Always Providing You With Ongoing Information

Posts tagged ‘Lawsuit’

Federal Judge Halts ‘Grand Theft Auto V’ That Allows Cheats

MMO return Grand Theft Auto V

Take-Two Interactive, which makes Grand Theft Auto Online, experienced a loss of at least $500,000 due to these programs, according to its initial complaint on March 23. Single-player mods are available with his programs, but the online community and publisher began to take issue when the online multiplayer sphere was impacted. The injunction seeks to stop sales of his product, which allows God Mode and can enable the practice of “griefing.” Online communities have engaged in substantial debate as to what qualifies as griefing, but it mostly involves creating inconvenience through level and firepower discrepancies between players.

 

Nike Facing Discrimination From Female Employees

Snapshot_143

 

  • Two former Nike employees filed a class action lawsuit against Nike at the District Court of Oregon Thursday alleging sex discrimination on the grounds that Nike pays women less than their male counterparts, promotes women less and offers them smaller annual salary increases and bonuses, according to court filings.  According to a company statement emailed to Retail Dive by a spokesperson, “Nike opposes discrimination of any type and has a long-standing commitment to diversity and inclusion. We are committed to competitive pay and benefits for our employees. The vast majority of Nike employees live by our values of dignity and respect for others.”
  • However, the two plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, claim the company fosters an environment “where women are devalued and demeaned” and that “the company hierarchy is an unclimbable pyramid.” They claim that women are passed over for promotions and must “far outshine her male counterparts” to succeed.
  • In addition to poor promotion opportunities, former Nike employees Johnston and Cahill also claim the company ignores female employees’ complaints about sexual harassment and discrimination, and that “male bad behavior is rarely penalized.” The lawsuit draws on Johnston’s experience at Nike, from 2008 to 2017, as well as Cahill’s from 2013 to 2017, and other — sometimes unnamed — employees.
  • The company has attempted to make up for its “toxic” workplace culture by apologizing to employees, promoting women and raising salaries. Even though the lawsuit claims that the company’s workplace is “hostile” and “devalues its female employees.” Among the chief offenders was Edwards, who, according to the lawsuit, “caused and exacerbated a hostile work environment.”

    The filing also points states that, prior to his abrupt departure in March, Edwards was considered the likely replacement of current CEO Mark Parker and was offered a $6 million retention award by Nike, as well as a 14.3% increase to his salary, just weeks before his resignation. Meanwhile, in 2017, Cahill claims she was paid $20,000 less than a male colleague on her team who did “substantially similar work,” and Johnston alleges that her starting salary was $2,000 less than a male employee hired shortly afterward.

 

Former Google Engineer Says Bro-Culture Led To Repeated Sexual Harassment

 

raingear3_001

 A  software engineer who worked at Google for seven years and fired in February 2016, is suing Google for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The engineer says in her lawsuit that the company’s “bro-culture” led to continuous harassment and that Google did nothing to intervene. 

Throughout her time at Google, she was routinely sexually harassed, according to her lawsuit. She stated male coworkers spiked her drinks with alcohol and shot nerf guns at her regularly, and she says one male co-worker messaged her to ask for a “horizontal hug.” At a holiday party, Lee’s lawsuit says, a male co-worker slapped her across the face while he was intoxicated.

In one particularly disturbing incident detailed in the lawsuit,  a male coworker hiding under her desk when she returned after a short break. He refused to say what he was doing, the lawsuit says. “The incident with the co-worker under her desk really shocked her and had her nervous. The Plaintiff had never spoken to that co-worker before. She was frightened by his comment and believed he may have installed some type of camera or similar device under her desk,” the lawsuit says. Google’s human resources department pressured Lee during a series of meetings to make a formal complaint about the incident. However, her claims were found to be “unsubstantiated,” emboldening her coworkers to continue the harassment after she complained whereby, co-workers retaliated making it difficult for her to perform. She was subsequently terminated. 

This lawsuit is reminiscent of those raised last year by the engineer who blew the whistle about systemic sexual harassment at Uber. 

The treatment of women has put Google on the hot seat in recent months. It’s being sued by women who allege Google pays them less than men and investigated by the Labor Department into what it says is “systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce.” Google says its own analysis of employee compensation shows no gender pay gap. 

At the same time, Google has encountered resistance from within its own ranks to diversity efforts to hire more women and people of color. 

Waymo vs Uber Revolves Around Allegations of Deceit, Betrayal, espionage & A High-Tech Heist

Snapshotleather3_002

Waymo sued Uber, accusing it of ripping off key pieces of its self-driving car  technology in 2016. Uber paid $680 million for a startup run by Anthony Levandowski, one of the top engineers in a robotic vehicle project that Google began in 2009 and later became in Waymo.

Google was also an early investor in Uber, the relationship eventually soured. Its parent company Alphabet also owns Waymo.

Waymo has drawn a sordid picture, contending that Levandowski stole thousands of documents containing Google trade secrets before defecting to Uber. Waymo says Levandowski conspired with former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick to use the pilfered technology in Uber’s own fleet of self-driving cars.

Uber has boldly denied the allegations in the civil case, which has also triggered a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. It’s not clear whether that probe is focused on Uber or Levandowski, who has consistently exercised his right against self-incrimination and is expected to do so again if called to testify during the trial.

Levandowski’s refusal to relinquish his Fifth Amendment rights eventually led Uber to fire him last May, even though he had developed a close relationship with Kalanick.

The stakes in the trial are humongous. Waymo is demanding damages estimated at nearly $2 billion. It also wants a court order that would prevent Uber from using any of the technology that it says was stolen, a move that could hobble the ride-hailing service’s push to design self-driving cars.

The courtroom drama will feature an intriguing cast of characters. The list of expected witnesses includes both the combative Kalanick and Silicon Valley venture capitalist Bill Gurley, an early Uber backer who later helped engineer Kalanick’s departure as Uber’s CEO. (Kalanick resigned under pressure last June.)

Two of the world’s richest people, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, may also be called to testify about the importance of Waymo’s self-driving project and Levandowski’s role in it.

Both Waymo and Uber each will have only have a total of 16 hours to make their case. That time restraint could prove more daunting for Waymo. It will have to educate a 10-person jury about the intricacies of the eight trade secrets that Uber is accused of stealing, then prove the ride-hailing service used the technology in its vehicles or improperly shared it with others.

The lawsuit has already established internal documents and sworn testimony that exposed spying programs and other shady tactics deployed by Uber to expand its business.

Furthermore, Uber has acknowledged allowing rampant sexual harassment to occur within its ranks, a yearlong cover-up of a major computer break-in and a $100,000 ransom paid to the hackers, and the use of duplicitous software to thwart government regulators.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup has emphasized that Waymo faces the difficult challenge of proving that the ride-hailing service used stolen technology in its self-driving cars.

 

Amazon Faces Lawsuit For Defective Eclispe Glasses

Snapshotmensuit10_001

A South Carolina couple has filed a federal class-action lawsuit claiming Amazon sold defective eclipse-watching glasses that partially blinded them during the historic coast-to-coast solar eclipse on August 21. the couple states in their lawsuit that because of the eyewear Payne purchased from Amazon, the couple is now suffering from “blurriness, a central blind spot, increased sensitivity, changes in perception of color, and distorted vision.”

Amazon issued a recall of defective and perhaps counterfeit eclipse eyewear in an e-mail sent out to customers before the event. Payne said he did not receive the message. His suit seeks to represent others who were injured or may be injured from the eyewear purchased on Amazon. The alleged Tennessee-based maker of the glasses, American Paper Optics, is not named in the suit.”Amazon’s August 19, 2017 e-mail ‘recall’ was tragically too little, too late. Its e-mail notification was insufficient to timely apprise customers of the defective nature of their glasses, and resulted in Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class using defective Eclipse Glasses,” according to the lawsuit. (PDF)

The suit seeks funds “for medical monitoring” because “Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have or will experience varying degrees of eye injury ranging from temporary discomfort to permanent blindness.” The suit also demands unspecified monetary damages, punitive damages, and legal fees and costs.

 

Google and Viacom Were Sued On Behalf Of Kids Who Had Visited The Nick.com Site

cand4_001

Google and Viacom both faced a class-action lawsuit that claimed Nickelodeon’s Nick.com placed cookies on children under-13 computers and that Google used those cookies to work out which videos kids had watched and the games they played to dish out targeted ads.

It’s against US law to gather information from children under-13 personal without warning parents and getting their permission; it’s claimed that permission was never sought.

However, the appeals court said Google was not liable as even though it served up ads to kids, it did not collect their info directly: it was given the data by Viacom’s Nick.com servers.

Viacom was also largely let off, as the court said that the data gathered was deemed not specific enough to be personally identifying.

In absolving Google, the appeals court drew a parallel to case that inspired the Video Privacy Protection Actthe leaking of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental history. Just as the court ruled that the Washington Post was not liable for receiving and publishing Bork’s rental history from the video store, Google is not liable for receiving the IP address and browsing history Viacom’s cookies collected.

 

Vizio TV Manufacturer Agreed To Pay $2.2 million

 

Snapshotbeige sweater2_001

The California-based TV manufacturer agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle the charges and  disclose when and how it collects user information. Since February 2014, software installed on the televisions allowed Vizio to continuously collect customer’s viewing history through software called “ACR,” or automated content recognition. This software captures a selection of pixels displayed on Vizio smart TV screens and sends that data to the company’s servers, where those pixels are compared to a database of different TV shows, movies, and commercials. ACR can also collect information like your Wi-Fi signal strength, nearby Wi-Fi access points, and IP addresses.

The complaint alleges that over 100 billion data points per day (information like what content you’re watching and how long you’re watching it) from more than 10 million Vizio televisions have been collected, and the company planned to store this data on their servers indefinitely. A stipulated federal court order requires that Vizio delete all data collected before March 1, 2016. An anonymized version of the data omitting customers’ name or contact information was sold to third parties for advertising and audience measurement purposes.

 FTC’s complaint said Vizio did not make it clear to customers that they intended to collect their TV viewing history, and the collection was turned on by default, which did not give customers a chance to opt out. A key part of the complaint is that Vizio promised customers recommendations based on the data collected, but never provided them to owners of older Vizio TVs

If you own a Vizio TV, you can disable data collection by going to your TV’s Menu > Settings > Smart Interactivity, or any option with Automated Content Recognition, and turning it off.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: