Although the court find Nexus Services liable for engaging in deceptive and predatory practices, a spokesperson for the company says that the massive default judgment has no precedent in modern American jurisprudence.
The estate of George Carlin has reached a settlement with the owners of a comedy podcast who claimed to have used an artificial intelligence program to air a special featuring the late comedian’s voice and persona. According to The Guardian, the owners and creators of the “Dudesy” podcast—former Mad TV comedian Will Sasso, and writer
The Walt Disney Company will drop its claims against the state, which center on unprecedented changes to the areas around Walt Disney World resort, in exchange for more productive negotiations.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.—and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
The National Association of Realtors also agreed to make critical changes to brokerage policies, potentially giving homeowners more flexibility in negotiating commissions and other rates.
The terms of the settlement will require the Florida Department of Education to better clarify its stance on the Parental Rights in Education Act, while also ensuring that prohibitions on the discussion of gender identity and sexuality cannot be used to exclusively target LGBT students.
LAUSD, aware that Daniel Garcia was violating safety rules during his employment, ignored multiple reports of sexual harassment.
Attorneys for 78-year-old plaintiff Ruby Johnson said that Denver police officials obtaining a warrant without first informing the court that “Find My” iPhone information isn’t precise enough to determine a device’s exact location.
The Archdiocese of Washington had earlier argued that legislators broke the law when they removed limitations on the rights of child sex abuse survivors to file claims against perpetrators and enablers.
Legislators and other supporters of the CROWN Act have criticized the court’s ruling, saying that the judge misinterpreted new statutes meant to protect discrimination on the basis of “protective hairstyles” associated with race, ethnicity, and culture.