $100 for a subscription in the hope of connecting with these people who had already “expressed interest” in them. Continue reading ›

Business owners and consumers alike know that contracts are an everyday part of life. Equally common though are modifications or amendments to those contracts. Some modifications are memorialized in writing. Many more, however, are made orally and even worse some are implied through a party’s conduct. As we have discussed previously, Illinois law permits the parties to a contract to orally modify their contracts, even if the contract provides that all amendments must be in writing. However, certain contracts are subject to specific statutory provisions that prohibit oral modifications.

One such statutory prohibition against oral modifications is Section 2-209 of the Illinois Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/2-209(2). Section 2-209 of the Illinois UCC governs modification, rescission, and waiver of contracts for the sale of goods. Specifically, Section 2-209(2) bars oral modifications but only when the prior written contract includes a provision that “excludes modification or rescission except by a signed writing.” Business owners must be aware though that Section 2-209 does not apply to all contracts. It is limited to transactions in goods and may be extended only to contracts that are predominantly for the sale of goods. Business owners must be aware of the requirements for Section 2-209 to apply.  Continue reading ›

When two people purchased an RV that was later found to have a defect that substantially impaired its value, the purchasers were not required to give the seller of the RV time to cure the defect before being able to revoke their acceptance and receive a refund of their purchase price. The Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois’ statute only required allowing the seller time to cure a defect if the purchaser had accepted a commercial unit with knowledge of a defect and an agreement with the seller which contemplated the seller repairing the defect.

In April 2014, Kimberly Accettura and Adam Wozniak purchased a new 2014 Palomino RV from Vacationland, Inc. for $26,000.25. They took possession of the RV a week later. That June, they discovered water leaking into the RV from the emergency exit window. The plaintiffs then brought the RV back to Vacationland for repair, which Vacationland performed without charge.

In July 2014, the plaintiffs took the RV to Michigan. During a rainstorm, the RV continued to leak extensively into the dinette area, damaging the walls and causing electrical failure. The plaintiffs towed the RV back to Vacationland for repair later that month. Vacationland was unable to repair the defect itself, so one of its employees told the plaintiffs that it would have to send the RV to the manufacturer for repair. Neither Vacationland’s employees or the manufacturer could give the plaintiffs an estimate for how long a repair would take. On Aug. 2, before the manufacturer picked up the RV, the plaintiffs called Vacationland and verbally revoked acceptance of the RV. Despite this, the manufacturer still picked up and repaired the RV. When the RV was returned to Vacationland at the end of September, Vacationland called the plaintiffs and told them that the RV was ready for pick up. At this point, the plaintiffs’ attorney sent a letter to Vacationland confirming the earlier revocation of acceptance of the RV. Continue reading ›

Contact Information