Double outages in 2011 disrupted gamers

Kansas City Star subscribers say they're being gouged for their loyalty

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

As everyone knows, the newspaper business is in a ton of trouble. It's not just because advertisers are fleeing to the Internet, although that's a big part of it. But besides that, newspapers have a unique knack for alienating their subscribers -- throwing the paper in the ditch being the most oft-cited example.

Subscription policies also cause hard feelings, and in the case of  Elizabeth and Michael O'Shaughnessy, a lot more than hard feelings are involved. They're the named plaintiffs in a class action suit against McClatchy, one of the largest newspaper groups in the country.

In their suit, filed in Jackson County Court in Kansas City, Mo., the O'Shaughnessys say the McClatchy chain double-bills its loyal customers who renew their subscriptions. They claim that when a customer renews his subscription, McClatchy starts the new subscription right away, instead of waiting for the old one to run its course, thereby charging double for the overlapping days.

The O'Shaughnessys, who say the class includes "thousands of members," are seeking actual and punitive damages for breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and violation of consumer protection statutes, Courthouse News Service reported.

Besides the Kansas City Star, which presumably landed on or near the O'Shaughnessys' front door step, the suit names McClatchy papers including the Sacramento Bee and other Bee papers in California, the Charlotte Observer, the Fort Worth Star Telegram and more than 20 others.

Says settlement creates “divergence of interests” among class members

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out a settlement in a case alleging that three leading credit reporting companies had disseminated incorrect information about consumers who had declared bankruptcy.

The suit, which originated as multiple actions in 2005 and 2006, alleged that Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion issued credit reports that claimed consumers had been delinquent in paying down certain debts. In reality, the suit alleged, those debts had been discharged during bankruptcy proceedings. The allegedly erroneous information would constitute a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a federal statute.

The court ruled that the settlement -- which totaled $45 million -- “created a patent divergence of interests between the named representatives and the class” and thus should not have been approved by the district court.

Incentive awards 

The settlement offered “incentive awards” to the named plaintiffs in the suit. This is common in class action suits, since those individuals typically spend considerable time helping lawyers prosecute the action. 

However, the court ruled that, in this case, “these awards were conditioned on the class representatives’ support for the settlement,” which “caused the interests of the class representatives to diverge from the interests of the class because the settlement agreement told class representatives that they would not receive incentive awards unless they supported the settlement.”

The settlement offered “actual damage awards” to class members who could show that they suffered harm from the agencies’ alleged conduct. Class members who were denied housing would receive $500; those who could not obtain car or credit loans would receive $150; and those who were denied employment would receive $750. 

Class members who did not suffer economic damage were set to receive a “convenience award” of around $26.

Lawyers plan to rewrite settlement

The settlement would have been the second-largest ever reached in an FCRA suit, according to plaintiffs’ counsel Michael Caddell of Caddell and Chapman.

"Obviously we're disappointed," Caddell told Thomson Reuters. "We didn't believe the settlement agreement was coercive, and the facts were undisputed that our class representatives had decided months before the language was drafted to support it.

Caddell said he planned to rewrite the settlement.

Alleges condition made her unable to provide urine sample for employment

“Shy bladder syndrome” -- the medical term for difficulty urinating in front of others -- has become the seemingly unlikely topic of litigation in Iowa.

It all began last June, when plaintiff Jennifer Conner applied for a job as organ transplant financial coordinator at Iowa Methodist Medical Center. The hospital offered her the job, but told her that she would need to provide a urine sample before she began working, the suit alleges.

According to the suit, Conner was diagnosed with paruresis, or “shy bladder syndrome,” as an adolescent. She deals with the condition by flushing the toilet, running water, or avoiding bathrooms with multiple toilets, the suit says.

“If Conner cannot flush the toilet or run the water in the sink, she is generally unable to urinate in a public restroom,” according to the complaint.

Four-minute limit

The suit says that Conner informed two nurses that she suffered from the condition “and that it might therefore take her awhile to provide a urine sample.”

However, according to the suit, Conner was told that the hospital typically allowed only four minutes to provide the sample, and that a nurse would knock on the bathroom door when time was up. Conner was then “placed ... in a restroom with no running water and no flushing toilet,” the suit alleges.

Conner was unable to urinate even as the four-minute time limit closed in, so she says she left the bathroom to tell the nurse she needed more time. Conner was given two more minutes, the suit alleges, after which time a nurse “informed Conner that someone else needed to use the restroom and instructed Conner to go back to the waiting room.”

Conner was given a third chance to try and provide a urine sample, according to the suit, but “could not provide a urine sample under the conditions as they were.”

Conner says she asked if she could provide a blood sample or use a catheter to provide a sample to the hospital, but was told that she should simply “go to lunch and come back and try again.” Conner left, knowing that she would be unable to provide a sample, the suit alleges.

Ultimately, Conner’s job offer was rescinded, and she was told that she could not apply again for at least a year.

Foundation: It's a “phobia”

The Urology Care Foundation describes the condition as “a phobia that involves fear and avoidance of using public bathrooms and an irregular idiopathic form of urinary retention (when you are unable ‘to go’).”

“Paruretics face difficulties ranging from work problems (when they have to submit a urine analysis for drug testing) to traveling on long plane rides to every day social situations,” the foundation’s site says.

Conner, who obtained a master’s degree in health care administration in 2012, alleges violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act and the federal Americans With Disabilities Act.

Suit alleged that notebooks were unable to run certain Windows Vista versions

Acer has settled a lawsuit that alleged it sold laptop computers with insufficient Random Access Memory, or RAM, to properly run certain versions of Microsoft Windows Vista.

Acer maintains that it is not liable, but “has agreed to the Settlement to avoid the costs and risks of a trial,” according to a statement issued by the company. 

The settlement covers “all U.S. residents who purchased a new Acer notebook computer that: (1) came pre-installed with a Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate operating system; (2) came with 1 gigabyte (“GB”) of RAM or less as shared memory for both the system and graphics; (3) was purchased from an authorized retailer; and (4) was not returned for a refund,” the company said.

Crashes, freezing

The suit was filed in 2009 by an Ohio couple who bought an Acer notebook from Wal-Mart. “Shortly after their purchase, and well within the one year warranty period,” the class action complaintalleged, “Plaintiffs discovered that their computer would not run properly and that it experienced numerous ‘crashes,’ ‘freezing,’ and was operating very slowly.”

The complaint cited numerous online consumer complaints, including one from ConsumerAffairs.com. The writer of that complaint said that, “I have had problems with my computer shutting down and restarting on its own since the second month ive [sic] owned it. I called acer tech support many times and was bounced back and forth ... Its [sic] had issues since the beginning.” 

Options and deadlines

According to the press release, class members are eligible to receive one of the following: “(a) a 16GB USB Flash Drive with ReadyBoost technology; (b) a check for $10.00; (c) a check for up to $100.00 for reimbursement of any repair costs that were incurred before April 25, 2013 in an effort to resolve performance issues related to insufficient RAM; or (d) for Class Members who still own their computer, a 1GB or 2GB laptop memory DIMM that will allow the Acer notebook to operate with 2GB of RAM.”

Class members who want to opt out of, or object to, the settlement, must file a notice by July 24, 2013. Claim forms are due on the same date. Claim forms can be accessed at the settlement website - AcerLawsuit.com - or by calling (877) 761-0698.

Says alcoholism is protected by the law

An Oregon police officer who was fired after he was arrested on DUI charges is now suing his former employer, claiming that they discriminated against him based on his alcoholism. He claims the termination is a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Jason Servo, a former Gresham, Oregon police officer, was arrested in January 2011 after he crashed his car into a ditch.

Servo, a detective and his department’s head firearms instructor, drove an unmarked police car to a firearms training program. He was off duty at the time. Afterwards, he went out for dinner and drinks with other officers. Servo was driving an unmarked police car at the time of the accident.

Servo was known for aggressively investigating DUI cases and was credited with solving a 2006 fatal hit-and-run involving a drunken driver, The Oregonian reported. He was injured by a drunken driver in 2000, the newspaper reported.

Arrested by deputy 

Servo was arrested by a Clackamas County, Oregon, sheriff’s deputy. When the deputy testified in front of Oregon’s Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, he said that Servo was "probably one of the top 10 most intoxicated people he had arrested in almost 15 years of drunken-driving investigations,” according to published reports.

Ultimately, Servo pled guilty to the DUI and successfully completed a diversion program. After entering a rehabilitation center, Servo says he was diagnosed as an alcoholic and made the decision to get sober.

"There were times where I went home and I couldn't get crime scenes out of my head; I went to drinking for that and there are other officers that do the same thing," Servo, who is now 818 days sober, was quoted as saying.

ADA recognizes alcoholism

Perhaps surprisingly, the ADA does recognize alcoholism as a disease, stating that:

[A]n employer may not make job decisions based on the fact that an employee is an alcoholic, attends AA meetings, or takes medication to curb the urge to drink. However, an employer may prohibit drinking at work and may generally hold all employees to the same standards of performance and conduct.

A FAQ page for the ADA states:

While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job.

An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.

Game based on the 1986 film was supposed to be "cutting edge"

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

Sega may need to up its game if it wants to avoid being sued by its customers. A class action lawsuit alleges Sega wimped out in its "Aliens: Colonial Marines," putting out a product that brought yawns from its users.

Lead plaintiff Damion Perrine says in a federal court suit that the game is far inferior to the promos and ads that induced him to buy it. The suit seeks damages for false advertising, breach of warranties, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation and consumer law violations.

The class would cover everyone in the United States who bought the game on or before Feb. 12 this year, Courthouse News Service reported.

Perrine calls it a "classic bait-and-switch" and says the actual game is nothing like the "actual gameplay" demonstrations that portrayed a cutting-edge video game with very specific features.

Perrine noted that reviewers who saw the promos and demonstrations praised the game, saying it was robust, exciting and filled with scenes that closely resembled the 1986 James Cameron film "Aliens," which was a sequel to the 1979 film "Alien." 

But when the game was released in February, at a cost of $50 to $100, reviewers pounced on it, noting the disaparity between the promos and demonstrations and the actual product.

Perrine insists his criticisms are not minor. He says consumers like himself had expected to be able to essentially step into the role of one of the Aliens characters, or perhaps even become one of the aliens, ugly reptilian creatures with exceptionally sharp teeth, very bad breath and a disagreeable disposition.

Perrine seeks damages and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, and an injunction. He is represented by attorney Sean Reis of Santa Margarita, Calif.

Consumer alleges the "sale price" was, in fact, the regular price

By James R. Hood of ConsumerAffairs

When is a "sale" price not really a sale price? Antonio Hinojos thinks it's when the price is the same as the "original" price -- and that's the basis of a class action lawsuit he has brought against Kohl's Department Stores.

Hinojos bought a Samsonite suitcase from Kohl's that was advertised as 50% off its "original" price of $299.99. While he was at it, he bought some shirts that were supposedly marked down from 32% to 40% off their "original" prices.

But in fact, Hinojos' suit claims, the items were not marked down at all and the supposed "sale" prices were the same prices the items routinely sold for. Had he known that, Hinojos says he never would have purchased the products.

The case is taking on a life of its own. A district court originally dismissed it, saying Hinojos had not shown that he had lost any money as a result of the alleged false advertising, since he got the goods he wanted.

The court said that Hinojos had shown that he suffered an economic injury under the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law.

"He alleges that the advertised discounts conveyed false information about the goods he purchased, i.e., that the goods he purchased sold at a substantially higher price at Kohl's in the recent past and/or in the prevailing market. He also alleges that he would not have purchased the goods in question absent this misrepresentation,'" Judge Stephen Reinhardt said, writing for the three-judge panel.

Kellogg's settles class-action suit claiming it made false claims for its cereal

Kellogg's will pay $4 million to settle a long-running class-action suit that claimed the cereal maker made false claims that its Frosted Mini-Wheats could improve kids' attentiveness, memory and other cognitive functions.

The suit was filed after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a false advertising complaint against Kellogg's in 2009.

While not admitting that it did anything wrong, Kellogg's has agreed to settle the suit and has set up a website where consumers can get claim forms.  

In a statement, Kellogg's said it "has a long history of responsible advertising" and said it "stands by its advertising and denies it did anything wrong." 

Lawsuit claimed EA stifled competing football video games

Consumers covered by a class action lawsuit against EA Sports  have tripled their winnings without lifting a finger, thanks to a federal judge who has modified the details of a $27 million settlement fund.

The case involves EA Sports football video games. A 2008 class action claimed that EA stifled competing games by partnering with the National Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Arena Football League and Collegiate Licensing Co.

They claimed EA monopolized the market for such games, letting it charge more "Madden NFL," "NCAA Football" and "Arena Football League," and gouge customers.

Initially, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved a settlement that would have provided $6.79 to consumers who bought EA football games for the XBox, Playstation 2, PC or GameCube between 2005 and 2012 while those who purchased the titles for XBox 360, Playstation 3 or Wii platorms could claim up to $1.95 per game.

But in modifying the settlement, Judge Wilken ordered that the first gorup of consumers receive payments of $20.37 for up to eight games while those who purchased the games for Xbox 360, Playstation 3 or Wii platforms will get $5.85 per title.

Individual payments could be reduced, however, if total claims exceed the $27 million. 

Details on how to file a claim are available at http://www.easportslitigation.com/

The settlement provides that EA cannot renew its exclusive NCAA and CLC football licenses for at least five years after they expire in 2014. Nor can it acquire exclusive rights to the AFL for five years. It gets to keep its NFL exclusivity.

The site charges a fee to remove inaccurate information, the suit alleges

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

A lawsuit charges that a website claiming to be a national sex offender registry is really in a different business, one that involves shaking people down for money.

The class action charges that Sexoffenderin.com refuses to remove information, even when it's inaccurate, without a payment of up to $299, Courthouse News Service reported.

Lead plaintiff Terracazeno Talbert filed the suit in Jackson County, Missouri, claiming that the website had a profile of him containing his date of birth, address, a Google Map pinpointing his home and a photo of him with the words "sex offender" plastered across it.

Talbert says he has never been convicted of a sex offense but said that when he tried to have the profile removed, he was told he would have to pay.

Talbert claims the website has a link to request removal of information, but to do so costs $79 to $299. For $79 the information will be removed within 45 days; for $99 within 25 days; for $199 within six days; and for $299 within 24 hours, according to the complaint.

The owners of the site can't be identified because they have a "secret" domain registration that blocks their identity. Besides the site, the lawsuit names Special Domain Services, Go Daddy Operating Co. and Domains by Proxy, which the lawsuit says allow the defendants to register websites through them anonymously.

Sexoffenderin.com is a self-proclaimed national sex offender registry. It is not affiliated with federal government or any other agency. Users can search by name or by state and see photos and profile pages which publish alleged sex offenders' addresses, birth date and offenses, Talbert says.

When we visited the site, the "Record Removal" and "Removal Request" pages were inoperable. The rest of the site seemed to be functioning normally.

The 1893 song has been licensed for years

The next time you sing "Happy Birthday," you may want to make sure you aren’t being video recorded, or at least that there aren’t any entertainment lawyers nearby.

That’s because the timeless birthday song, which dates back to 1893, is technically copyrighted -- owned by Warner/Chapell Music.

Fortunately for those of us who may have unwittingly infringed the copyright by crooning out the melody at a friend or family member’s birthday party, a production company has filed a lawsuit demanding that the song finally be placed into the public domain, free from legal and proprietary restrictions.

The suit was filed by Good Morning To You Productions, a corporation that is in the process of filming a movie called “Happy Birthday.” The production company was forced to pay a licensing fee to Warner/Chappell and promise to use the song in the film. Violation of the agreement could force Good Morning To You to pay a staggering $150,000 penalty.

Suit: Copyright expired long ago

“More than 120 years after the melody to which the simple lyrics of Happy Birthday to You is set was first published,” the suit says, “defendant Warner/Chappell boldly, but wrongfully and unlawfully, insists that it owns the copyright to Happy Birthday to You."

In its suit, the production company points to evidence suggesting that the copyright to the song expired all the way back in 1921. If Warner/Chappell still holds a valid copyright, the suit says, it’s to a specific piano arrangement of the song from 1935. According to the suit, that narrow copyright doesn’t give Warner/Chappell the rights to every version of the song.

The song originated as “Good Morning to All,” which consisted of the same familiar melody that is used today. That melody was copyrighted in 1893, 1896, 1899, and 1907.

In addition to its demand that Happy Birthday to You be placed into the public domain, Good Morning To You is demanding that Warner/Chappell repay over $5 million that it has collected in licensing fees over the years.

Suit follows ruling setting intern pay guidelines

Three former interns are suing news and gossip website Gawker, claiming that they performed work for the site or its affiliates without compensation.

Andrew Hudson, Hanchen Lu, and Aulistar Mark were interns with Gawker Media LLC between 2008 and 2010. They say they worked between 15 and 25 hours per week.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on behalf of all unpaid interns who worked for Gawker Media, and also named as a defendant Nick Denton, the founder of the media empire.

“Gawker employs numerous other ‘interns’ in the same way, paying them nothing or underpaying them and utilizing their services to publish its content on the Internet, an enterprise that generates significant amounts of revenue for Gawker,” the inters say in their complaint.

Follows Fox Searchlight ruling

The suit comes on the heels of a ruling that, in order for interns to work without pay, or for pay lower than the minimum wage, employers must comply with certain criteria laid out by the United States Department of Labor.

The decision, which was handed down earlier this month, grew out of a suit filed by two interns on the movie “Black Swan” against Fox Searchlight Productions.

In that case, U.S. District Judge William Pauley ruled that interns can only be unpaid or underpaid if they are doing work that is educational and benefits the interns, rather than work that is primarily for the benefit of the employer or displaces paid employees.

Rachel Bien, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Fox Searchlight case, told The New York Times that “this decision will go far to discourage private companies from having unpaid internship programs.”

Judging from the Gawker case, the Searchlight decision also threatens to spur a flood of lawsuits by unpaid interns from years past.

Earlier Hearst suit

Indeed, even before the decision was handed down, a similar case spurred Time Magazine to write the headline “The Beginning of the End of the Unpaid Internship.”

That case was brought by Diana Wang against the Hearst Corporation, whose magazine Harper’s Bazaar she says forced her to work up to 55 hours per week without pay. The lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of any unpaid or underpaid Hearst intern from the last six years.

It's "tragic," the Court held, but a narrow majority overturned lower courts' decisions

By James R. Hood of ConsumerAffairs

The Supreme Court has decided that Karen Bartlett won't get the $21 million lower courts awarded her. Bartlett's skin was burned off by a rare side effect of sulindac, a pain reliever her doctor prescribed for shoulder pain.

The New Hampshire woman lost about 65 percent of the outler layer of her skin, spent 70 days in the hospital and lost most of her vision.

A federal jury in New Hampshire ordered Mutual Pharmaceutical, which made the generic version of the drug to pay her $21 million, noting that her injuries were "truly horrific," Courthouse News Service reported.  

But although Bartlett's doctor described her experience as "hell on earth" and although she is unable to eat normally, exercise, have sex or see properly, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the trial court and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that federal law pre-empts state law.

Stronger warning

New Hampshire law imposes a duty on manufacturers to ensure that the drugs they market are not unreasonably dangerous. Under state law, Mutual would have been required to change the labeling of sulindac to provide stronger warnings but federal law prohibits generic drug manufacturers from making changes to drug labels.   

"Accordingly, state law imposed a duty on Mutual not to comply with federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that require a private party to violate federal law are pre-empted and, thus, are 'without effect,'" wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the five-justice majority.

Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

"The court laments her 'tragic' situa­tion, but responsibility for the fact that Karen Bartlett has been deprived of a remedy for her injuries rests with this court," Sotomayor wrote. "If our established pre-emption principles were properly applied in this case, and if New Hampshire law were correctly construed, then federal law would pose no barrier to Karen Bartlett's recovery."

Stricken provision leaves future of the law in jeopardy

In a stunning decision Tuesday that shook the legal community and outraged civil rights leaders, the Supreme Court struck down a key portion of the Voting Right Act of 1965, leaving the future of the law in jeopardy.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ruled that the formula for “preclearance” -- the process by which the U.S. Department of Justice must approve proposed changes to voting protocol in states with a history of discrimination -- is unconstitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion for the majority, said that “[o]ur country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

As evidence for his proposition that the law is outdated, Roberts pointed to census information showing that, in five of the states originally affected by the law, African-American voters turn out to vote more often than their white counterparts.

Key civil rights legislation

The decision is a major blow to a law passed during the heat of the civil rights movement. Signed in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson -- who had signed the Civil Rights Act the previous year -- the Voting Right Act forbids states from creating a "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

Although the law was signed during a tumultuous period in history, it had long been considered uncontroversial. The law has been renewed by Congress four times, most recently in 2006 by margins of 390-33 in the House of Representatives and 98-0 in the Senate.

Preclearance and formula requirements

The Supreme Court’s decision focused mainly on Section 4 of the Act, which sets forth procedures to minimize discrimination. In its opinion, the majority said that “[t]he conditions that originally justified [the measures in Section 4] no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.”

Section 4(a) of the Act states that “no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or device.” This provision was designed to stop practices such as literacy tests that denied swaths of otherwise eligible citizens the ability to vote.

Under Section 5 of the Act, “covered jurisdictions” -- states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters -- must have any proposed changes to voting protocol approved by the U.S. Department of Justice before those changes can be put into effect. This practice is often referred to as “preclearance.” Section 4(b) -- the section that the Court ruled unconstitutional -- laid out a formula to determine which jurisdictions are required to comply with preclearance..

“If Congress had started from scratch in 2006  [when the act was renewed], it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula,” the majority wrote. “It would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between States in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today’s statistics tell an entirely different story.”

The decision does not actually condemn preclearance itself, although Congress would have to draft a new formula in order for the practice to continue.

A dissent written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the majority opinion an act of “hubris.”

Leaders react

In a statement, President Obama said he was “deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision.”

“As a nation, we’ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote,” Obama said. “But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists.”

And Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon who was beaten by police during the Selma to Montgomery March, told MSNBC that “what the court did today is stab the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in its very heart.”

Decision based on equal protection grounds

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages amounted to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The Act, known colloquially as DOMA, was enacted in 1996 as the gay marriage battle was heating up across the country. The legislation, which easily passed both houses of Congress, provided that states that did not allow same-sex marriage did not have to recognize gay marriages performed legally in other states. Under DOMA, for instance, Texas can refuse to recognize a gay marriage legally performed in New York.

Section 3 of DOMA specified that the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages, and that therefore same-sex couples were ineligible for federal marital benefits. As a result, same-sex couples were unable to obtain marital insurance benefits, survivor’s benefits for Social Security, and could not file joint tax returns.

It was this section of the Act that the Court said failed for want of equal protection.

Close vote

The vote was 5-4, with liberal justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer joining perennial swing vote Anthony Kennedy in voting to strike down the provision.

The majority opinion, written by Kennedy, stressed that “[b]y seeking to … treat[ gay couples] as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

“The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State,” the majority wrote. “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper … The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”

The majority also stressed that “[t]he avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."

Dissent by Scalia

A typically feisty Justice Antonin Scalia penned a dissent that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined in part by Chief Justice John Roberts. Scalia, who is known for the occasional sharp jab at colleagues on the other side of an opinion, lamented that the Court -- in his opinion -- was unable to find common ground, or at least reach a cordial disagreement.

“In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” Scalia wrote. “The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad.”

The ruling is just the latest step toward equality for same-sex couples. In September 2011, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the law prohibiting gay members of the military from publicly divulging their sexual orientation, was repealed. And the latest polls show that around 55% of Americans support legalizing gay marriage.

Action grew out of children racking up thousands in bills

Apple has settled a class action lawsuit over the practice of so-called “in-app purchases,” agreeing to pay a total of $100 million to parents whose children made in-app purchases on games in iTunes.

Under the terms of the settlement, parents whose children charged $30 or less in an app will receive $5 in iTunes Store credit. Parents who don’t have an iTunes account anymore will get $5 cash instead. If a child charged more than $30, the parent must produce documentation showing the amount and date of each purchase.

Claims can be filed online at the settlement website, itunesinapppurchasesettlement.com.

Continuing uproar

The public uproar over in-app purchases began in February 2011, when The Washington Post published a story detailing, among other horrors,  a Rockville, Maryland girl who racked up an eye-popping $1,400 bill while playing the game Smurfs’ Village.

Within weeks, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it was reviewing Apple’s in-app purchase policy. The review came at the request of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who sent the FTC a letter after reading the story in the Post.

Then-FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz told Markey in a letter that the FTC “fully share[s] your concern that consumers, particularly children, are unlikely to understand the ramifications of these types of purchases."

"Let me assure you we will look closely at the current industry practice with respect to the marketing and delivery of these types of applications," Leibowitz said.

The month after the Post story was published, Apple announced that it had changed its policy, now requiring passwords for in-app purchases in recently-downloaded apps.

Consumer complaints

ConsumerAffairs has heard from consumers shocked to find the sizable Apple charges on their credit card.

Last year, we detailed the saga of Kristy from Portland, Michigan, whose eight-year-old son racked up over $1,140 in charges while playing the “free” game Dragonvale.

“On March 30, he made 15 purchases totaling $720 in less than one hour,” Kristi wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post. “On March 31, the charges totaled over $420 in under 20 minutes.”

After investigating, Kristy found that the in-app purchases were for things like sacks of food, dragon treats, and bags of gems to be used in the game.

Activism carries maximum sentence of 13 years in jail

He’s facing up to 13 years in jail, up to $13,000 in fines, and an unforgiving judge.

His crime? Using water-soluble chalk on an outdoor sidewalk.

Jeff Olson, a former staffer for U.S. Senator Patty Murray, was charged in April with 13 counts of vandalism stemming from anti-bank slogans and drawings that he made on the sidewalk outside a San Diego Bank of America.

Olson told the San Diego Reader that, when the Occupy Wall Street protests swept across the country in the fall of 2011, he wanted to speak out in a different way.

"I thought my time would be better spent at the banks, trying to convince people to ditch these banks for local credit unions. I believed that was the best way to hold the executives and the corporations accountable for bringing this country to the brink of collapse," Olson told the Reader.

He began standing outside a Bank of America in North Park, San Diego, holding signs and, eventually, using chalk to scribble slogans like “stop big banks” and drawings, one showing octopus-like tentacles growing out of the bank, holding cash.

The chalk drawings were made between February and August 2012.

Mayor: “A stupid case”

Olson’s activism drew the attention of Darrell Freeman, a vice president of corporate security for Bank of America, who pressed the office of San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith to pursue criminal charges. Those charges came in April.

Bob Filner, the mayor of San Diego, said on Friday that the prosecution is “a stupid case.”

“It’s chalk,” Filner said, according to Los Angeles Times. “It’s water-soluble chalk. They were political slogans.”

But Goldsmith’s office says Olson’s behavior is “defacement” that caused “real and substantial monetary damages.”

“The [prosecution does] not fear that this reading of [the law] will make criminals of every child using chalk,” Goldsmith’s office said in court documents. “Chalk festivals may still be permitted. Kids acting without malice may still engage in their art. Circumventing the rules, without permission, under the color of night, and now waiving [sic] a banner of the First Amendment, does not negate the fact that defacement occurred, a private business suffered real and substantial monetary damages, and Defendant is responsible.”

Olson’s attorney, Tom Tosdal, is handling the case pro bono.

Judge issues gag order, forbids First Amendment defense

If the case wasn’t already disturbing enough, on Thursday Judge Howard Shore, who is handling the trial, issued a gag order forbidding Olson or anyone else involved in the case from talking to reporters.

Shore said he was troubled by the fact that media outlets had reported the maximum punishment of 13 years in jail and $13,000 in fines, even though the prosecution’s complaint clearly listed 13 charges, with the sentence range for each listed as “1 Yr/$1,000.”

Shore said the maximum sentence is “not going to happen and I would be surprised if it ever happened to any defendant with no criminal record.”

Earlier in the week, Shore granted a prosecution motion to forbid Olson’s attorney from using the First Amendment or free speech as a defense during the trial.

They claim the Supreme Court lifted stay prematurely

After the Supreme Court’s decision essentially killing California’s Proposition 8, proponents of so-called “traditional marriage” have filed an emergency order asking that a stay on same-sex marriage in the state be reinstated.

Prop 8, a ballot initiative passed in November 2008, limited the right to marry to opposite-sex couples. In a ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that anti-gay marriage groups did not have standing to defend the law.

Arizona group behind suit

Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based group formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’s lifting of a stay that prohibited same-sex marriages in California.

The Ninth Circuit lifted the stay on Friday, two days after the Supreme Court’s decision came down.

Alliance Defending Freedom says the Ninth Circuit ignored the stay’s requirement that it be kept in effect “until final disposition by the supreme court.”

According to the group, that clause requires that the stay remain in effect for at least 25 days, which is the amount of time that petitioners are typically given to request a rehearing after a ruling from the high court.

“Hang it up”

John Eastman, who chairs the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage, told NBC News that his group views the Ninth Circuit’s decision “as illegitimate and lawless.”

Ted Boutrous, an attorney for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, told reporters that anti-gay groups “should hang it up and quit trying to stop people from getting married,” according to The Guardian.

Lack of standing

The Supreme Court’s standing decision was based on the the fact that California’s current governor and attorney general declined to defend the law; the court held that the anti-gay marriage groups could not stand in elected officials’ shoes, given that they had not suffered “a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision."

“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” read the opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”
The Supreme Court’s decision came just before Gay Pride Weekend in San Francisco.

Action targeting high-traffic midtown restaurants

Anyone familiar with the restaurant scene in New York City knows that the chain restaurants dotting the most heavily-trafficked areas of midtown -- Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Applebees, and the like -- aren’t just subpar cuisine options; they’re also shockingly overpriced. The foot traffic provided by tourists staying in nearby hotels, along with the hordes of theatergoers on Broadway, ensures that these restaurants can charge obscene prices without anyone batting an eye.

A recently-filed lawsuit adds insult to injury, alleging that some of these restaurants are also automatically adding a secret gratuity without telling the diner in advance.

The suit, filed by tennis star Ted Dimond, says that at least five midtown eateries are in violation of city laws prohibiting restaurants from adding a built-in tip or other surcharge, except for groups of 8 or more diners. Even when that requirement is met, restaurants can only add tips of up to 15 percent. The complaint singles out the Applebee’s on W. 50th Street, the Ruby Tuesday on Seventh Avenue, the Marriott Marquis Hotel on Broadway, and the Red Lobster and Olive Garden located in Times Square.

More restaurants may be named

Dimond’s lawyer, Evan Spencer, told the Daily News that unwitting consumers, unaware of the built-in tip, have been leaving additional gratuities of up to 40 percent.

The News quoted a statement by Spencer calling the named defendants “the tip of the iceberg,” suggesting that there may be more restaurants padding customer’s already sky-high bills.

Indeed, court papers say that up to 1,000 other restaurants may be in violation of the law. Those restaurants could be identified as the litigation progresses.

“This is a significant consumer rights and antitrust case,” Spencer’s statement said. “These restaurants have jointly conspired to raise prices in a deceptive manner ... and the named defendants are only the tip of the iceberg.”