|

While colleges give promising athletes a free education in exchange for playing on the school’s sports teams, colleges and universities earn it all back and much more, not just through ticket sales and advertising space at games, but other promotional opportunities featuring their student athletes. With schools raking in millions of dollars that the athletes never get to see, many students are left wondering just what a college athlete’s image is worth, and how much (if any) of a claim those athletes have to their own images.

This issue has been addressed most recently in a lawsuit against Ohio State University, which named Honda and IMG Worldwide, Inc. as co-defendants. The lawsuit was filed in federal court by Chris Spielman, a former linebacker for Ohio State, after his image, along with images of other former Ohio State athletes, appeared on a series of banners that were sponsored by Honda and displayed around Ohio Stadium.

The series of banners is just one of several such programs listed by the lawsuit, which accuses Ohio State, Honda, and IMG of unjustly monopolizing the images of former student athletes for profit. The lawsuit is seeking an end to the marketing program, as well as $75,000 in compensation for the former Ohio State athletes whose images appeared in the program. Although that dollar amount is standard for these kinds of claims, the complaint points out that Ohio State is currently making millions of dollars through merchandising programs like the banners that were displayed around the stadium.

In September, the university filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the case hasn’t met the requirement for this type of antitrust lawsuit, and that federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over this case. Continue reading ›

|

An interesting recent employment law case in the United Kingdom illustrates why it is crucial for businesses to carefully draft non-compete agreements. In England as in the United States former employees can use overbroad wording to invalidate the entire covenant and circumvent otherwise valid provisions.

Mary-Caroline T. was an executive search agent and partner at Egon Zehnder Ltd. in the U.K., eventually rising to become co-global head of the financial services group. Her employment agreement provided that she not be “engaged, concerned with or interested in” a competing business of a similar nature for six months following separation from the company. The restriction was not limited geographically. Continue reading ›

|

Our previous blog post, we discussed the ramifications of posting online reviews anonymously. In that case, a state appeals court ruled that in order to enforce a subpoena for the identities of former employees who had commented anonymously on the workplace review site, the plaintiff must prove the falsity of the comments and suffer a financial loss. A similar issue was revisited by the courts in a situation where alleged defamatory remarks were made and photos in support of remarks were also retrieved by trespass onto the property by an incident of various online reviews and the defendant happened to be a landlord.

More specifically, the decision pertaining to this incident happened to be a real estate entrepreneur with properties in three different states  and claimed that Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, as well as, flyers distributed near his home, accused him of being a “greedy slumlord,” who subjected his tenants and neighborhoods to bad conditions. The defendants were sued because it hosted the web sites and possessed real estate interests which could potentially damage his business. The complaint alleged diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, plaintiff proceeded to file an ex parte motion for early discovery seeking to identify his critics. In these motions, any relevant section of law which could apply or the basis for his assertion of diversity jurisdiction was never mentioned. The other party wanted to move to dismiss and seek sanctions for frivolous litigation. It had to then be pointed out to the trial judge that the lawsuit pending before him lacked any jurisdiction, and was not a proper basis for the issuance of federal court subpoenas for that reason. Continue reading ›

|

It may be a first when class-action consumer litigation requires a Seventh Circuit panel to describe the step-by-step process of creating a Subway sandwich in a published opinion.

But that’s indeed what the court did in its recent ruling dismissing a class-action suit against the Subway fast-food chain; ham, provolone, pepper jack and all.

It all started in 2013 when an Australian teenager posted a photograph of his Subway “Footlong” sandwich next to a tape measure on his Facebook page. The sandwich measured only 11 inches. The post went viral and Subway customers in the U.S. began measuring their own sandwiches, and it was only a matter of time before the plaintiffs’ bar got in on the action.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers sued Subway, seeking damages and injunctive relief under state consumer-protection laws. The different cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Subway’s defense was that because of deviations in the baking process, some rolls would inevitably shrink to under 12 inches, but all customers still received the same quantity of ingredients and most customers still got to enjoy a foot-long sandwich. Continue reading ›

|

Posting online has become a norm in this tech savvy world that we live in.  For greater transparency in a review, some may choose to post anonymously in fear of ramifications if their name disclosure came about.  Just recently, the ability of an employer being able to find out which employee employer-rated an employer unfairly or inaccurately was assessed by the Courts. This is since some would argue that surely the law protects against outrageous false statements that harm an employer’s ability to recruit talent.  That is why a California appeals court recently ruled that businesses have to prove online comments are false and financially harmful before they can unmask anonymous critics via subpoenas.  It can thus be seen that the decision has First Amendment implications which safeguard people’s right to free speech and this was valued as being the greater consideration.

A suit under the anonymous posting was brought forwards for libel and for violating California law regarding online impersonation.  A request was placed for assistance from the courts in an ability to be able to retrieve the identity of the postings. Initially, the trial court turned the employer down and this was again examined by a California Court of Appeal.Subsequently, the lengthy opinion was issued and a conclusion was drawn indicating that to force a disclosure of the names, a plaintiff must state a legally sufficient cause of action comprising of the following elements of that cause of action:  (1) the courts determining these issues must ensure that reasonable efforts are made to notify the unknown defendants so they can respond and (2) the plaintiff’s pleading must specifically note the exact statements alleged to constitute defamation. Continue reading ›

|

An engineer for vehicles was sentenced to 40 months imprisonment and will pay a $200,000 fine for emissions-cheating deception after cooperating with U.S. prosecutors in their criminal investigation of a conspiracy to defraud government officials and customers.

A pleading of being charged with one count of conspiring to defraud the U.S., committing wire fraud and violating the Clean Air Act for his role in helping vehicles evade emissions requirements with diesel-powered vehicles. As a result, the foreign national agreed to be removed from the U.S. following the prison term, according to prosecutors. The engineer initially moved to and settled in the U.S. to help launch diesel-powered vehicles and handle certification, testing, and warranty issues, prosecutors said.

Furthermore, the sentence imposed by the judge exceeded prosecutors’ recommendation. The initial request was that the accused receive three years imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. It was a stiffer sentence than expected, as the engineer only helped to create software that controlled exhaust emissions. The tough sentence sends a message that employees can and should be held accountable for misdeeds they commit for their corporate employers. Many individuals have not been held responsible for corporate misconduct and this is one of those rare cases; a stunning fraud on the American consumer, being a very serious and troubling crime against our economic system. Such incidences give rise to a reduced trust in corporate America and undermine the economy. As a result, the ruling sends a strong message even though he was not “mastermind” and never benefited financially from its development of devices that masked the high levels of harmful emissions. Continue reading ›

|

Advertising name-brand products that don’t actually have anything to do with the brand being named is called false advertising. It’s illegal, not only because it causes potential harm to the brand whose name is being abused, but to consumers who are misled as a direct result of the false advertising.

Costco has allegedly been selling diamond engagement rings that were marked “Tiffany” rings, and Costco salespeople allegedly told customers the rings were “Tiffany” rings. Although the wholesale retailer has never sold jewelry from the famous Tiffany & Co., and has never used the company’s trademark blue boxes, the wholesale company does sell diamond rings with a pronged setting, which it claims is commonly known as a “Tiffany” setting.

The problem was that Costco did not call them “Tiffany setting” rings or “Tiffany-style” rings. It just called them “Tiffany” rings, which understandably led to some confusion.

Despite the fact that customers got upset when they realized the rings labeled “Tiffany” were not actually from the famous jewelry store, Costco allegedly still did not see a problem with how they were marketing their generic diamond engagement rings. Tiffany & Co. disagreed and sued the wholesale company for trademark infringement. Continue reading ›

|

All contracts are subject to scrutiny before the law, especially when a dispute arises. Employment-employer disputes are no exception. Federal and state‑specific restrictions are
now facing employers who utilize non‑compete agreements and such agreements are able to be stricken for unrelated employment issues. This is since the Appellate Division of the New
Jersey Superior Court has provided a warning to an employer had no ability to prevent its former employee from working for its direct client despite the existence of a non‑compete
agreement expressly covering that client. This was of particular concern since the employee was not paid properly by the employer during her training period. It was because the
employment and non‑compete “agreements violated federal law, they were void and unenforceable.”

This brings to light notions such as the importance of fair and just contracts, as well as, the unconscionability. If ever a contract has an abuse of power or is in favor of one party over the
other, it will violate the law. The employers must take this into consideration when drafting terms and have them reviewed by attorneys who are familiar with restrictive covenants within
the scope of employment law. Continue reading ›

|

Because freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights in this country, it’s not easy to file claims for defamation.

Our founding fathers saw the value of being able to speak freely and openly to and about each other, especially when it comes to public figures. It is an essential ingredient for a democracy, which is why it’s the very first amendment ever made to our constitution, and one that is constantly invoked by all parties in just about every political discussion.

Because such a high value has been placed on free and open discussion of public figures, those public figures have a higher burden of proof to bear when filing claims of defamation. Not only do they have to prove that the statement(s) in question was false, but that the person/entity who made the statement knew it was false at the time they published it, and that they did so with the intention of inflicting harm (financial or otherwise) on the person in question. Continue reading ›

|

The New York Times is reporting that consumers need to beware that flood vehicles will be dumped on the market due to the Hurricanes in Florida and Texas.  The article provides the following guidance on how to avoid purchasing a flood vehicle:

Consumer Reports has suggested tips for identifying cars that may have spent time underwater. A buyer or mechanic should look for these telltale signs:

■ Caked-on mud and a musty odor from the carpets. New carpets in an older vehicle may be another red flag.

■ A visible water line on the lens or reflector of the headlights.

■ Mud or debris trapped in difficult-to-clean places, such as gaps between panels in the trunk and under the hood.

■ Rusty exposed screws under the dashboard. Unpainted metal in flood cars will show signs of rust.

■ Rubber drain plugs under the car and on the bottom of doors that have been removed. That may have been done to drain floodwater.

The full New York Times article can be viewed here.

If you are the victim of purchasing a flooded vehicle, you can contact us and we will pursue litigation to return the vehicle or obtain money damages. 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 © 2026, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design