Inc. Magazine

Do Businesses Need Liability Protection for COVID-19?

/in /by

Inc. Magazine

California commercial litigators are paying close attention to new laws under consideration during the coronavirus pandemic. The reality is that COVID-19 has caused significant problems for a lot of businesses, especially those that were forced to close down or limit access. One way that Republicans in the United States Congress are responding is by attempting to pass legislation that would give businesses strong protections against being sued by workers and customers who become ill. If this law passes, anyone who gets sick while in a retail store or in an office would find it almost impossible to bring a successful lawsuit against the business.

Do businesses need liability protection for COVID-19? Keep reading this blog to learn more.

Los Angeles Commercial Litigator Robert Tauler Quoted in Article About Coronavirus Legislation

Inc. Magazine recently asked Los Angeles commercial litigator Robert Tauler for his opinion on the GOP’s proposed COVID-19 legislation that would make it more difficult for employees and consumers to file civil suits against businesses. Here are a few excerpts from that article:

This…is the nightmare business scenario that the GOP hoped to avoid by proposing to enhance liability protections for businesses in its version of a Phase 4 stimulus bill, dubbed the Heals Act. The legislation would raise the bar for filing liability claims surrounding Covid-19. Rather than requiring plaintiffs to prove a company did not take reasonable care to prevent injury, sickness, or death on their premises–the current standard of liability–it would require them to prove that a company acted grossly unreasonably. 

“They have to show that the exposure caused the plaintiff to contract the coronavirus,” and that the business did nothing to prevent consumers from getting sick, says Robert Tauler, managing partner at Tauler Smith, a Los Angeles law firm that focuses on commercial litigation. “That is a very, very difficult standard to meet,” he says, adding: “It would basically cut any lawsuit off at the knees.”

Read the full article on Inc.com.

WWD

Why Paper Magazine’s Instagram Account Disappeared

/in /by

 

If anyone is wondering why Paper Magazine’s Instagram account disappeared, a lawsuit filed against copyright trolls in California federal court might explain why. The suit alleges that the defendants got the publication’s Instagram account disabled and effectively banned as part of an “extortionate strategy” connected to related copyright infringement claims. 

To learn more about the developing case, keep reading this blog.

Paper Magazine Files Lawsuit Alleging Extortion by Copyright Trolls

In a lawsuit filed on July 8, 2020 in U.S. District Court, the magazine’s parent company ENTtech Media Group says it has fallen victim to an scheme by a group of photo companies weaponizing copyright claims to extract a settlement for roughly $1 million. The civil suit alleges that the copyright trolls forced Instagram to take down Paper Magazine’s social media account by sending an overwhelming number of take-down notices related to alleged copyright violations. ENTtech Media argues that the defendants’ strategy was basically an extortion attempt.

Click here to read the full article on WWD.com.

Yahoo!

What Happened to Paper Magazine’s Instagram Account?

/in /by

Yahoo! recently published an article about a lawsuit that helps to explain exactly why the Paper Magazine Instagram account suddenly disappeared from the internet. The answer is that the account was taken down in response to a different lawsuit alleging copyright infringement. That legal action was initiated by copyright trolls who were looking to pressure Paper Magazine’s parent company, ENTtech Media Group, into paying a quick cash settlement.

Yahoo! Article on Copyright Trolls Weaponizing Lawsuits

The Yahoo! article provides information about how ENTtech Media Group is fighting back against a group of photo companies who allegedly tried to weaponize copyright claims and extract a $1 million settlement. Those copyright trolls have been accused of aggregating several copyright infringement claims related to photos used in Paper Magazine’s Instagram posts. When Paper Magazine’s parent company refused to back down and give in to the threats of legal action, the copyright trolls allegedly inundated Instagram with a large number of take-down requests. This prompted Instagram to shut down the Instagram account as a matter of policy.

ENTtech has now issued a strong response to the “extortionate” tactics used by the copyright trolls.  ENTtech is arguing that the photo companies are taking advantage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and exploiting DMCA protections as a way to extort money from legitimate businesses and copyright holders.

Click here to read the full article on Yahoo! Life.

Instagram Copyright Lawsuits

Can You Get Sued for Posting a Picture of Yourself on Instagram?

/in /by

 

Instagram Copyright Lawsuits

The popularity of social media has exploded in recent years, with just about everyone having at least one type of social media account. Whether it’s Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or some other platform, the reality is that social media accounts and interactions are pretty much unavoidable these days. Unfortunately, as more and more people use social media, there is also a greater chance of legal liability because intellectual property rights may be affected. Even paparazzi are filing copyright lawsuits against celebrities who post photos of themselves on Instagram. One question that comes up more than any other in this area of law is: Can you get sued for posting a picture of yourself on Instagram?

To find out whether you can be sued merely for posting a photograph of yourself on Instagram or other social media platforms, keep reading.

Copyright Troll Lawsuits Target Instagram Account Holders

There has been a proliferation of bad-faith lawsuits in California and other states where lawyers claim that the account holders are violating copyright laws. These copyright trolls are typically looking for a quick cash settlement, and they have little intention of ever taking the case to trial. If you are not careful when using social media, you could find yourself named as the defendant in a potentially expensive civil suit. That’s because copyright troll attorneys who scour the internet looking for supposed “copyright violations” won’t just limit their focus to actors, models, and other celebrities who post photographs of themselves on Instagram. The truth is that anyone who uses social media is at risk.

Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Sues Amy Schumer, Gigi Hadid, and Kim Kardashian

In the last three months, celebrities Amy Schumer, Gigi Hadid, and Kim Kardashian have all been sued for posting photos of themselves to their Instagram accounts. In each case, the photographer behind the photos in question has alleged that they are the owner and copyright holder of the media, and that the subjects of the photos have no right to post them. Richard Liebowitz, attorney for the plaintiffs in all cases, has filed complaints stating that, “One cannot use photographs without the photographer’s permission, even for social media websites.” The lawsuits involve DMCA takedown notices, as well a demand for monetary damages.

In the lawsuit against Amy Schumer, the plaintiff’s attorney claims that the photographs in question were copyrighted, even though he does not declare the date of the copyright. A search of records maintained by the United States Copyright Office shows that the photographs were copyrighted on February 8, 2020, which is three months after Schumer allegedly infringed on the copyright by posting the photos.

What Is the Best Way to Respond to a Copyright Troll?

Chase Bank PPP Loan Fraud

Tauler Smith LLP Sues Chase Bank & SBA for PPP Loan Fraud

/in /by

Chase Bank PPP Loan Fraud

The business fraud attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP recently filed a lawsuit against Chase Bank for PPP loan fraud. The civil suit alleges that JPMorgan Chase committed fraud by helping its rich clients at the expense of small business owner clients. Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan funds made available in response to the coronavirus pandemic were supposed to be distributed on a “first come, first served” basis. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Chase Bank gave preferential treatment to their larger clients, while making misrepresentations to small businesses that ultimately resulted in loans being delayed and denied when the funds ran out. Tauler Smith LLP is representing the plaintiff in this case, as well as other small businesses who were denied PPP loans.

To learn more about the PPP fraud lawsuit filed against Chase Bank, keep reading.

Tauler Smith LLP Files Lawsuit Against Chase Bank for PPP Loan Fraud

The plaintiff in the civil suit is Outlet Tile Center, a California business with six (6) employees. Outlet Tile Center provides flooring for homes and businesses, and they do their banking with Chase. The business fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP filed this lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff, who was denied an opportunity to receive much-needed financial help because of the defendants’ fraud.

Click here to view the lawsuit.

Chase Bank Accused of Unfair Business Practices

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the United States Congress passed several laws that affected businesses. For example, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and appropriated $340 billion in funds to be distributed to small businesses who needed help covering payroll. According to the lawsuit, by the time Chase Bank’s online portal opened to small businesses, the bank had already personally solicited and submitted all of the loans for its rich clients.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. received significant fees for all PPP loans they processed, so they had an incentive to push through loan applications of their rich clients. In just two (2) weeks, Chase made over $700 million in fees. Moreover, Chase had no incentive to review any of the applications and verify if the information was accurate. According to a government report, the average approved loan for Chase through this program was over $500,000. These were not the kinds of small businesses that were supposed to be receiving help through the CARES Act.

U.S. Small Business Administration Accused of PPP Loan Fraud

The other named defendant in the case is the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal agency that exists for the purpose of supporting small businesses throughout the country. One of the ways in which the SBA provided financial assistance to small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic was through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which received additional funds through the CARES Act. The SBA allowed companies to apply for emergency PPP loans so that they could maintain their workforces even as coronavirus was causing many offices to shut down for an extended period of time. The idea was that the companies would use a certain percentage of the funds to pay their employees, and then the federal government would relieve them of the need to repay the loans.

Billions of dollars were allocated for the loans, and they were meant to help small businesses. Unfortunately, a lot of larger companies found ways around the restrictions and ended up taking a lot of that money – at the expense of the smaller businesses for which the loans were originally intended. In fact, just two (2) weeks after the PPP loans were made available, the funds had already been exhausted. This meant that many small business owners never had an opportunity to get the financial assistance they desperately needed during COVID. A lot of those small businesses were forced to close permanently, and their workforces were laid off.

Contact the California Business Fraud Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

If you are a small business owner who was defrauded by Chase Bank or any other entity committing unfair business practices, the attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Call 310-590-3927, or send an email to schedule a free consultation.

PPP Loan Lawsuit

Payment Protection Program (PPP) Lawsuit

/in /by

PPP Loan Lawsuit

California law firm Tauler Smith LLP is representing small businesses that did not obtain funding through the Payment Protection Program (PPP). These PPP loans were intended to benefit small businesses impacted by COVID-19, but many small business owners did not receive the funds they were promised. If you were denied a PPP loan, our experienced business fraud attorneys can help you file a lawsuit.

Small Businesses Denied PPP Loans May Be Able to Sue

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) was supposed to distribute PPP loans to small businesses who needed the funds to cover payroll and avoid layoffs during the coronavirus pandemic. These loans had favorable terms, and they were administered by the government and banking institutions under the CARES Act. On April 16, 2020, the government announced that the program ran out of funding. In some cases, this was due to fraud by the financial institutions that were processing the loans.

Contact the California Business Fraud Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

If you are a small business owner who applied for PPP funding through a lender and have been denied funding, you may have standing to file a lawsuit to obtain the funding that was promised. To learn more about potentially being a plaintiff in class action litigation, fill out the questionnaire below. A member of our team will then contact you. (The information you provide below is confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside Tauler Smith LLP without your prior consent.)

Weddings Canceled by Coronavirus

Wedding Cancelled by Coronavirus? Here Are Your Legal Options

/in /by

Weddings Canceled by Coronavirus

As wedding season approaches, couples across the nation are faced with the grim reality that their weddings have been involuntarily canceled due to the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This problem can be compounded when the chosen wedding venue refuses to refund the deposit or allow the couple to get out of the original contract. Consequently, we are likely to see an onslaught of lawsuits against wedding venues and vendors in the year to come, particularly breach of contract claims by brides-to-be against wedding venues and vendors for refusal to refund advanced payments for a wedding that never occurs.

If your wedding was canceled by coronavirus, you do have legal options. Your first step should be to speak with an experienced California business dispute lawyer who understands the relevant statutes and who can help you get out of the contract.

Legal Claims for Couples Whose Weddings Were Canceled Because of COVID-19

Finding out that you can no longer have your wedding at the venue you chose is already devastating enough without the possibility that you may be forced to pay for the wedding anyway. Fortunately, there is some hope for couples who need to get out of written contracts. For example, some wedding contracts may contain force majeure provisions, which means that you may be able to rescind your wedding contract if it is impossible to execute. Along those same lines, your wedding contract may be considered an unenforceable contract because it is against public policy.

What Is the Law on Wedding Contracts in California?

Wedding contracts create special circumstances around would-be newlyweds. The United States government has declared a national emergency. Certain states, such as California, have issued orders implementing “shelter in place” of all residents, ordering closure of all nonessential businesses, and prohibiting gatherings of more than 10 people. These rules have arguably created a public policy that weddings cannot go forward during the crisis.

Generally, a legal claim fails if it is based on an agreement that violates law and is contrary to public policy. In Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enter. Co., a California Appellate Court ruled that the law “has a long history of recognizing the general rule that certain contracts, though properly entered into in all other respects, will not be enforced if found to be contrary to public policy.” Given the public prohibition in California regarding gatherings of 10 or more people during the COVID-19 pandemic, anyone attending, hosting, or working a wedding would be acting contrary to public policy by threatening public health. Consider the legal implications for a bride who hires a wedding photographer, only to later find out that the wedding was canceled because of coronavirus. Legally speaking, that bride might not be obligated to pay the photographer.

Contact the Los Angeles Business Dispute Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

The challenge with wedding vendor contracts is the prevailing industry standard, whereby all services are typically pre-paid in full. Given the unprecedented circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the best move you can make right now is to speak with an attorney who understands California contract law, particularly as it relates to businesses.

The Los Angeles business dispute lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can advise you regarding your rights and obligations. We can also help you navigate the complex legal process. Call us at 310-590-3927 or send an email.

Richard Liebowitz Copyright Claims

Richard Liebowitz Refiles and Dismisses Copyright Claim

/in /by

Richard Liebowitz Copyright Claims

When a plaintiff brings a copyright claim or any other type of lawsuit, there has to be some basis for the legal action. Unfortunately, some lawyers choose to use the threat of a civil suit as leverage to force a cash settlement, even when the case has little or no merit. Courts do not look kindly on this questionable tactic, and they can punish both the plaintiff and their attorney in these cases. Serial copyright litigant Richard Liebowitz recently found this out the hard way when a federal court awarded attorney’s fees against him for his practice of refiling and dismissing copyright claims without prejudice. This case was a good example of why it’s so important to be represented by a skilled attorney who can provide an aggressive defense against copyright claims.

To learn more about the best way to respond to an illegitimate copyright claim, keep reading this blog.

Attorney Richard Liebowitz Accused of Being a Copyright Troll

Richard Liebowitz has been called a “copyright troll” by federal judges based on the volume of lawsuits he has filed. These lawsuits often involve flimsy copyright claims alleging that the defendant has infringed on the plaintiff’s IP rights by publishing a photo or video. In a lot of these cases, the plaintiff may have no intention of actually going to trial. Instead, they simply want to pressure the defendant with the threat of costly litigation in state or federal court so that the defendant will pay a cash settlement. This is not how the law is supposed to work.

Richard Liebowitz Loses PopMatters Copyright Claim

In Glen Craig v. PopMatters Media, Inc. (N.D. Ill.), the defendants raised objections to personal jurisdiction and venue in the Southern District of Illinois. Richard Liebowitz, the attorney representing the plaintiff, then voluntarily dismissed the action and refiled in the Northern District of Illinois. The defendants then filed a motion for attorney’s fees in the first action, as was their right under the law.

The following day, Liebowitz filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the second action, presumably so that he would not be ordered to pay attorney’s fees in the first action. The defendants again moved for attorney’s fees, and Liebowitz opposed by arguing that no attorney’s fees should be awarded because the dismissal was “without prejudice.” The court did not find Liebowitz’s argument persuasive: in an order dated March 23, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees against Liebowitz and his client. The court reasoned that “[t]he privilege of dismissing a federal suit without prejudice to refiling may be used only once,” and Liebowitz “used that privilege when he dismissed the Southern District case, so his dismissal of this case operated as a with-prejudice dismissal, an adjudication on the merits.”

Tauler Smith LLP Has History of Defeating Copyright Trolls

The PopMatters order marks yet another legal setback for Richard Liebowitz, who now faces the increased specter of having to pay attorney’s fee awards to the defendants. Tauler Smith LLP is a California law firm that focuses on intellectual property claims, and we have a history of winning Liebowitz’ copyright claims. In fact, our experienced Los Angeles copyright lawyers have previously argued to the Southern District of New York that an award of attorney’s fees in cases brought by Liebowitz would serve dual objectives: (1) protecting our clients’ rights in defense of a dishonest copyright claim, and (2) deterring copyright trolls like Richard Liebowitz from their unrepentant abuse of judicial resources.

The truth is that the U.S. Copyright Act was not created to protect the rights of mercenaries like Richard Liebowitz who threaten law-abiding website operators with DMCA takedown notices and copyright demand letters. The idea behind the federal law was to provide legitimate copyright holders with the ability to file a lawsuit when their intellectual property rights have, in fact, been infringed.

Contact the Los Angeles Copyright Defense Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

If you have been sued by Richard Liebowitz or any other copyright trolls, the Los Angeles copyright defense attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you defend your claims. Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free consultation.

Fake COVID-19 Cures

Beware of Fake Cures for the Coronavirus

/in /by

Fake COVID-19 Cures

Companies peddling herbal remedies and other nutritional supplement products that protect against COVID-19 are violating the law. Consumers need to beware of fake cures for the coronavirus. If you purchased one of these over-the-counter supplements that supposedly treat coronavirus, you should consider taking immediate legal action. Your first should be to speak with a qualified California false advertising attorney who can explain your legal options.

To learn more about fake nutritional supplements that are being marketed as cures for coronavirus, keep reading.

FDA Warns Consumers About Fake Treatments for COVID-19

Growing fears about the COVID-19 pandemic have led to a dramatic rise in the sale of fraudulent nutritional supplements that claim to cure or prevent the disease. This phenomenon is not new. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) itself has acknowledged that “during emergency situations or outbreaks, fraudulent products claiming to prevent, treat or cure conditions associated with the emergency or outbreak almost always appear for sale.”

Thus, on March 6, 2020 the FDA issued warning letters to several companies selling fake treatments for the coronavirus. The most infamous recipient of the warning letters, televangelist Jim Bakker, marketed a product that would “kill” coronavirus. Bakker’s promotional videos claimed that the “Silver Solution” supplement was “tested on other strains of the coronavirus, and has been able to eliminate it within 12 hours, totally eliminate it, kills it, deactivates it.” Although these statements were arguably framed to evade false advertising lawsuits from consumers of coronavirus remedies, the statements are still considered unlawful.

Fraudulent claims about coronavirus remedies are not limited to televangelists. Many dishonest sellers of herbal products have also peddled homeopathic cures to the novel coronavirus that have no basis in reality. These include Amy Weidner of Herbal Amy, Inc., who claimed without any scientific support that “a number of herbs are strongly antiviral for corona viruses” in order to sell a formulation of various herbs on her website that she claimed were “preventative” and would protect consumers against the virus. Other websites have gone even further, selling four (4) different herbal remedies to treat coronavirus and dangerously instructing their customers who are infected with coronavirus to “take all 4 products and use the infection dosage.”

The dangers of marketing herbal products to treat a novel and deadly disease cannot be understated. At worst, consumers without access to medical care may forego medical treatment based on false claims. At minimum, consumers will shell out hard-earned money for fake products that will do nothing to keep them safe. Moreover, these negative consequences could get worse in the weeks and months ahead. As the pandemic spreads, so too will the opportunities for fraud. In the short time that coronavirus has impacted daily life, a variety of fake remedies have evolved in products ranging from colloidal silver, ionic silver, herbal teas, and even essential oils like eucalyptus – all claiming they can cure or treat coronavirus.

Contact the Los Angeles False Advertising Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

If you purchased nutritional supplements or any other products that claim to cure or prevent coronavirus, it’s possible that you were misled by false advertising from unethical and immoral companies attempting to capitalize on the public health crisis for their own financial benefit. The Los Angeles false advertising attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can investigate your claims and potentially help you get financial compensation.

Call 310-590-3927 or send us an email to schedule a free consultation.

COVID-19 & Broken Contracts

Coronavirus and Broken Contracts

/in /by

COVID-19 & Broken ContractsThe COVID-19 pandemic has left a trail of thousands of broken contracts in its wake, and this has come in a wide range of industries. From event cancelations to broken supply chains, coronavirus has caused millions of dollars in commercial losses and business interruption. Moreover, coronavirus and broken contracts could be a familiar theme in the coming months, as travel restrictions, event postponements, school and business closures, quarantines, supply-chain disruptions, cash flow problems, and worker shortages are expected to increase. This has left many California business owners to wonder: who is liable for the disruption caused by COVID-19? The answer could lie in what is known as the “force majeure” provision found in many contracts.

To learn more about the legal consequences for businesses that are forced to break contracts because of the coronavirus, keep reading.

What Is the Force Majeure Provision in Contract Law?

One provision often contained in comprehensive contracts is that of “force majeure.” Typically, force majeure provisions are included in contracts to excuse a breach if unforeseen circumstances prevent a party’s performance of the contract. This often means an act of God, such as hurricanes, war, earthquakes, etc. The force majeure doctrine is also commonly referenced as “impossibility of performance.”

Force majeure is literally French for “superior force,” and the concept originated in the Napoleonic Code of 1804. The breaching party to an agreement was condemned unless their non-performance or delay in performance resulted from a cause that could not be imputed to them, such as a superior force or a fortuitous occurrence.

What Could Force Majeure Mean for Broken Contracts Caused by COVID-19?

For most businesses, coronavirus is an unforeseen circumstance out of their control. But these cases can still result in litigation because the application of force majeure to any particular contract must be done by applying the law of the relevant jurisdiction. In California, the law recognizes that parties may not be held liable when unforeseen circumstances prevent them from fulfilling their contractual obligations, regardless of whether or not the contract has a force majeure clause. The leading California Supreme Court case defines force majeure as an “insuperable interference” occurring without the party’s intervention that “could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care.” Insuperable in this context means “impossible to overcome.” Although the case dates back to World War II, it has been cited as recently as 2015 as proper guidance for the interpretation of contracts in California.

Support for this court decision comes from the State of California definition of “force majeure.” In its standard Judicial Council contracts, California defines force majeure as “a delay which impacts the timely performance of work for which neither Contractor nor the State are liable because such delay or failure to perform was unforeseeable and beyond the control of the party.” The standard contract goes on to specifically list “quarantine or epidemic” as such a circumstance. Thus, quarantines resulting from the coronavirus pandemic would render this provision operable and could excuse any California businesses that are forced to break a contract because of COVID-19.

Contact the Los Angeles Business Dispute Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Many contracts do not contain specific language in force majeure provisions. Thus, each contract must be carefully analyzed with the law of the jurisdiction in order for businesses to understand their options. Force majeure is one of many tools that business owners and individuals can use to mitigate the fallout from the current crisis. If you are a business owner who was forced to break a contract due to coronavirus, you have options to escape ruinous consequences.

The Los Angeles business dispute attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or send us an email.