Facebook slapped with lawsuit over ads reportedly displaying false endorsements

Facebook has been hit with another lawsuit this month, this one by a user who states the social network falsely showed that he "Liked" USA Today when, in fact, he never had. Such an advertisement appeared to the people on his friends list, showing them an endorsement from him that he states he never performed. The user is seeking financial compensation for this action, as well as compensation for all other users who experienced the same phenomenon.

Facebook user Anthony Ditirro has filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook in a San Jose court for displaying his endorsement of a publication he claims to have never visited or "Liked," in the actionable sense of the word. Though, according to the lawsuit, Ditirro has nothing against USA Today, it is also not something he has endorsed and so he takes umbrage with the falsely-generated "Like" on the advertisement.

The false use of his endorsement, according to the class-action lawsuit, runs afoul of various federal and state-level privacy and related rights, and the $750 in damages comes by precedent of a California law allowing for such a figure in the event a personal image is used in the manner specified without the owner's permission. As mentioned, this isn't the first privacy-related lawsuit the social network has received in recent weeks.

During the last days of December, two Facebook users filed a lawsuit against the social network under claims that it reads the contents of private messages that contain a link to a third-party, doing so to mine data for advertisers and marketers. That claim -- which Facebook has called "without merit" -- is said to be in violation of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act and related California laws. In that instance, the plaintiffs are seeking $10,000 in damages for all users who allegedly fell prey to these claimed privacy violations.






SOURCE: GigaOm

[Continue reading...]

HTC loses to Nokia in Germany, must stop selling Android devices

Nokia has won an injunction to halt the sale of all HTC Android devices in Germany. The issue surrounds a Nokia-held patent which relates to peer-to-peer sharing via NFC or Bluetooth. The two companies have been tussling for some time, with HTC obtaining stays to allow the sales of their devices to continue elsewhere, but there will be no help this time around.

While we don’t know the specifics of the patent, Google has stepped in to try and have the patent invalidated. Whether or not that can be accomplished remains to be seen, but any success Google might have wouldn’t be helpful at this time. There is no quick reprieve that could come before the sales ban takes effect.

The patent is also believed to affect other Android OEMs, and perhaps even the Android platform itself. Nokia has apparently decided to go after OEMs rather than take the fight straight to Google in this matter, and it seems to be a race against time. As Nokia gains traction, and Google tries to have the patent invalidated (probably on the grounds that it’s commonly used tech), device manufacturers like HTC are the losers.

HTC is notably on a downward trend, also. As their business slumps and executives leave, HTC simply can’t afford (maybe literally) to lose sales. HTC is — of course — expected to appeal the decision, but they may have to end up removing or disabling features in their handsets to continue selling them in Germany, and perhaps elsewhere.




SOURCE: Android Community

[Continue reading...]

KIA lump-sum fuel reimbursement program seeks to resolve MPG circus

KIA Motors America has agreed to pay customers an average of $667 to every claimant in the class-action lawsuit over misreported fuel economy ratings. This lump-sum fuel expense reimbursement option is in addition to KIA's existing lifetime reimbursement program. The company announced the agreement today.

The lump-sum settlement still needs review by the court. Preliminary approval is expected to take place in early 2014, KIA says. Affected customers will be able to claim the lump sum after that.

The court case, Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, MDL No. 2424, is taking place in California's Central District Court before Judge George H. Wu. About 53 plaintiffs filed suit following a November 2012 fuel economy restatement by KIA. The restatement was prompted when a rival industry executive reported KIA's and Hyundai's previous "misleading" ratings to the Environmental Protection Agency. The suits were consolidated thereafter.

The difference in fuel economy ranged from 1 to 4 miles per gallon. KIA soon issued a lifetime reimbursement program wherein affected drivers can periodically return to the dealership, get their mileage checked, and be reimbursed accordingly. The new lump-sum option now being offered by KIA is intended to cut down on paperwork and inconvenience for affected drivers.

Models included in the case include the 2011 Optima HEV, seven different 2012 models, and six 2013 models. The full list of models is listed over at KIA's dedicated website for resolving the fuel economy reporting SNAFU. The site also provides all the details you need to see if you qualify for one of KIA's two MPG reimbursement programs.






SOURCE: KIA

[Continue reading...]

Apple seeking million in attorneys fees from Samsung

The patent war between Samsung and Apple has been long and, to whatever extent possible, bloody, with both sides seeing some victories and defeat. Ultimately, Samsung has suffered some major financial blows, and now Apple wants to add upon that burden, filing a motion to have the Korean company take on some of its legal fees — to the tune of $15.7 million.

That’s not the sum total of Apple’s legal fees, with it representing less than 30-percent, according to the document that was filed. This is regarding a case that kicked off quite a while ago up through March, which is the stopping point at which Apple is including in its attorney fee figures. As part of its seeking, Apple is using the Lanham Act, which allows for payment of a certain portion of legal fees in what is regarded as exceptional cases.

The question, then, is whether this case falls under the Lanham Act’s definition of an exceptional case, which Apple believes it does. The qualifying factor is a willful, fraudulent, and deliberate act, and Apple has made it quite clear that it feels Samsung’s actions fall under this requirement.

On one hand, Apple points out the Relative Evaluation Report from Samsung showing it discussing elements of the iPhone and, according to the filing, seeking ways to make its own devices function in a similar manner. It also says that there is ample evidence that Samsung’s infringements were deliberate, with Apple having a victory on 26 of 28 named products. Samsung hasn’t commented on the matter.




Source : tuaw.com

[Continue reading...]