The Chicago Journal

NetChoice claims California law violates First Amendment, sues state

The extensive industry group NetChoice comprises tech giants like Amazon, Google, Meta, TikTok, and Twitter.

On Wednesday, the group announced its intention to sue California.

They decided to overturn the state’s recently approved Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which they believe violates the First Amendment.

The Age-Appropriate Design Code Act

California’s legislation was modeled after those in the UK.

It wants to establish rules to make the internet safer for young people.

The Age-Appropriate Design Code Act mandates that kids always have the most privacy enabled.

Additionally, it mandates that websites intended for children under 18 assess the possibility of user abuse or exploitation.

The lawsuit

The NetChoice lawsuit is a developing legal case involving online free expression.

Legislators routinely want to weaken the extensive liability protections offered by online platforms for user posts and content control.

All political parties are impacted by privacy and content control issues.

However, there is still disagreement between Republicans and Democrats regarding the best ways to solve the issues.

Even though a majority Democratic legislature supported the California act, NetChoice filed lawsuits against Texas and Florida for the social media laws passed by those states’ legislatures.

By requiring tech corporations to delete posts with political undertones, the legislation seeks to make them accountable.


In contrast to what it was supposed to do, the new law in California would harm adolescents rather than protect them, claims NetChoice.

Furthermore, they contend that compelling businesses to deduce from consumers the meaning of “inherently subjective terms” violates their First Amendment rights to free speech.

According to NetChoice, the state may impose financially ruinous fines if the companies are wrong.

“The State can also impose such penalties if companies fail to enforce their content moderation standards to the Attorney General’s satisfaction,” said the group.

The Age-Appropriate Design Code Act is anticipated to take effect in July 2024.

According to NetChoice, the bill will force content providers to drastically reduce their output to avoid paying fines for creating what California deems harmful.

“The over-moderation will stifle important resources, particularly for vulnerable youth who rely on the Internet for life-saving information,” said NetChoice.

Read also: Donald Trump slumps in voter standing based on recent poll

Defense of the law

A representative for California Attorney General Rob Bonta defended the legislation despite the accusations.

The statement claims that the policy provides essential new safeguards against the collection and use of children’s data.

Furthermore, it addresses some verifiable negative consequences of social networking and other online products and services.

“We are reviewing the complaint and look forward to defending this important children’s safety law in court.”

Prior concerns

The lawsuit’s language is similar to a bipartisan federal bill that aims to provide children with online protection but is being contested by civil society organizations.

The groups expressed concern that the bill would increase the danger posed by children and teenagers.

The following organizations were among those opposed to the legislation:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union
  • Center for Democracy & Technology
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Fight for the Future
  • Glaad
  • Wikimedia Foundation

Concerning the bill’s potential negative impacts, notably on the rights of the LGBTQ community, the organizations issued a warning.

People in the community are already concerned about how political prejudices can affect the standards used by content filters.

The bipartisan bill

The law would have imposed requirements on websites that minors under the age of 16 are likely to access.

Therefore, it would be their responsibility to reduce the likelihood of physical or psychological harm to young users, especially by encouraging the following:

  • Self-harm or suicide
  • Encouragement of addictive behavior
  • Enabling online bullying
  • Predatory marketing

“KOSA would require online services to ‘prevent’ a set of harms to minors, which is effectively an instruction to employ broad content filtering to limit minors’ access to certain online content,” wrote the groups.

“Online service would face substantial pressure to over-moderate, including from state Attorneys General seeking to make political points about what kind of information is appropriate for young people.”

“At a time when books with LGBTQ+ themes are being banned from school libraries, and people providing healthcare to trans children are being falsely accused of ‘grooming,’ KOSA would cut off another vital avenue to access to information for vulnerable youth.”

Revamping the federal bipartisan bill

The responsible legislators attempted to address the problems in a revised version of the legislation.

On Tuesday night, updates that addressed issues raised by the LGBTQ community and significant lawmakers were released.

In order to address worries that attorneys general with anti-LGBTQ attitudes may abuse the law, a modified “duty of care” language was introduced.

Additionally, a language stating that companies are not required to collect additional user information to determine the user’s age was changed.

Despite the changes, certain groups nevertheless opposed the law.

Read also: Elon Musk sells giant chunk of Tesla shares again

Content moderation

NetChoice opposes the laws in Florida and Texas that would weaken Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields the tech industry from legal culpability.

The Act safeguards the right to manage content.

Republicans, on the other hand, have been attempting to enact more regulations on social media because they believe that conservative ideas are being suppressed on well-known websites.

Popular sites have denied unfairly implementing their community guidelines when this has occurred.

According to a reputable study, internet discussions are often dominated by conservative viewpoints.

A Texas version was barred from taking effect in May by the Supreme Court.

The merits of the case were not, however, decided.

Lower courts have thus far rejected Florida’s version.


Tech industry group sues to block California law designed to protect kids online over free speech concerns

Kids Online Safety Act may harm minors, civil society groups warn lawmakers

Revamped kids’ online privacy bill emerges in year-end push (1)

L’Oreal struck with lawsuit regarding uterine cancer

L’Oréal is one of the parties being sued for claims that its products put women at risk of developing uterine cancer.

The lawsuit

Last Friday, civil rights attorney Ben Crump and attorney Diandra “Fu” Debrosse Zimmermann filed a lawsuit in Illinois.

The lawsuit is on behalf of Jenny Mitchell, a 32-year-old woman from Missouri.

They claim Mitchell’s uterine cancer was caused by her regular and prolonged exposure to hair care products from companies like L’Oreal.

According to the claims, the products contain phthalates and other chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system.

Debrosse Zimmermann says the lawsuit marks a “watershed moment” for women of color who use hair products like relaxers.

Read also: Binghamton University research finds unidentified chemicals in tattoo inks

Jenny Mitchell

The lawsuit says Jenny Mitchell was diagnosed with uterine cancer in 2018.

In addition, she underwent a total hysterectomy on September 24, 2018, at the Boone Hospital in Missouri.

Mitchell says her family has no history of cancer.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, she said she started straightening her hair when she was eight.

“At that time, at the age of 28, my dreams of becoming a mother were gone,” said Mitchell.

“As most young African-American girls, chemical relaxers, chemical straighteners were introduced to us at a young age.”

“Society has made it a norm to look a certain way in order to feel a certain way,” she continued.

“And I am the first voice of many voice to come that will stand, stand up to these companies, and say, ‘No more.'”

From the early 2000s to March 2022, Jenny Mitchell used L’Oreal and other hair straightening products.

As a result, she is seeking $75,000 in damages.

Other cases

Jenny Mitchell is not alone in the lawsuit.

Two other individual lawsuits are filed against L’Oreal and other cosmetics companies in California and New York.

The two cases also claim hair straightener chemicals and the cancer diagnoses are linked.

“We imagine that we will continue representing additional women in filing cases,” said Debrosse Zimmerman.

“As will other firms, and more and more women will come forward.”

Read also: “Being a dermatologist is no easy job. It requires determination and a strong mindset,” Dr. Rola Shahadat on her success as a dermatologist


Mitchell’s lawsuit follows a study by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which found relations with her case.

The publication states that 4% of women who regularly use chemicals to straighten their hair are at risk of uterine cancer by age 70.

Additionally, the study estimates that women who haven’t used chemicals to straighten their hair in the past 12 months have a 1.6% risk of developing uterine cancer.

Furthermore, it says that Black women were more likely to use hair straightening products than White women.

To summarize, the data show that the relationship between hair straighteners and cervical cancer cases was more evident in Black women.

However, Black women only comprised 7.4% of study participants, and 59.9% reported using straightening products.

Other factors play a role in the frequent use of hair straightening products, such as:

  • Eurocentric standards of beauty
  • Social pressure on Black and Latina women in the work environment relating to microaggression and threat of discrimination
  • Desired versatility in changing hairstyles and self-expression

“Black women have long been the victims of dangerous products specifically marketed to them,” said Ben Crump.

“Black hair has been and always will be beautiful, but Black women have been told they have to use these products to meet society’s standards.”

“We will likely discover that Ms. Mitchell’s tragic case is one of countless cases in which companies aggressively misled Black women to increase their products.”


US woman files lawsuit against L’Oreal, claiming chemical hair straightening products are linked to her cancer

Twitter and Elon Musk sued by former workers

Twitter: A group of former Twitter employees who are suing Elon Musk achieved a preliminary victory on Wednesday.

A judge required the social networking business to notify the fired employees of the legal proceedings.

This ensures that workers are informed before being asked to sign a release of liability clause in a severance agreement.

The lawsuit

After Elon Musk took over the company last month, Twitter let go of thousands of employees.

Following the acquisition, a number of former employees claimed that he had broken his pledge to permit remote work and offer consistent severance money.

The class-action status requested in this case.

Additionally, it alleges that the business did not provide at least one recently laid-off employee enough notice.

California and federal law both need the notice.

Neither Musk nor Twitter did not compensate the worker in lieu of the notice.

The order

On Wednesday, the motion was approved by the judge, Hames Donato.

Twitter’s talks with employees “should not be rendered misleading by omitting material information about a pending lawsuit,” the California district court judge ruled.

The order demonstrates the court’s consideration of the employee’s viewpoint.

Read also: TikTok research finds teens exposed to harmful content

The layoffs

Twitter and Elon Musk sacked thousands of staff beginning in November.

The decision was made in an effort to save money.

Employees began posting that they couldn’t access their work email accounts the evening before the layoffs.

Some people used salute and blue heart emoticons to signify their departure from the organization.

By dawn, a number of Twitter departments announced their exit.

The following departments are among those impacted:

  • Ethical AI
  • Marketing and communication
  • Search
  • Public policy
  • Wellness

Additionally, the curation team, which promotes reliable content on Twitter about subjects like elections, lost a number of its members.

Someone claimed that they had been deleted and remotely logged out of Slack.

Many workers admitted to having access issues hours before Musk fired them.

In addition, they received emails that said nothing about the layoff.

However, several of the fired employees felt relieved.


Elon Musk visited an investor conference early in November, participating in a cordial interview as Twitter employees announced their layoffs.

Musk didn’t say anything in response to the interviewer’s claim that he fired half the staff; he simply nodded.

The Tesla CEO then defended the firings by saying that the business had faced “revenue issues” prior to his acquisition, similar to other social networking sites.

Advertisers were reevaluating their spending as long as recessionary anxieties persisted throughout the year.

The cuts

Before Musk’s takeover, Twitter had a workforce of over 7,500; as a result, 3,700 people were let go.

After incurring substantial debt to cover the $44 billion acquisition, Twitter made adjustments to strengthen its financial situation.

The email informing staff of their status is as follows:

“If your employment is not impacted, you will receive a notification via your Twitter email.”

“If your employment is impacted, you will receive a notification with next steps via your personal email.”

Additionally, Twitter announced that all credential access would be suspended, and the offices would be temporarily closed in order to safeguard the security of its personnel and systems.

Read also: Twitter Blue is $3 more for iPhone users

Other lawsuits

On behalf of former workers, Shannon Liss-Riordan filed the lawsuit against Twitter.

She claimed that the order is a straightforward but essential step that gives workers a chance to understand their rights rather than depriving them of money to which they are legally entitled due to Musk’s coercion.

Liss-Riordan brought four lawsuits on behalf of the former workers, this one being one of them.

Cases involving alleged discrimination based on gender and disability are also present.

Another is on behalf of contractors dismissed from Twitter.

The former employees are currently suing the corporation for alleged violations of the federal and California WARN Acts, which mandate early warning of mass layoffs and unspecified monetary damages.

Engineer Emmanuel Cornet, one of those suspended from Twitter, stated in a news conference last week:

“It seems like the layoffs have been done in a way that’s really clumsy and inhumane and potentially illegal… and this is the aftermath.”


Former employees suing Twitter over layoffs score an early victory

Elon Musk’s Twitter lays off employees across the company

Leon Black faces lawsuit for sexual assault

Leon Black, Wall Street tycoon and billionaire, is being sued by a woman who accused him of sexual assault two decades ago.

According to the woman, Black raped her in the spring of 2002 at Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion in Manhattan.

The allegations

Plaintiff Cheri Pierson named Black and the estate of the late Jeffrey Epstein as defendants in the lawsuit filed in New York court on Monday.

According to Pierson, Epstein arranged the meeting for her to massage Black on the third floor of his mansion.

She accepted the meeting in exchange for money to take care of her little girl.

Instead, Black raped her in a “brutal attack” and left her “swollen, torn and bleeding.”

The complaint filed by Wigdor LLP, a law firm, states:

“By the time Ms. Pierson exited the massage suite and rode down the elevator with Black, she could barely walk out of the house onto the sidewalk, as she was in excruciating pain and still in shock.”

On Monday, Leon Black denied the allegations.

Read also: Elon Musk wary of Twitter removal from Apple

The perpetrator

Susan Estrich of Estrich Goldin, Leon Black’s attorney, released a statement.

She responded, saying Pierson’s allegations were “categorically false and part of a scheme to extort money from Mr. Black by threatening to destroy his reputation.”

According to Forbes, Black’s net worth is $9 billion.

Leon Black stepped down as CEO of Apollo in January 2021.

His resignation followed an independent review of his connection to convicted sex offender Epstein.

Black said in a letter to investors a year earlier that he regretted his dealings with Epstein.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that the former Wall Street mogul may have paid more than $75 million to Epstein for consultation and other services.

The report came from two people aware of the transactions and noted that they would socialize and dine together.

Leon Black is also dealing with another case where Russian model Guzel Ganieva claimed he sexually assaulted her.

Additionally, Ganieva says Black falsely accused her of blackmail when she spoke out against him.

He also denies these allegations.

Read also: Bob Iger set to bring more creativity to Disney

The complaint

On Monday, Wigdor filed a lawsuit for Cheri Pierson under New York’s Adult Survivor Act.

Doug Wigdor campaigned for the new law, passed in May and recently went into effect.

The Adult Survivors Act gives adult survivors of sexual assault one year to file lawsuits against their abusers in New York and waives the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits.

According to Pierson, Epstein told her weeks before her alleged attack that he was setting up a meeting with an unnamed wealthy associate.

He promised his partner could help her with a skincare product she was trying to market.

According to the complaint, Pierson’s injuries from the alleged rape were so severe that she had difficulty urinating for weeks.

She didn’t have health insurance at the time.

Also, Black reportedly called her several times after the attack and told her he felt bad and wanted to talk.

Then he gave her $5,000 at a bar.

After they met, Leon called Black and asked to see her again.

However, Pierson declined to see him.

Wigdor’s partner Jean Christensen released a statement saying:

“Thanks to the passage of the Adult Survivors Act, survivors of sexual violence like our client, Ms. Pierson, can seek the justice they deserve no matter how many years ago their trauma was suffered.”


Lawsuit alleges billionaire investor Leon Black raped a woman inside Jeffrey Epstein’s home

Google agrees to pay $392 million to 40 states

Google is in trouble for violating privacy and location tracking practices.

However, reports say the company agreed to a record $391.5 million settlement with 40 states.

The deal comes after users complained about the company’s location-tracking practices with its devices and services.

The announcement

A group of lawyers announced the settlement on Monday.

Attorneys General have called it the largest multi-state privacy settlement in the history of the United States.

The coalition includes a list of attorneys general from New York, Kentucky and Oregon.

Furthermore, they said that as early as 2015, Google lied to users about location tracking in different ways.

Lawyers said users were confused over the scope of setting location history and the extent to which users who rely on Google products and services can limit location tracking by changing their account and device settings.

Read also: Report: Texas to sue Google for violating user privacy with technology


Google must now show transparency with the settlement and meet these requests:

  • Show additional information for location-related settings
  • Make key location tracking policies more visible
  • Give users details

However, the company faces restrictions on location usage and storage information.

Google spokesperson José Castañeda said:

“Consistent with improvements we’ve made in recent years, we have settled this investigation which was based on outdated product policies that we changed years ago.”

Read also: Android 13 launches for Google Pixel devices, what it has to offer


Attorneys general were investigating Google after a 2018 Associated Press report said that the company records user movements even when not turned on.

At the time, the company released a statement saying:

  • A clear description of the tools
  • Robust controls so users can turn them on and off
  • The ability to delete their histories at any time

A similar lawsuit hit Google in January.

Four attorneys general from Columbia, Texas, Indiana and Washington’s counties claim the company was using shady schemes.

They also said the company is using deceptive practices to track users’ physical locations, even when they try to block Google.

Additionally, location data can target ads and create Internet user profiles.

Google is a major tech company under scrutiny for how it handles location data following the destruction of Roe v. Wade.

Finally, lawmakers highlight how the company on how the data can be used to track abortion seekers.

As a result, the company will remove users’ location history for visits to abortion clinics, fertility clinics, and other destinations.


Google agrees to $392 million settlement with 40 states over location tracking practices

Report: Texas to sue Google for violating user privacy with technology

Texas General Ken Paxton sued Google, claiming the tech company violated the state’s biometric privacy law on Thursday.

According to Paxton’s lawsuit, Google collected users’ voiceprints and facial recognition data.

The actions were done with their knowledge or consent.

The lawsuit

Paxton filed a lawsuit in the Midland County District Court in Texas.

He says the company’s face and voice recognition in Google Photos and smart speakers violated state law on acquiring or using biometric identifiers.


Using Google Photos, the tech giant scans uploaded images, identifying and classifying subjects, such as people.

However, people don’t know that their faces are scanned or saved.

The company also allegedly listened to Texans without considering the speaker’s consent to Google’s indiscriminate voice printing.

The complaint also claimed that Google’s Nest Hub Max, the smart home display with an integrated camera, was a “modern eye of Sauron.”

Nest Hub Max watches people, waiting for a face it recognizes.

“All across the state, everyday Texans have become unwitting cash cows being milked by Google for profits,” said the complaint.

Texas and biometric data

The Red State is one of the few states to have a law governing the use of biometrics.

Ken Paxton’s lawsuit is the second time Texas has invoked the 2009 law to prosecute a company.

In February, Texas claimed a now-defunct Facebook photo tagging tool violated Texas biometrics law.

The Facebook tool was also the subject of a $650 million biometric privacy agreement in Illinois last year.

The state has other lawsuits against Google.

Some of the lawsuits include two consumer protection lawsuits and an antitrust lawsuit against the company’s digital ads.


Texas sues Google over alleged ‘indiscriminate’ biometric data collection

Elon Musk will take more action on Twitter

Elon Musk buying Twitter continues to trend in the online world after the world’s richest man took over last week.

The Tesla CEO has already relieved several key company figures, and now he is looking to do the same with the current workforce.

The news

A memo sent to Twitter employees reveals that Elon Musk will fire employees on Friday morning.

The news follows several employees filing a collective class action lawsuit against him.

The employees argue that the layoffs violate labor laws.

Musk’s email arrived Thursday night to inform employees that they will be notified on Friday at noon.

The notification informs them of their employment status with the company.

Read also: Elon Musk to find new source of revenue for Twitter

The email

A copy of Musk’s email reads:

“If your employment is not impacted, you will receive a notification via your Twitter email.”

“If your employment is impacted, you will receive a notification with the next steps via your personal email.”

Musk’s email also states that the company’s office will temporarily close and suspend badge access on Friday.

The suspension is a security measure for the company’s systems and employees.

The memo follows news of Elon Musk’s plans to lay off more than half of the company’s staff after buying the social media company for $44 billion last week.


Former Twitter employees filed the class action lawsuit on Thursday.

They allege the company violated the state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (WARN Act) after Musk fired several employees.

The WARN Act requires employers with more than 100 employees under their supervision to give 60 days’ written notice of mass layoffs.

Additionally, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who filed the lawsuit, released a statement detailing the action.

“Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, has made clear that he believes complying with federal labor laws is ‘trivial,'” said Liss-Riordan.

“We have filed this federal complaint to ensure that Twitter be held accountable to our laws and to prevent Twitter employees from unknowingly signing away their rights.”

Additionally, Twitter has had around 7,500 employees after Musk bought the social media company.

Read also: General Motors will pull ads out of Twitter after Musk acquisition

Other notes

According to two people who understand the Twitter situation, Elon Musk began his company ownership by removing CEO Parag Agrawal and two other executives.

The company’s C-suite is nearly empty due to massive layoffs and resignations in less than a week.

Additionally, Musk disbanded Twitter’s board of directors.


Employees sue Elon Musk’s Twitter after staff are informed that layoffs are set to begin

Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan faces lawsuit seeking to block his plan

President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan faced a significant legal challenge: a lawsuit for alleged abuse of executive power.

The lawsuit

The lawsuit was brought by public interest attorney Frank Garrison.

Garrison said the forthcoming student loan amnesty will force him to pay taxes on the canceled amount, which he prefers to avoid.

The lawsuit is supported by the non-profit libertarian law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which is also Garrison’s employer.

They filed it with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The cause, which the Department of Education mentions as its defendant, disputes the “unacceptable abuse of executive authority to restore the rule of law and to enforce the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

The student loan forgiveness plan

Biden’s plan would allow individual borrowers who earned less than $125,000 in 2020 or 2021 to write off up to $ 10,000 of their federal student loan debt.

The plan also applies to married couples or to the household heads of families who have gained less than $ 250,000 per year in the same years.

Qualifying borrowers who received a Federal Pell subsidy while they were registered at university are also entitled to a maximum of $ 20,000 to identify the debt.

Those who receive a Federal Pell grant have more opportunities to fight for student debt repayment.

In the meantime, thanks to a provision of the American Rescue Plan Act that Congress adopted last year, the borrowers do not have to pay a federal income tax on the forgiving student loan.

However, Indiana and a few other states can tax forgiven debts if the state’s legislative or administrative changes are not implemented.

Depending on the state, the tax liability can run into the hundreds of dollars.

There has been no debt cancellation since the plan was announced in August.

The first wave of debt cancellation is expected to occur as early as October.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Biden’s plans could cost the government $400 billion.

However, they cautioned that the estimates are based on assumptions with uncertainty.

How the plan affects Garrison

Frank Garrison claims he is eligible for up to $20,000 in student loan forgiveness under the Biden plan.

Therefore, he is also subject to a tax liability of more than $1,000.

Garrison is currently pursuing federal debt reduction through the Utilities Ban Program.

According to the lawsuit, he expects the government to write off the remaining balance in just over four years.

Since Garrison will receive $20,000 in loan cancellation before making sufficient payments to qualify for the PSLF program, he will create a tax bill that he would not have received otherwise.

The $20,000 reduction does not change your monthly payment or the total amount of loans you have to repay.

Response to the lawsuit

White House spokesman Abdullah Hasan wrote in an emailed statement that the allegation was unfounded.

“No one will be forced to get debt relief,” he wrote. “Anyone who does not want debt relief can choose to opt out.”

On Tuesday, press officer Karine Jean-Pierre was questioned about the lawsuit during a White House briefing and echoed Hasan’s feelings.

“Opponents of the Biden-Harris administration student loan plan are trying to stop it because they know it will provide much-needed relief for working families,” she said.

What happens next?

The Pacific Legal Foundation asks the court to prevent the government from implementing tenderers.

Luke Herrine, professor of law at the University of Alabama, who has once developed a legal strategy to enforce students’ debt, is skeptical about the success of the trial.

He says that the case depends in part on Garrison’s ability to reject the guidelines for forgiveness for student loans.

“I don’t think this case is ripe,” said Herrine. “A court doesn’t rule on things that may or may not happen in the future.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Education has yet to issue an official statement on the policy.

National Consumer Law Center attorney Abby Shafroth said the lawsuit was “fundamentally flawed.”

She expects the government to offer borrowers the option to forgo debt relief when the program is launched.

“So the plaintiff will not actually be harmed by the student debt relief plan and therefore does not have standing to sue,” said Shafroth.

Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan has also sparked other lawsuits.

Republican Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said he was developing the best legal theory to sue the government.

The Job Creators Network, a conservative advocacy group, is exploring its legal options.

The group plans to file a lawsuit once the Department of Education formalizes its student loan forgiveness plan next month.

Meanwhile, an Oregon resident is representing himself after filing a lawsuit against the plan in early September.

He argued that the cost of debt cancellation would cause the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to curb inflation, thereby raising interest rates on mortgages.


New lawsuit attempts to block Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan

Ethereum Name Service victorious in lawsuit against GoDaddy

In a lawsuit against GoDaddy, the Ethereum Name Service (ENS) finally claimed control of the domain name after winning a court order.

On Sunday came the news that ENS had won the domain provider.

Ethereum Name Service’s lawsuit

Earlier this month, True Names Ltd., the parent company of ENS, and former owner Virgil Griffith filed a lawsuit against GoDaddy, Dynadot and Manifold Finance.

The lawsuit came after GoDaddy transferred the domain name to domain name registrar Dynadot before its expiration date.

They also sold the name at auction, in what ENS called a “breach of contract,” in violation of an agreement to recognize, protect, and honor the name.


The Ethereum naming service uses the domain to connect .eth names to DNS, or the domain naming system that connects web browsers to websites.

The service allows users of .eth domains to create self-displaying websites with ENS names, accessible through a standard browser.

The loss of’s access to ENS meant a disruption of service to its users.

However, the crisis was eventually resolved.


The U.S. District Judge assigned to the case granted ENS’ request for an injunction.

They also ordered the return of the name and the restoration of the EthLink services.

“Our injunction was successful and the name has been returned to us,” ENS shared on Twitter Sunday night.

Purchase of the domain name

According to Domain Name Wire, Manifold Finance had previously purchased DynaDot’s domain name for $ 851,919.

In a closed thread on the ENS forums, Manifold co-founder Sam Bacha explained why the company had “cut” the name.

“We wanted the domain name because we had intentions of establishing a special purpose trust to provide the legal entity for which key pieces of some of our own infrastructure could have been held,” he explained.

Bacha suggested that ENS could buy Manifold’s domain name.

True Names executive director Khori Whittaker rejected the idea.

“By court order, the domain does not belong to Manifold Finance, and it has no current right to sell the domain,” said Whittaker.

ENS lead developer nick.eth previously said he was disappointed and misled by GoDaddy’s actions.


Ethereum Name Service regains control of EthLink domain in lawsuit against GoDaddy

Tesla faces another lawsuit for its Autopilot feature

Tesla is now facing a class action lawsuit, alleging it misled the public with false advertising about Autopilot and fully self-driving capabilities.


The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

He claims the electric car maker’s ADAS system is causing cars to run red lights, miss exits, and drive into traffic.

As a result, the malfunctions are costing Tesla owners thousands of dollars.

Tesla vehicles are typically equipped with ADAS or Autopilot.

Owners can upgrade their system to take advantage of more features.

The company also sells advanced autopilot and fully autonomous driving software (SFD).

The price of SFD continues to climb and is currently at $15,000.

Briggs Matsuko

The plaintiff, Briggs Matsko, paid him a $5,000 premium for his Autopilot update on his 2018 Tesla Model X.

Matsko said the company says its technology is either fully operational or “close enough,” but it’s unclear if it will work, putting vehicles at risk.

Matsuko’s lawsuit reads as follows:

“Although these promises have proven false time and time again, Tesla and Musk have continued making them to generate media attention, to deceive consumers into believing it has unrivaled cutting-edge technology, and to establish itself as a leading player in the fast-growing electric vehicle market.”

Other allegations

The Briggs-Mutsky lawsuit is in addition to other complaints and allegations, including notices and demands from state and federal authorities.

In July, the California Department of Motor Vehicles accused Tesla of misleading advertising.

Meanwhile, last month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asked electric car makers for more information about cabin cameras as part of an ongoing study of 830,000 Tesla self-driving cars.

NHTSA is currently investigating 16 incidents in which a Tesla owner may have activated his ADAS and crashed into a stopped emergency vehicle.

In late August, Tesla Model 3 owners filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming that an autopilot malfunction caused the accidental braking.

A court in Palm Beach County, Florida, recently set a February date to hear jury testimony in the 2019 autopilot crash that killed the father of three children.

Like Matsko’s class action lawsuit, Tesla’s lawsuit isn’t about technological capabilities, it’s about the promises Tesla and Musk made to their loyal fans.

Additionally, system branding can give drivers a false sense of security and lead to inattention.

Tesla’s Autopilot

The electric car maker has announced that its Autopilot will include features such as traffic-aware cruise control and lane assist.

Advanced Autopilot features include Navigate, guiding the vehicle from highway entrance to exit, auto lane change, and Smart Summon.

Smart Summon has the ability to navigate complex environments and parking spaces to deliver the car to the driver.

FSD Beta is active on over 100,000 vehicles and is available on city streets.

Tesla’s website warns drivers to stay vigilant and stay in control of their vehicles, but Matsuko, California’s DMV, and others say it runs against the reassurance Tesla and Musk have in their cars with their Autopilot and FSD functions.

Matsuko hopes the situation will discourage Tesla’s “deceptive and misleading marketing of ADAS technology.”


Tesla sued over alleged false autopilot, full self driving claims

Drivers sue Tesla for alleged false advertising of Autopilot and FSD software