Meal kit company sued by customers who claim ‘contaminated’ lentils led to gallbladders removals

Vegan meal kit startup Daily Harvest has been hit with two lawsuits by customers alleging they needed gallbladder removals after eating one of the company’s products, reportedCNN. Last month the company issued a voluntary recall of its “French Lentil + Leek Crumbles” dish following multiple claims of gastrointestinal and liver from consumers. The first lawsuit was filed by Carol Ann Ready, an Oklahoma woman who is suing the company in the federal court for the Southern District of New York. Ready purchased and ate lentil crumbles from Daily Harvest on two separate occasions in May, both of which both of which resulted in trips to the emergency room. The second of these was a four-day stay, which ended with Ready’s physician recommending gallbladder removal. 

Attorneys for Ready are asking for a jury trial, alleging that damages for the case exceed what the court normally allows. “Plaintiff has sustained serious personal injuries; suffered, and will continue to suffer, significant pain and other physical discomfort; incurred, and will continue to incur, substantial medical expenses; have missed, and will likely miss in the future, work and time necessarily dedicated to advancement in her profession; and remains at risk for future health complications with damages far in excess of $75,000, the jurisdictional threshold of this court,” says the complaint, obtained by Food Safety News.

Earlier this week, an Oregon-based content creator who claimed he also consumed the lentils and subsequently had to have his gallbladder removed filed a personal injury lawsuit against Daily Harvest. In a video posted to Twitter on June 21, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, Luke Wesley Pearson, warned his followers not to eat the lentil crumbles.

Daily Harvest still hasn’t pinpointed what may have caused the adverse reactions. “All pathogen and toxicology results have come back negative so far, but we’re continuing to do extensive testing so we can get to the bottom of this. Everyone who has been affected deserves an answer, and we are committed to making this right,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

Yesterday the FDA announced a formal investigation into the outbreak, in an effort to determine the cause. In a blog post, Daily Harvest said it received approximately 470 reports from customers who suffered adverse reactions after eating the product.

Tesla faces new lawsuit over claims of racism and harassment at its Fremont factory

Tesla is facing another lawsuit by a group of former and current workers at its Fremont factory who allege that it knew about but failed to stop racist slurs, harassment and more, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The employees were "subjected…

The EU introduces new crypto rules to protect against fraud and climate impact

Europe and its member states have provisionally agreed on new crypto regulations that aim to protect consumers and service providers, the European Parliament announced. Called “MiCA” (markets in crypto-assets), it’s designed to guard against things like fraud, criminal activity, climate impact and more. 

“In the Wild West of the crypto-world, MiCA will be a global standard setter,” said Germany’s MEP Stefan Berger in a statement. “MiCA will ensure a harmonised market, provide legal certainty for crypto-asset issuers, guarantee a level playing field for service providers and ensure high standards for consumer protection.” 

A new legal framework is designed to protect market integrating by regulating public crypto offerings. A key provision is a public register administered by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to address money laundering concerns. Major crypto-asset service provider (CASPs) will also have to disclose energy consumption and declare environmental and climate impact data to their national authority, which will in turn inform ESMA. 

This new regulation strengthens the European framework to fight money-laundering, reduces the risks of fraud and makes crypto-asset transactions more secure. The EU travel rule will ensure that CASPs can prevent and detect sanctioned addresses and that transfers of crypto-assets are fully traceable.

The law covers cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether, but NFTs (nonfungible tokens) including “cinema tickets, digital collectibles from clothing brands or in-game items in computer games” will be exempt. However, those could later be re-classified as financial instruments or crytpo assets subject to MiCA, according to the rules. 

The law is still provisional, with key details like whether CASPs will need to be located in the EU still being debated, according to Bloomberg. Earlier version of the draft, first proposed in 2020, included a provision to ban Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that used energy-intensive mining processes. However, those were subsequently removed following industry complaints. 

The news follows a a bad run for crypto, with the collapse of TerraUSD and other tokens, the freezing of withdrawals at Celsius and a general decline in the market. The US has yet to implement its own rules on crypto, but US senators recently introduced a bipartisan bill designed to do just that. 

Supreme Court ruling guts the EPA’s ability to enforce Clean Air Act

In yet another historic reversal of long standing precedent, the US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6 – 3 along ideological lines to severely limit the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency in regulating carbon emissions from power plants, further hamstringing the Biden administration’s ability to combat global warming. 

The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530, centered both on whether the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the power to issue regulations for the power industry and whether Congress must “speak with particular clarity when it authorizes executive agencies to address major political and economic questions,” a theory the court refers to as the “major questions doctrine.”

In short, the court holds that only Congress, not the EPA, has the power to regulate emissions. “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme… A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

“Hard on the heels of snatching away fundamental liberties, the right-wing activist court just curtailed vital climate action,” Jason Rylander, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, responded in a press statement Thursday. “It’s a bad decision and an unnecessary one, but the EPA can still limit greenhouse gases at the source under Section 111 and more broadly through other Clean Air Act provisions. In the wake of this ruling, EPA must use its remaining authority to the fullest.”

The EPA case grew out of the Trump administration’s efforts to relax carbon emission regulations from power plants, what it called the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, arguing that the Clean Air Act limited the EPA’s authority to enact measures “that can be put into operation at a building, structure, facility or installation.” A divided three-judge appeals court struck down the rule on Trump’s last full day as president, noting that it was based on a “fundamental misconstruction” of the CAA and gleaned only through a “tortured series of misreadings.” 

Had it gone into effect, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule would have replaced the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan of 2015, which would have forced the energy industry further away from coal power. The CPP never went into effect as the Supreme Court also blocked that in 2016, deciding that individual states didn’t have to adhere to the rule until the EPA fielded a litany of frivolous lawsuits from conservative states and the coal industry (the single-circle Venn diagram of which being West Virginia).   

“The E.P.A. has ample discretion in carrying out its mandate,” the appeals court stated. “But it may not shirk its responsibility by imagining new limitations that the plain language of the statute does not clearly require.”   

This decision doesn’t just impact the EPA’s ability to do its job, from limiting emissions from specific power plants to operating the existing cap-and-trade carbon offset policy, it also hints at what other regressive steps the court’s conservative majority may be planning to take. During the pandemic, the court already blocked eviction moratoriums enacted by the CDC and told OSHA that it couldn’t mandate vaccination requirements for large companies. More recently, the court declared states incapable of regulating their own gun laws but absolutely good-to-go on regulating women’s bodily autonomy, gutted our Miranda Rights, and further stripped Native American tribes of their sovereignty.  

“Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the minority. Kagan was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent. 

The Supreme Court won’t hear the Apple-Qualcomm patent case

Apple and Qualcomm may have ended most of their feuding in 2019, but the fight might not be over just yet. The Vergereports that the Supreme Court has denied Apple’s request for a hearing to potentially invalidate two Qualcomm patents that played key roles in 2017 attempts to ban Apple Watch, iPad and iPhone sales over allegedly infringing modem technology. The court didn’t explain why it rejected the request, but a Justice Department amicusbrief from May argued that there was no evidence to indicate the patents were harming Apple’s business.

While the companies struck a six-year licensing deal to settle their main dispute, the agreement let a US Patent and Trademark Office case continue involving the two patents. Apple lost an attempt to invalidate the patents with the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and again failed when a Federal Circuit court tossed out Apple’s appeal request based on the settlement. When Apple went to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department filed its supporting brief opposing the request.

Apple claimed in its request that Qualcomm might use the patents to sue again once the licensing deal expires in 2025 or (if extended) 2027. It’s not certain what either company will do next. We’ve asked both Apple and Qualcomm for comment. The landscape may change significantly within the next few years, however. Apple is rumored to be ditching Qualcomm in favor of using its own 5G modems as soon as 2023, and it’s not yet clear how that might affect the current truce.

Court OKs lawsuit by woman who says she helped create Pinterest

Pinterest must now face a lawsuit from a former friend of one of its founders who claims she helped create the platform. Bloombergreported that Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Seabolt on Thursday denied the company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Christine Martinez, the plaintiff, claims she was asked by co-founder Ben Silbermann to help revive the app. The digital market strategist claims to have developed features tied to Pinterest’s Boards and created a marketing plan to enlist bloggers to promote the platform, among other contributions. 

Martinez filed a lawsuit against the company in September, and Pinterest filed the motion to dismiss in December. The company argued that Martinez’s claims are too old to fall within the statute of limitations. Seabolt disagreed with this and said Martinez “sufficiently alleges” that she and the Pinterest founders agreed to deferred compensation. Pinterest went public in 2019, an event that Seabolt deemed “transformative” and in his view sealed the company’s obligation to pay Martinez.

In a statement to Engadget, Pinterest’s chief communications officer LeMia Jenkins Thompson noted that the court dismissed several of Martinez’s claims. Thompson also stated that, “as the facts come out, we are confident the evidence will confirm that Plaintiff’s claims are meritless and that the rest of this baseless lawsuit should be dismissed.” 

According to the New York Times, Martinez was never formally employed at nor did she ever sign a written contract with the San Francisco-based company. Instead, Martinez argues that the agreement was implied, based on her discussions with Sciarra and Silbermann.

Martinez, who is a former lifestyle blogger and founder of an eccomerce startup, told the Times she was eager to help friends. “[…The Pinterest co-founders] had no marketing background or expertise in creating a product for women.”

Former Tesla contractor rejects $15 million payout in racial abuse lawsuit

Last year Owen Diaz, a former contracted elevator operator at Tesla’s Fremont assembly plant, successfully sued the automaker for creating a hostile, racially abusive work environment, and was awarded $137 million by the jury. That award was winnowed down to just $15 million by a judge who gave Diaz two weeks to accept or reject the new amount. As reported by Bloomberg, lawyers for Diaz have taken the latter option.

“In rejecting the court’s excessive reduction by asking for a new trial, Mr. Diaz is again asking a jury of his peers to evaluate what Tesla did to him and to provide just compensation for the torrent of racist slurs that was directed at him,” wrote Diaz’s lawyers in a statement to NBC News.

The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2017, described a work environment where Black workers were regularly subjected to racial slurs and other abuse, with at least one supervisor allegedly telling Diaz to “go back to Africa” — issues which he also claims the company was negligent in addressing. Tesla has pushed back against some of Diaz’s claims, arguing that it took timely action to stop the harassment, as well as claiming these racial slurs were “used in a “friendly” manner and usually by African-American colleagues.” It also argued that it was not liable for how Diaz was treated given his status as a contractor.

Last year a jury awarded Diaz a total of $6.9 million of compensatory damages and $130 million of punitive damages, which likely would have amounted to one of the largest payouts in a corporate racial discrimination lawsuit. US District Judge William Orrick, in an opinion filed in April, rejected Tesla’s claims that it was not liable for a contract employee, but also slashed the award amount, calling it “excessive.” He reduced the amount of compensatory damages to $1.5 million and punitive damages to $13.5 million. Since Diaz’s lawyers have now rejected the award, the case will proceed to a new trial.

The automaker is also facing another lawsuit filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing on the behalf of more than 4,000 former and current Black Tesla employees. According to three former Tesla workers interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, Black workers at the Fremont facility were segregated, given the most difficult tasks and subject to more discipline than other workers.

Former Amazon engineer convicted in 2019 Capital One data breach

A Seattle jury has found Paige Thompson, a former Amazon software engineer accused of stealing data from Capital One in 2019, guilty of wire fraud and five counts of unauthorized access to a protected computer. The Capital One hack was one of the biggest security breaches in the US and compromised the data of 100 million people in the country, along with 6 million people in Canada. Thompson was arrested in July that year after a GitHub user saw her post on the website sharing information about stealing data from servers storing Capital One information. 

According to the Department of Justice, Thompson used a tool she built herself to scan Amazon Web Services for misconfigured accounts. She then allegedly used those accounts to infiltrate Capital One’s servers and download over 100 million people’s data. The jury has decided that Thompson violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by doing so, but her lawyers argued that she used the same tools and method also used by ethical hackers.

The Justice Department recently amended the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to protect ethical or white hat hackers. As long as researchers are investigating or fixing vulnerabilities in “good faith” and aren’t using the security holes they discover for extortion or other malicious purposes, they can no longer be charged under the law.

US authorities, however, disagreed with the assertion that she was only trying to expose Capital One’s vulnerabilities. The Justice Department said she planted cryptocurrency mining software onto the bank’s servers and sent the earnings straight to her digital wallet. She also allegedly bragged about the hack on online forums. 

“Far from being an ethical hacker trying to help companies with their computer security, she exploited mistakes to steal valuable data and sought to enrich herself,” US Attorney Nick Brown said. Thompson could be sentenced with up to 20 years of prison time for wire fraud and up to five years for each charge of illegally accessing a protected computer. Her sentencing hearing is scheduled for September 15th.

Former Amazon engineer convicted in 2019 Capital One data breach

A Seattle jury has found Paige Thompson, a former Amazon software engineer accused of stealing data from Capital One in 2019, guilty of wire fraud and five counts of unauthorized access to a protected computer. The Capital One hack was one of the biggest security breaches in the US and compromised the data of 100 million people in the country, along with 6 million people in Canada. Thompson was arrested in July that year after a GitHub user saw her post on the website sharing information about stealing data from servers storing Capital One information. 

According to the Department of Justice, Thompson used a tool she built herself to scan Amazon Web Services for misconfigured accounts. She then allegedly used those accounts to infiltrate Capital One’s servers and download over 100 million people’s data. The jury has decided that Thompson violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by doing so, but her lawyers argued that she used the same tools and method also used by ethical hackers.

The Justice Department recently amended the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to protect ethical or white hat hackers. As long as researchers are investigating or fixing vulnerabilities in “good faith” and aren’t using the security holes they discover for extortion or other malicious purposes, they can no longer be charged under the law.

US authorities, however, disagreed with the assertion that she was only trying to expose Capital One’s vulnerabilities. The Justice Department said she planted cryptocurrency mining software onto the bank’s servers and sent the earnings straight to her digital wallet. She also allegedly bragged about the hack on online forums. 

“Far from being an ethical hacker trying to help companies with their computer security, she exploited mistakes to steal valuable data and sought to enrich herself,” US Attorney Nick Brown said. Thompson could be sentenced with up to 20 years of prison time for wire fraud and up to five years for each charge of illegally accessing a protected computer. Her sentencing hearing is scheduled for September 15th.

Lyft will pay $25 million to settle claims it hid safety issues before its IPO

Lyft has agreed to pay $25 million to settle shareholders’ allegations that it failed to disclose safety issues in its Initial Public Offering (IPO) paperwork. According to Reuters, shareholders accused the company of concealing known problems, such as sexual assaults by its drivers, to cultivate an image of a more socially responsible alternative to Uber. They also accused Lyft of not disclosing safety issues regarding its bikeshare program, specifically the problem the company faced with its brakes that forced it to pull its bikes from various cities in the US. While Lyft has agreed to settle, it denied any wrongdoing. In a statement sent to CNN Business, company spokesperson Gabriela Condarco-Quesada said:

“This settlement resolves a shareholder class action related to statements in Lyft’s initial public offering and its financial impact on investors — it’s not about safety-related claims on the platform.”

In their complaint, the shareholders said reports of sexual assaults by Lyft drivers that came out after the IPO represented an “existential risk” to the brand that should have been disclosed beforehand. Further, they said Lyft used promotions to boost its market share against Uber. 

Lyft officially filed to go public in 2019, but it wasn’t until 2021 that it had published its first safety report. In it, the ride—hailing firm revealed that it received a total of 4,158 sexual assault reports from 2017 until 2019. Lyft divided the cases in different categories for its report, with the most common incidents falling under the non-consensual touching of a sexual body part category. It’s worth noting, however, that the money for this settlement will go to shareholders and not to any of the passengers who reported being sexually assaulted by the firm’s drivers.