|

The already expensive battle to acquire engineers with knowledge and experience in the field of self-driving cars just cost Uber another estimated $245 million, not including the money they spent defending their legal battle against Waymo for a year before the parties agreed on a settlement.

As engineers get closer to developing the technology necessary to produce viable self-driving automobiles, it’s becoming increasingly clear that, not only is self-driving technology the future, it is going to be a very lucrative future. It has driven up the costs of engineers in the field to unprecedented heights, but Uber may have topped them all by spending $590 million to buy an entire self-driving truck company from Anthony Levandowski, a former Google engineer. The terms of the agreement were for Levandowski to receive an additional $250 million in Uber stock if Otto reached certain performance goals, but before that could happen, Levandowski was fired from Uber for refusing to cooperate in the investigation into the alleged stolen Google files.

Levandowski and Travis Kalanick, the founder and former CEO of Uber, had allegedly been hanging out and brainstorming ideas for self-driving technology even when Levandowski was still working for Google. Kalanick recently testified in court that he had wanted to hire Levandowski, but Levandowski wanted to break out on his own. Continue reading ›

|

There’s nothing illegal about a high-level employee moving from one company to a competing company (especially in California, which bans non-compete agreements). But businesses do still have the right to protect their trade secrets and legitimate business interests in the form of confidential information, especially when it comes to experimental technology.

So although Anthony Levandowski was perfectly within his rights to quit his position developing self-driving technology at Waymo (a division of Google’s parent company, Alphabet) to go work for Uber to develop similar technology, that’s not what Levandowski wanted to do, according to Travis Kalanick’s testimony in a recent corporate lawsuit.

Kalanick, the founder and former CEO of Uber, recently testified in court that he regularly hosted what he called a “jam sesh” at his home. He would invite other Uber executives to his house and they would brainstorm business ideas together. Kalanick testified that Levandowski would sometimes attend these jam sessions while he was still employed by Google. Kalanick said he had wanted to hire Levandowski, but Levandowski wanted to break out on his own and form his own company. Kalanick then came up with a solution in which he could get Levandowski to work for him while still allowing Levandowski to feel as though he had the freedom he wanted. Continue reading ›

|

With the rise of social media and “personal branding,” everyone has begun to recognize the need to protect their name as part of their own brand. For many people, not only does it control opportunities for income, but it also reflects their reputation in general and their standing in the community.

But the need to protect one’s good name has been around for centuries and celebrities (such as actors, musicians, writers, etc.) have been working to control how their names are used since long before the internet came on the scene. The members of the band, the Eagles, have been especially careful about protecting their names from misappropriation. They’ve spent decades working hard to build and maintain their reputations and they’re not about to let anyone else infringe on all that hard work – and possibly compromise it in the process.

Among the lawsuits, the band members have filed to protect their names is one filed by Don Henley against Duluth Trading Co. The clothing maker allegedly put out an email ad for their Henley T-shirts that made Henley’s name into a pun by telling customers to “Don a Henley and Take It Easy,”

The last part of the phrase refers to the song, “Take It Easy,” which became the band’s breakthrough hit song. However, although Henley did co-write a number of songs for the famous band, “Take It Easy” was not one of them. Instead, Glenn Frey and Jackson Browne wrote the song and Frey sang it. Continue reading ›

|

The constitutional basis on which pharmaceutical legislation has been enacted is being challenged.  Many Pharmaceutical Manufacturing companies are afraid that this new law has the capability of dictating health care policies when it comes to the governing of prices at which drugs can be sold. The complaint as filed has indicated that the sole determinant of price fixing should be manufacturers only, the inclusion of other entities reduces competition.  To them, it is believed that prices can be thwarted as a result.

Other core belief systems are challenged including what lies in the public interest of the health forum and increases the scope for debate on the matter.  Should having affordable access to medicine matter or does competition and profit for companies that gain matter? Whether public policy overrides or the victimization of the pharmaceutical companies will be seen.

The pharmaceutical company believed it was in its best interest to sue so that the legislationn is not enacted in other states. California is considered a state that is of high influence and for such reasons, a national trade group that represents 37 drug companies tried to defeat the bill.This same trade group for drugmakers cited concerns within its lawsuit that California’s law illegally tries to dictate national health policy. It further went to indicate that because the law is tied to a national measure of drug prices, advance notification requirement could restrict drugmakers’ ability to raise prices in other states. In what seems an otherwise futile attempt to sue, the main rationale behind the suit is also to ensure that the implementation does not become as at the national level, thereby reducing profit margin for such companies.  The law requires pharmaceutical companies to notify insurers and government health plans at least 60 days before a planned price increase of more than 16 percent during a two-year period and to explain the rationale for the increase. The information would be available on a government website. Continue reading ›

|

It is unsurprising that under federal law, military servicemembers have the right to resume their civilian jobs when their service ends. But servicepeople also enjoy a right that most civilians don’t: The right to be placed not in the same position they held when their employment was interrupted, but the position they would have attained absent their military service.

This right underlies The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which guarantees that an individual who leaves his job for military service cannot be denied any “benefit of employment” as a result of that service, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Dale H. was a pilot for FedEx Express when he was called up for Air Force Reserve duty in February 2003, during the Gulf War.  Dale had piloted Boeing 727 aircraft, but just prior to his deployment had been selected for training as a first officer to fly MD-11 aircraft, at a higher pay grade.

Upon his return from service in late 2006, Dale resumed his FedEx job and successfully completed the MD-11 training, becoming an MD-11 First Officer in February 2007.

Several months before Dale returned to FedEx, the company and the pilots’ union had negotiated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) whereby FedEx pilots than on “active pay status” would receive signing bonuses applicable to their pay grade, including employees on military leave.

Upon Dale’s return, he received the 727 pilot’s bonus of $7,400. He sued FedEx under USERRA, claiming he should have been paid the $17,700 bonus received by MD-11 pilots, which was denied him only as a result of his military service. Dale argued that but for his deployment, he would have completed his originally scheduled MD-11 training and been eligible for a signing bonus at that pay grade under the terms of the CBA. Continue reading ›

|

Sometimes things happen outside a business owner’s control that affects the business. It’s understandable, but that does not justify failing to reveal to investors if the company is suffering financially as a result. In fact, executives and board directors of publicly traded companies are required to disclose the financial state of the company to their investors on a regular basis.

After the documentary, “Blackfish,” was released, SeaWorld’s business suffered significantly, but executives and board directors allegedly refused to reveal to shareholders the effect the documentary was having on the amusement park’s business.

The documentary details the story of Tilikum, a performing killer whale that was held captive in amusement parks for decades, including SeaWorld, where he famously killed a trainer – the first trainer to die at SeaWorld, although not the first time Tilikum had been involved in a death in a marine park.

Contrary to their name, killer whales have never been known to kill humans in the wild, leading many to wonder what causes them to attack when in captivity. The film examines the lives Tilikum took, before they were cut short, the cruel treatment of killer whales held in captivity, and the pressures of the sea-park industry, which makes billions of dollars every year. Continue reading ›

|

Bands work hard to build and maintain a certain image, which is why they have to react quickly when someone tries to infringe on that image.

According to a recent trademark lawsuit, a Mexican hotel, located in Baja, California, was allegedly trying infringe on the image of the famous rock band, the Eagles, by changing the hotel’s name to Hotel California. The hotel was also allegedly playing the band’s music in and around the hotel, and selling T-shirts and other merchandise with “Hotel California” emblazoned across them as part of the hotel’s marketing campaign for their new name.

The hotel’s original title was actually “Hotel California” when it was founded back in 1950. Over the years, it acquired new owners and new names, but when John and Debbie Stewart bought the hotel in 2001, they decided to restore its original name.

The hotel is now owned by a company called Hotel California Baja LLC, which applied for a trademark for the name of the hotel, and that’s when the Eagles filed their lawsuit against the hotel company in the U.S. District Court of Los Angeles. Continue reading ›

|

Environmental groups have sued to stop the Bayou Bridge pipeline after it received construction permits and the green light to start. The construction will take a toll on the environment. This has affected local businesses who used to harvest large amounts of crawfish but now the traps yield dead crawfish.

The purpose of the pipeline is to deliver crude oil to a terminal in St. James Parish. The first phase of the project, which consists of a 30-inch pipeline from Nederland to Lake Charles.

The U.S. Army Corporation of Engineer’s decision to issue the permit for construction followed completion of an environmental assessment, review of its compliance with Section 408 of the Clean Water Act and feedback received during a public notice.

Construction must comply with provisions aimed at protecting nesting periods for birds.  Builders of the pipeline also will have to survey the route for the presence of both active and inactive eagle nests.

Engineers had a permit issued in around mid-December and the people in the vicinity of the Atchafalaya Basin know of its uniqueness to the whole world. Part of nature provides subsistence for the Cajun people.  The water quality is substantially affected.

Environmental groups are trying hard to block further construction by requesting the state court to force the company to turn over records to seize private property or obtain easements on property along the pipeline path. Surveillance records from a company have also been requested.  The suit, called a writ of mandamus, was filed against the pipeline and its president, by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Atchafalaya Basinkeeper.

Public purpose and the right to the state’s public laws are being asserted and become grounds for being subject to Public Records Law.  The land that was once public will become for private profit usage with no oversight.  The pipeline process could affect health, the natural environment, and people’s livelihoods.  Multiple parties have a stake in this: from small business operators who harvest food, locals and those who profit.

To challenge the making of the pipeline for violations of environmental law is the starting ground for the attack on a corporation that is said to have a history of violations. The plaintiffs claim the permit granted violates the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. Continue reading ›

|

The war for data rages on as companies continue to mine their customers’ data and their customers continue to sue them for it.

The latest data-related lawsuit was filed last month against Casper, a direct-to-consumer startup that makes and delivers mattresses, on behalf of visitors to its website. According to the class action lawsuit, Casper used a software company called NaviStone (which is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit) to collect personal information from visitors to the Casper website, including the visitor’s name, address, IP address, and their online shopping habits, including keystrokes and mouse clicks.

The lawsuit alleges NaviStone’s code (which Casper uses on its website) begins transmitting information about the individual as soon as they load the Casper website onto their browser, without the individual’s knowledge or consent. That meant information that visitors put into forms on Casper’s website went directly to the company, regardless of whether the person ever finished filling out the form or hit the “Submit” button.

The lawsuit alleges the violation amounts to wiretapping and is suing both companies under the federal Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Continue reading ›

|

Google has been sued in the past and is being sued in the future.  The last time, within the USA, this time within the UK.  The accusation is for collecting personal data of millions within the UK and is the first of its kind of massive legal action.  Within the USA, this kind of case is yet to be tested.

People feel that their privacy is invaded when it harvests information by settings on iPhones, through use of cookies which collect information on devices to target advertising that will be received by users.  Apparently, this has been a trend in place since 2011 for persons that choose to implement Safari on their devices.

On what basis will people sue?  The abuse of trust is what people feel most strongly about.  A strong message from the people is being made in asserting that individuals values their rights above any abuse received due to technology giants in the Silicon Valley.  Abuse occurs when rights are violated by a breach of privacy.  Procedural and jurisdictional violations have been made by non-disclosure and this sets up a basis for grounds of the suit. Google plans to still contest on the grounds of no basis.  Some law firms have taken up a similar claim within the USA.  While no precedent has been set in the UK, there has been grounds in the USA.   Google agreed to pay a record $22.5m in a case brought by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on the same issue in 2012.

The record of large civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission charges alleged misrepresentation to users of Apple Inc.’s Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users, violating an earlier privacy settlement between the company and the FTC. The FTC wanted to ensure that it lived up to the privacy it offered consumers.  The order that was made required Google to disable all tracking cookies and pay a civil penalty.  Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design