Compensation for Damages (Law)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Clearview AI Used Your Face. Now You May Get a Stake in the Company.

      by

      The facial recognition start-up doesn’t have the funds to settle a class-action lawsuit, so lawyers are proposing equity for those whose faces were scraped from the internet.A facial recognition start-up, accused of invasion of privacy in a class-action lawsuit, has agreed to a settlement, with a twist: Rather than cash payments, it would give a 23 percent stake in the company to Americans whose faces are in its database.Clearview AI, which is based in New York, scraped billions of photos from the web and social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram to build a facial recognition app used by thousands of police departments, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. After The New York Times revealed the company’s existence in 2020, lawsuits were filed across the country. They were consolidated in federal court in Chicago as a class action.The litigation has proved costly for Clearview AI, which would most likely go bankrupt before the case made it to trial, according to court documents. The company and those who sued it were “trapped together on a sinking ship,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing proposing the settlement.“These realities led the sides to seek a creative solution by obtaining for the class a percentage of the value Clearview could achieve in the future,” added the lawyers, from Loevy + Loevy in Chicago.Anyone in the United States who has a photo of himself or herself posted publicly online — so almost everybody — could be considered a member of the class. The settlement would collectively give the members a 23 percent stake in Clearview AI, which is valued at $225 million, according to court filings. (Twenty-three percent of the company’s current value would be about $52 million.)If the company goes public or is acquired, those who had submitted a claim form would get a cut of the proceeds. Alternatively, the class could sell its stake. Or the class could opt, after two years, to collect 17 percent of Clearview’s revenue, which it would be required to set aside.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ocasio-Cortez Backs N.Y. Bill Limiting Donations to Israeli Settlements

      by

      Under the bill, New York nonprofits that provide financial support to Israel’s military or settlements could be sued for at least $1 million and lose their tax-exempt status.A long-shot effort by left-leaning New York state lawmakers to curtail financial support for Israeli settlements has drawn a big-name backer — but she doesn’t have a vote in Albany.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who rarely wades into state politics, publicly backed a bill on Monday that could strip New York nonprofits of their tax-exempt status if their funds are used to support Israel’s military and settlement activity. Her involvement underscores the extent to which the war in Gaza and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians more broadly have animated the left flank of the Democratic Party as a pivotal election approaches.“It is more important now than ever to hold the Netanyahu government accountable for endorsing and, in fact, supporting some of this settler violence that prevents a lasting peace,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said at a news conference. “This bill will make sure that the ongoing atrocities that we see happening in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the ongoing enabling of armed militias to terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank, do not benefit from New York State charitable tax exemptions.”Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani and State Senator Jabari Brisport introduced the bill, called the “Not on Our Dime” act, months before the Oct. 7 attack, saying it was an effort to prevent tax-exempt donations from subsidizing violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. It was widely criticized by Albany lawmakers and declared a “nonstarter.” Now its sponsors say they plan to revise the bill to prohibit “aiding and abetting” the resettling of the Gaza Strip or providing “unauthorized support” for Israeli military activity that violates international law.“There’s a newfound consciousness in our country with regards to the urgency of Palestinian human rights, and we have to propose and advocate for legislation that reflects public sentiment,” Mr. Mamdani said in a recent interview, referring to some of Israel’s violence toward people in Gaza and the West Bank as “war crimes.”The lawmakers announced the relaunch of the bill at an event at Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx district office on Monday morning, surrounded by left-leaning elected officials from the City Council and State Legislature. Asked why she had chosen to endorse a state-level bill, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said that it was “politically perilous” to do so and that she had wanted to support her colleagues.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Riverside County Jail Death Lawsuit Is Settled for $7.5 Million Amid Inquiry

      by

      A violent encounter captured on video was part of a surge in jail deaths that spurred an inquiry into the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.Video from inside a Southern California jail shows a violent confrontation in October 2020 in which 10 sheriff’s deputies burst into the cell of a man who was having delusions and resisting medical care, restrained him and repeatedly shocked him, leading to his death days later.Officials in Riverside County did not bring charges against any of the deputies involved in the encounter with the man, Christopher Zumwalt, 39, but quietly agreed in December 2023 to pay $7.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by his family.Depositions from the case and video footage obtained by The New York Times show the frantic and violent minutes when deputies tried to force Mr. Zumwalt out of his cell as he paced and talked incoherently. In the video, deputies wearing helmets and shields toss canisters of pepper spray into the small concrete room, struggle with Mr. Zumwalt, and strap him to an emergency restraint chair. They cover his head with a spit mask and move him to another cell, where he sat unmonitored and appeared to stop breathing for at least five minutes. He died on Oct. 25, 2020, after experiencing cardiac arrest.Mr. Zumwalt, who was arrested near his home on Oct. 22, 2020, on suspicion of public intoxication, was never charged with a crime, and the arrest report indicates that he was to be released with a citation after he sobered up from the methamphetamine he admitted to taking the night before. On the day of his arrest, he was issued a citation for bringing drugs into a jail.In a statement Friday, Sheriff Chad Bianco said his deputies did nothing wrong and characterized the settlement as a business decision by lawyers that does not imply wrongdoing.“The facts of this case clearly show the actions of our deputies were appropriate and lawful,” Sheriff Bianco said, adding that actions taken by Mr. Zumwalt in a “methamphetamine-induced psychosis caused his death.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How to Claim Your Part of a $5.6 Million Ring Settlement

      by

      The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments to customers who had certain Ring home security cameras and accounts during a particular time period, the agency said.The Federal Trade Commission said this week that some people who had bought certain home security cameras made by Ring, which is owned by Amazon, would be eligible for refunds for their purchase. The payments, totaling more than $5.6 million, are part of a settlement between Ring and the F.T.C. over claims that the company failed to protect customer accounts.Here’s what to know.What is the lawsuit about?The F.T.C. sued Ring last May, accusing the company of giving employees and contractors access to customers’ private video footage. The agency said in its complaint that Ring had used the videos to train computer algorithms without first getting customers’ consent. Ring also failed to have proper protections, which made customer accounts, videos and cameras more vulnerable to hacking, the F.T.C. said.The F.T.C. and Ring reached a settlement that month. As part of the agreement, Ring paid a settlement that would be used for customer refunds, deleted all private videos that it shouldn’t have access to, and established a privacy and security program. The F.T.C. is now using the money Ring paid to send 117,044 PayPal payments to affected customers.Ring did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But in a statement after the settlement, Ring said that it addressed issues about its security and privacy practices “well before” the F.T.C.’s lawsuit, and that the agency “mischaracterizes our security practices and ignores the many protections we have in place for our customers.”How do I find out if I am eligible for the refund?If you had a Ring account and certain types of Ring devices, such as the indoor camera models Stick Up Cam and Indoor Cam, before Feb. 1, 2018, you are eligible for a refund, according to a court order.The defendant — in this case, Ring — is typically required to provide a list of customers, their contact information and how much they paid. The F.T.C. will use the information to send payments.Eligible customers should have already received an email from the F.T.C.How much will I receive?Your payment depends on the type of Ring device you owned and the time you had your account.I got a PayPal payment from the F.T.C. How do I know if it is real?If you are eligible for a refund, you should have received an email from the agency (from the address subscribe@subscribe.ftc.gov) before Tuesday. Since payments were issued on Tuesday, you should have received another email from PayPal about the refund. You have to redeem the payment by May 22, or it will be returned to the F.T.C.If you would like the F.T.C. to send you a check instead, or have any other questions about the payment, you can speak with the refund administrator, Rust Consulting, by calling 1-833-637-4884. You can also email your request to info@ring.com. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Approves $418 Million Settlement That Will Change Real Estate Commissions

      by

      Home sellers will no longer be required to offer commission to a buyer’s agent when they sell their property, under an agreement with the National Association of Realtors.A settlement that will rewrite the way many real estate agents are paid in the United States has received preliminary approval from a federal judge.On Tuesday morning, Judge Stephen R. Bough, a United States district judge, signed off on an agreement between the National Association of Realtors and home sellers who sued the real estate trade group over its longstanding rules on commissions to agents that they say forced them to pay excessive fees. The agreement is still subject to a hearing for final court approval, which is expected to be held on Nov. 22. But that hearing is largely a formality, and Judge Bough’s action in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri now paves the way for N.A.R. to begin implementing the sweeping rule changes required by the deal. The changes will likely go into full effect among brokerages across the country by Sept. 16. N.A.R., in a statement from spokesman Mantill Williams, welcomed the settlement’s preliminary approval.“It has always been N.A.R.’s goal to resolve this litigation in a way that preserves consumer choice and protects our members to the greatest extent possible,” he said in an email. “There are strong grounds for the court to approve this settlement because it is in the best interests of all parties and class members.”N.A.R. reached the agreement in March to settle the lawsuit, and a series of similar claims, by making the changes and paying $418 million in damages. Months earlier, in October, a jury had reached a verdict that would have required the organization to pay at least $1.8 billion in damages, agreeing with homeowners who argued that N.A.R.’s rules on agent commissions forced them to pay excessive fees when they sold their property. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Nears $100 Million Settlement to Larry Nassar Victims Over FBI Failures

      by

      The deal, which could be announced in coming weeks, would bring an end to one of the last major cases stemming from a horrific sports scandal.The Justice Department is nearing a $100 million settlement over its initial failure to investigate Lawrence G. Nassar, the former U.S.A. Gymnastics team doctor convicted of sexually abusing girls under his care, according to people familiar with the situation.The deal, which could be announced in coming weeks, would bring an end to one of the last major cases stemming from a horrific sports scandal, with around 100 victims in line to receive compensation.The approach of a settlement comes two and a half years after senior F.B.I. officials publicly admitted that agents had failed to take quick action when U.S. national team athletes complained about Mr. Nassar to the bureau’s Indianapolis field office in 2015, when Mr. Nassar was a respected physician known for working with Olympians and college athletes. He has been accused of abusing more than 150 women and girls over the years.The broad outline of the deal is in place, but it has not yet been completed, according to several people with knowledge of the talks, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss continuing negotiations.The details of the settlement deal were reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.It would be the latest in a series of big payouts that reflect the inability of institutions to protect hundreds of athletes — including the Olympic gold medalists Simone Biles, McKayla Maroney and Aly Raisman — from a doctor who justified his serial sexual abuse by claiming he was using unconventional treatments.In 2018, Michigan State University, which employed Mr. Nassar, paid more than $500 million into a victim compensation fund, believed to be the largest settlement by a university in a sexual abuse case. Three years later, U.S.A. Gymnastics and the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee reached a $380 million settlement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      What Happened to Damages That O.J. Simpson Owed to the Victims’ Families?

      by

      In 1997, a jury in a civil trial awarded the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson $33 million. Today, the amount still owed has more than tripled.More than 25 years ago, O.J. Simpson was found liable in civil court for the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, her friend, and was ordered to pay more than $33 million to their families.They have yet to recover the damages.While it is still unclear where things stand with the Brown Simpson family, the Goldman family said its pursuit will not end despite the death of Mr. Simpson on Wednesday. David Cook, a lawyer for Fred Goldman, Ronald’s father, said in an interview on Saturday that he could not elaborate on their plans to acquire the money, but that “the judgment will be pursued as before.” In a previous email, Mr. Cook said that Mr. Simpson “died without penance.” Mr. Goldman could not be reached for comment. Mr. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Ms. Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in the 1995 criminal trial, but the civil jury in 1997 concluded that he “willingly and wrongfully” caused their deaths, and the unanimous decision included $25 million in punitive damages.Of the total, according to court documents filed in 2022, the Goldman family had received from Mr. Simpson around $132,000.It was unclear if that figure reflected money from the auctioning of Mr. Simpson’s memorabilia, including his Heisman Trophy, which went toward the damages. Proceeds from the book Mr. Simpson wrote, “If I Did It” — in which he described, in hypothetical terms, how the brutal stabbings of Ms. Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman might have occurred — also went toward the damages.It was also unknown on Saturday how much of the damages the Brown Simpson family had recovered. Mr. Cook declined to respond to specific questions about the money the Goldman family received. But the total is still a fraction of what is owed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      2 Ex-Officials at Veterans Home Where 76 Died in Covid Outbreak Avoid Jail Time

      by

      The former superintendent and medical director of the Holyoke Soldiers’ Home in Massachusetts were indicted in 2020 on charges of neglect after many residents became sick and died.Two former officials at a Massachusetts veterans’ home where at least 76 people died during a coronavirus outbreak in 2020 won’t have to serve any jail time under a court order imposed by a state judge on Tuesday, according to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.The two — Bennett Walsh, the former superintendent at Holyoke Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, Mass., and Dr. David Clinton, the former medical director there — were each indicted in September 2020 on five criminal counts of neglect, the attorney general’s office said.The charges were centered on a decision by the facility in March 2020 to consolidate two dementia units into one, which led to the “mingling” of residents who had contracted the coronavirus with others, the attorney general’s office said when the indictment was announced.The move to consolidate the units happened in the early days of the pandemic as many were just beginning to learn how the coronavirus spread. What followed was an outbreak that led to the deaths of at least 76 people at the facility.At a hearing on Tuesday afternoon at the Hampshire County Superior Court in Northampton, Mass., the attorney general’s office asked that Mr. Walsh and Dr. Clinton be sentenced to one year of home confinement, with three years of probation.Mr. Walsh and Dr. Clinton asked the court for a continuance without a finding, meaning that they would admit that there was enough evidence to find them guilty, according to the attorney general’s office.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More