New Concerns About Tesla Safety After Crash of Stolen Car

In 2013, two crashes allegedly sparked fires in Tesla Model S luxury electric sedans.  Those fires spurred an investigation by federal safety regulators, but ultimately, only minor changes to the cars’ underbody were deemed necessary.  Now, concerns over the fire safety of the luxury electric-cars have been renewed following the fiery crash of a stolen Tesla Model S in Los Angeles.

The crash occurred over the July 4th weekend after a man stole a Model S from a Tesla service center and led police on a high-speed chase.  That chase ultimately ended in high impact crash;  the vehicle struck a steel pole.  The force of the impact split the vehicle in half and ignited the vehicle’s lithium ion battery.  Although he initially survived the accident, the driver ultimately died from injuries sustained in the accident. It is not, however, known at this time whether the fatal injuries were related to fire rather than the impact of the crash.

While these crashes certainly grab headlines given the high profile of Tesla Motors, it does not appear that electric vehicles are any less safe than gasoline-powered vehicles.  As the Insurance Journal has noted, in 2012, there were 172,500 vehicle fires in the United States resulting in 300 deaths, but none of the deaths involved electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles.  This is likely due to the fact that battery fires have a longer induction period than gasoline fires.  In other words, a lithium battery fire takes longer to get going – so the drivers have a better chance of escaping the vehicles.

It is notable that Model S does have a 5-star safety rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  Nevertheless, the fire issues certainly have had an affect on Tesla’s stock price.  Share prices took a 2.9 percent hit following the most recent accident.

Mississippi Takes On Experian

As victims of identity theft can tell you, credit agencies can be difficult.  The State of Mississippi feels your pain and believes that it is time to put the system on trial – starting with Experian.  Last month, Mississippi filed a lawsuit against Experian alleging that it is violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to maintain proper procedures to verify the accuracy of credit information and correct mistakes.

The suit was initially filed by the Mississippi Attorney General in state court, but it has since been removed to federal court.  The lawsuit accuses Experian of knowingly including flawed and inaccurate data in the credit reports of millions of consumers.  However, as we all know, just running a shoddy business is not illegal.  The legal problems come into play because Experian is allegedly offering no straightforward way for users to correct the flawed or inaccurate data in its reports.  If these allegations are true, that would be a violation of the FCRA.

Experian is the largest credit reporting agency and has annual revenues of nearly $5 billion.  According to the Associated Press, Experian has informed investors that although it tries to comply with the law, ”[w]e might fail to comply with international, federal, regional, provincial, state or other jurisdictional regulations, due to their complexity, frequent changes or inconsistent application and interpretation.”

Park City Ski Resort Battle Rages On

Last year, we here at Abnormal Use reported on the legal battle between ski resort operators in Park City, Utah.  It all started when Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR) inadvertently failed to renew a 50 year lease for the land upon which its resort is located.  Unfortunately for PMCR, that land is owned by Talisker, a competitor who has since leased the land to Vail Resorts.  Tailsker and Vail recently scored what could prove to be a knockout blow against PMCR.

In May, a Utah court ruled that PMCR officials had indeed failed to renew their sweetheart lease for a majority of their ski terrain.  Apparently, the court was not too impressed with PMCR’s “honest mistake” defense as a justification for being a few days late in renewing the fateful lease agreement.  As result of PMCR’s failure to properly renew, the court held that Talisker had the right to lease the upper mountain to a new operator – which is exactly what it did in refusing to lease the land to PMCR and instead leasing it to Vail.  Of course, PMCR has publicly stated that it will appeal the ruling. We’ll see what happens there.

Regardless of the ultimate results of the proceeding, the real losers may be the residents of Park City and the multitudes of skiers who enjoy the mountain each year.  Even if Talisker and Vail prevail, it won’t be enough to ensure the mountain stays open.  Although Talisker owns the majority of the land at issue, PMCR actually owns the property at the base of the mountain, and without that land, it will be virtually impossible for Vail to run a resort there.  The CEO of PMCR’s parent company has repeatedly stated that the land at the base of the mountain is not for sale.

The Beastie Boys Smack Down Monster Beverage

The Beastie Boys are back in the news, but it’s not for the band’s music.  Rather, they recently obtained a $1.7 million verdict in a New York copyright infringement and false endorsement lawsuit against Monster Beverage (the makers of Monster Energy drinks) over the company’s use of the musical trio’s music and image in a promotional video. The lawsuit stemmed from the energy drink maker’s use of the Beastie Boys’ likenesses and five songs as part of a “megamix” in a snowboarding video titled “Ruckus in the Rockies.”  The video was posted on a promotional website back in 2012.  According to Monster, the whole thing was just a big misunderstanding. Apparently, an employee “inadvertently” believed Monster had been given rights to use the music.  Monster only contested damages at trial. Nevertheless, the jury came back with a “monster” judgment.

As you might suspect, Monster was not too happy with amount of the award.  The company had contended that the damages only amounted to $125,000.  Admittedly, the award does seem a little large, but it is not outrageous. “Syncing,” which is the industry term for reusing a song for commercial purposes, generates approximately $322 million per year for the music industry.

This isn’t the only time the Beastie Boys have had to “fight for their rights” this year.  In March, the group settled with a small toy company over its use of the song “Girls” in a video that went ultimately viral.

CPSC Reaches Buckyballs Settlement, Sets Dangerous Precedent

On a number of occasions, we  here at Abnormal Use have reported on the ongoing legal battle between the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) and the makers of a toy called Buckyballs (see here and here).   After nearly two years, the CPSC has finally reached a settlement with the former CEO of the manufacturer of Buckyballs through which the toy will be recalled. By way of a refresher, Buckyballs are pea-sized  magnetic balls that are ultra-strong and can be stacked or shaped in fun ways.  The potential problem: If a child swallows more than one ball, the powerful magnets can cause serious internal injury.  The CPSC has likened the injury to a gunshot wound.  In spite of the product’s preexisting warnings, the CPSC waged a full fledged crusade against Buckyballs that ultimately led to the demise of its corporate manufacturer. Although Buckyballs’ parent company (Maxfield & Oberton Holdings) has been driven out of business, the CPSC has also gone after its CEO, Craig Zucker.  The CPSC has sought to hold him personally responsible for a recall of the toy.  Zucker has been an outspoken critic of the CPSC and has contended that the law does not allow individual employees to be held liable for such things.  It would certainly seem that Zucker had a valid argument.  Nevertheless, the realities of litigating against a federal agency with unlimited resources seems to have finally forced Mr. Zucker to relent.

The settlement agreement provides that Zucker will place $375,000 into a trust that the CPSC will control.  The CPSC will recall Buckyballs (and its sibling, Buckycubes) and will grant a refund to customers to be paid from the trust.

The settlement is troubling in that it sets a precedent for the CPSC holding a corporate officer personally liable for a product recall.  A good analysis of this issue can be found here.

Tech Giants Agree to Settle (No) Poaching Lawsuit

On the eve of what could have been very embarrassing litigation for Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe, the four tech giants agreed to settle a federal lawsuit in California alleging that they conspired to keep wages lows for certain employees.  The settlement is worth approximately $325 million. That would seem like a pretty massive settlement for these companies unless you consider the fact that Google and Apple alone have a combined market cap of nearly $1 trillion.

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged the four tech companies agreed to not poach each others’ employees, which in effect formed an anti-competitive cabal that kept engineers’ wages down.  A class-action antitrust lawsuit was filed to compensate the engineers that worked for the tech giants from approximately 2005 through 2006.  There were more than 60,000 workers in the class.  Class members claimed that the no poaching agreement resulted in $3 billion of lost wages.  That’s a far cry from the $324 million settlement agreement. Although some of the companies admitted the no-poaching agreement, they disputed the fact that it was done to keep price wages down.  Right. So, these multi-billion companies claim ignorance of basic economic principles?  I know some of these tech guys pride themselves on not having college degrees, but maybe they should take a few online college courses?  Economics 101 would be a start.

Some of the alleged actions of the executives laid out in the Reuters article are just comical:

  • After a Google recruiter solicited an Apple employee, then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt told Apple co-founder Steve Jobs that the recruiter would be fired.  Jobs then forwarded the email to an Apple HR executive with a smiley face.
  • A Google human resources director sent an email asking Schmidt about sharing its no-cold call agreements with competitors.  Schmidt replied that the agreement should be spread “verbally, since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?

If you are going to go the route of avoiding a paper trail, wouldn’t you pick up the phone to tell someone that?  Maybe its just me.

Lucasfilm, Intuit, and Pixar were also defendants in the original lawsuit, but those companies settled before the class was formed. Those companies got off relatively cheap, paying approximately $20 million to settle the claims against them.

We often say that in class action lawsuits there’s really no winner other than the lawyers.  However, I think it’s safe to say that the tech companies won here.  $325 million is nothing to sneeze at, but it really works out to about $5,500 per employee (before deducting fees and costs).  While that’s certainly better than the $10 gift cards that are the spoils of many class action settlements, it’s not a lot of money in comparison to what these employees may have lost.

GM Faces Derivative Shareholder Lawsuit

General Motors (GM) has recently faced a flurry of legal problems and bad publicity stemming from a decision to delay the recall of nearly 3 million vehicles with allegedly faulty ignition switches.  The automaker is being investigated by multiple government entities, including the Department of Justice, regarding the timing of its recall.  Now it can add one more problem to the list.  A shareholder recently filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit against GM, several current and former GM officers, and several GM board members. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Michigan, alleges a breach of fiduciary duties and a waste of assets.  The shareholder is seeking damages and a court order requiring the Detroit automaker to overhaul its corporate governance structure to protect shareholders from future “damaging events.”  Specifically, he wants GM to create a board committee responsible for safety, inspection, and maintenance.  He claims that such a committee will give shareholders more input into board polices and guidelines.  The Plaintiff has also sought a court order that shareholders be allowed nominate at least four candidates to the board. Regardless of whether the Plaintiff is successful in this suit, GM looks to be in a world of trouble over this recall controversy.  We expect to see the federal government levy a fine against GM that is as bad or worse than that handed down to Toyota.  In March, Department of Justice officials scolded Toyota for its actions during the unintended acceleration recall and announced a $1.2 billion criminal penalty against Toyota.   The irony of GM running into problems with the government is that GM was essentially owned by the federal government from 2008 until just last December.  This time period covers at least part of the time when GM is alleged to have committed wrongdoing with respect to failing to recall the vehicles.

A New Lawsuit: Did Chobani Pilfer Its Yogurt Recipe?

It has been a tough few months for the Chobani Greek yogurt company.  In February, we here at Abnormal Use  reported on both a court’s then recent ruling that the company could not label its yogurt “Greek” since its products are made in America and Russia’s decision to block Chobani’s yogurt from reaching U.S. athletes in Sochi.  Now, the company faces a new problem: allegations of corporate espionage.  According t0 the New York Post, a recent court filing alleges that Hamdi Ulukaya, founder of the Chobani, stole the Chobani yogurt recipe from rival yogurt company Fage.  The allegation is part of a 2012 lawsuit brought by Ulukaya’s ex-wife, Ayse Giray. The suit alleges that Giray owns 53 percent of Chobani based on a 2003 handwritten letter from Ulukaya promising her an ownership interest in a Chobani precursor company (Euphrates).  That ownership interest was allegedly given in exchange for Giray providing $500,000 in capital.  However, she has no stock or other proof of ownership in the company.

Now as part of her lawsuit, Giray is alleging that Ulukaya paid a former Fage employee approximately $4o,ooo for the yogurt recipe. Regardless of whether the allegation is true, it is a bit of head-scratcher. Why would a person who allegedly owns 53 percent of a company-to-be claim that the company developed its main product through corporate espionage?  We can only figure that perhaps it was meant to discourage an investment firm from  purchasing a stake in Chobani that would dilute her 53 percent.

Bloomberg Business Week actually did a cursory analysis of the Chiobani and Fage yogurts ingredients, which revealed some difference.  Most notably, Chobani’s yogurt uses nearly 1/4 more milk than Fage’s yogurt.  So maybe this whole thing is much ado about nothing.

Baidu Scores Dismissal of Free Speech Lawsuit

According to The New York Times, Baidua, a popular Chinese search engine, recently scored a simultaneous victory for both censorship of speech and freedom of speech.  A federal district court in New York recently dismissed a lawsuit that sought to punish Baidu for censorship that limits certain pro-democracy search results.  In dismissing the lawsuit, the judge ruled that Baidu itself maintains a First Amendment right to censor pro-democracy webpages from from its own search results. Baidu is the biggest search engine in China with more than 50 percent of the  market share.  However, the Chinese company is required to comply with the nation’s strict regulations over Internet content. As you may recall, in 2010,  Google decided to shutdown its search engine operations in China following ongoing disputes with the nation’s censorship rules. This lawsuit was filed in 2011 and claimed that Baidu was violating United States laws on free speech because its search results had been censoring pro-democracy works for those accessing the site from New York.  The lawsuit sought a mere $16 million in damages for the purported free speech violations.  However, the district court ultimately ruled against the plaintiff and held that requiring Baidu to include pro-democracy webpages in its search results would actually be a violation of the First Amendment Funny how that works, eh? The court compared Baidu’s filtering of search results to a newspaper’s right to exercise “editorial control” over the contents that it publishes. Baidu has simply created a search engine producing results that favor certain types of political speech. The court’s order states that “[t]he First Amendment protects Baidu’s right to advocate for systems of government other than democracy . . . just as surely as it protects Plaintiffs’ rights to advocate for democracy.” 

Tesla Running Into Trouble With Franchise Laws

Luxury electric car maker Tesla recently ran into legal problems.  Interestingly, this legal trouble has nothing to the with the cars themselves.  Rather, it has to do with the way that Tesla sells its cars.  Tesla has the audacity to sell its cars directly to customers and cut out the middle man; this is the kind of dangerous nonsense that won’t fly in many states.  Tesla has been effectively banned from selling cars in New Jersey, Texas, and Arizona because they are allegedly in violation of laws that require the automobiles to be sold through dealer franchise. Not surprisingly, the move has many consumers asking why these laws exist and whether they are valid.  The answer to the first question is easy – $$$ and lobbyists.  Automobile dealers have, through lobbyists, thrown around a lot of money to local politicians to ensure that protectionist laws are passed to ensure their continued viability.  Those politicians then pass laws requiring that cars can only be sold through licensed dealers under the guise of safety.  It’s akin to paying protection money to the mob.

The more interesting question is: Are these types of laws valid?  The question is not as easy to answer as it once was.  Under the doctrine known as the “rational basis review,” the Supreme Court has held that just about any law that didn’t discriminate against a protected group like minorities or women was presumed to be valid.  The judiciary was not supposed to be second-guessing legislatures on whether a law had a legitimate public purpose.  However, recently, courts have been looking at these types of laws more closely.  The Fifth and Sixth Circuits recently struck down state laws that restrict who can sell caskets.  The courts found the problems with these particular laws was that they only protected funeral directors against competition and didn’t have the sort of  health and safety justification that could overcome scrutiny.

The multi-million dollar question for Tesla is whether these automobile dealer franchise laws have the sort of safety justification necessary to survive judicial review.  Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, certainly doesn’t think they do.  He recently stated:

The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures “consumer protection”. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of “protection”, this is obviously untrue. As anyone who has been through the conventional auto dealer purchase process knows, consumer protection is pretty much the furthest thing from the typical car dealer’s mind.

These statements certainly ring true for for me.  It’s certainly not a fun process, and there is virtually no sense that the dealer is looking out for you.  I’d much rather buy a car directly from Honda than from a dealer.