If the 1990’s was the greatest decade for rock music, Seattle was its greatest destination.  The birthplace of grunge, Seattle brought us such influential bands as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, and Stone Temple Pilots to name a few. Without question, the Seattle sound served as the proverbial nail in the coffin of the over-the-top 1980’s hair bands that had dominated radio the previous decade. And, for this we should be thankful. For those of us here at Abnormal Use, however, we are most thankful that Seattle gave us the famed super group, Temple of the Dog.  Not just because the band was the beautiful fusion of Soundgarden and Pearl Jam, blowing the minds of grunge aficionados. But, rather, because Temple of the Dog is the subject of a new lawsuit, and thus, became perfect blawg fodder.

According to a report from the Seattle Times, A&M Records has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Seattle regarding the possession of the master recording tapes to Temple of the Dog’s self-titled – and only – album. As legend has it, Temple of the Dog was recorded at the London Bridge Studios in Seattle over 15 days in 1990.  In the suit, A&M Records claims it bought the album from the band in 1991; however, Rajan Parashar, co-founder of London Bridge Studios, won’t turn over the master tapes.

According to the lawsuit, London Bridge produced the album by way of a verbal agreement with the band. A&M Records released the album in 1991. The band subsequently played a single full convert set before parting ways. With the growing popularity of Soundgarden and Pearl Jam, A&M found itself sitting on a gold mine and re-released the album in 1992 to much greater success.  At that point, A&M alleges it memorialized a deal with London Bridge in which London Bridge agreed to turn over the master tapes.

If you are wondering why this 1991 transaction has become the subject of a 2015 lawsuit, A&M apparently only recently discovered London Bridge still had tapes.  A&M believed that the artists kept the master recordings. Upon that discovery, A&M filed suit.

As music fans, we here at Abnormal Use care not who has the legal right to the tapes. As lawyers, however, we recognize that we are expected to take a side. Nonetheless, it is difficult to do so without knowing the actual scope of any agreements between the parties. Our guess is that neither London Bridge nor A&M suspected the future significance of those tapes back in the early 1990’s. As such, it wouldn’t surprise us if London Bridge agreed to hand them over. Nor would it surprise us to learn that A&M failed to negotiate for them. What we do know is that both sides want those tapes today – some 20 years later.

Above, you’ll find the cover of  Rock N’ Roll Comics #7, published way, way back in the halcyon days of 1990. We post this cover this week because we here at Abnormal Use saw The Who live in concerts this past Tuesday night in Raleigh. What a show! We have now seen “Baba O’Riley” live! Good times.

Our own Stuart Mauney’s blog post on the lack of outrage over binge drinking was recently featured on the CoLAP Cafe  blog, the online newsletter from the ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs. Click here to read further.

We’re sticklers for certain rules in legal writing. Thus, our favorite tweet of late comes from Judge Dillard:

Every time I read “pled,” a little part of me dies inside.

— Judge Dillard (@JudgeDillard) April 21, 2015

As you may know, we sometimes contribute content to other online ventures. Not too long ago, our editor, Jim Dedman, saw the publication on an article he wrote in DRI’s The Voice. Get this: It’s about a case in which the court chided the plaintiff’s counsel for attempting to have it both ways. Sort of.

Here’s the first paragraph of the piece:

The strategy that attorneys use in litigation may come back to haunt them, as one plaintiff’s attorney in a federal asbestos exposure case recently learned. See Wannall v. Honeywell, Inc., — F.3d—, 2014 WL 7373517 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2014). The case began in the superior court in the District of Columbia when a former amateur mechanic and his wife brought suit against a number of defendants claiming that their products exposed him to asbestos. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the litigation, and his personal representative later appeared on behalf of his estate.

You can read the rest of the article here.

As we reported on Monday, Amazon.com is apparently none too happy with a person or persons that runs handful of websites with names like “buyamazonreviews.com” that offer to give glowing reviews of sellers’  products on Amazon for a price.  We have a few more thoughts on this matter. On April 8th, Amazon filed a lawsuit against the websites’ owner or owners  in Washington state court. Amazon calls the of buying and selling of reviews an “unhealthy ecosystem” that is damaging its brand.

The complaint filed in King County Superior Court names an individual named Jay Gentile as the operator of buyazonreviews.com.  Amazon also asserted claims against a John Doe defendant since it does not know who is operating buyamazonreviews.com, bayreviews.net and buyreviewsnow.com. Amazon wants the court to shut the websites down for trademark infringement, unfair competition and violation of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint also seeks an injunction to stoping  the selling fake reviews and an order requiring the sites to identify each Amazon review created in exchange for payment.

Amazon expressly prohibits paid reviews and threatens to suspend sellers that buy fake reviews. According to the complaint:

[the] Defendants are misleading Amazon’s customers and tarnishing Amazon’s brand for their own profit and the profit of a handful of dishonest sellers and manufacturers…Amazon is bringing this action to protect its customers from this misconduct, by stopping Defendants and disrupting the marketplace in which they participate.”

Although there’s no way of knowing which products have reviews that may have been purchased form one of these website.  However, this review seems to be a very likely candidate as it appears to have been written by J. Peterman.

We here at Abnormal Use try to steer clear of politics. In today’s landscape, political topics are polarizing and incite far, far too much animosity. For a legal blog whose writers’ views span the political spectrum, such topics are ones we would just assume avoid.  Nonetheless, upon reading a recent article from Mother Jones chastising a former lawyer, turned presidential candidate, based on his former clients, we felt it is time to break our silence (just this once).

In the article, writer David Corn attempts to expose Senator Ted Cruz as a “well-paid private attorney who helped corporations found guilty of wrongdoing.”  Specifically, Corn states:

[Cruz] was a lawyer for Kraft in a major lawsuit against Starbucks. He represented Pfizer when a California county accused the drug manufacturer and other pharmaceutical firms of overcharging. (In a win for Big Pharma, the Supreme Court tossed out the case.) He defended Eagle Freight Systems when drivers sued the company seeking unpaid overtime wages and expenses. (Cruz lost a bid to uphold a lower court ruling that shut down the drivers’ suit. Two years later, when Cruz was no longer involved in the case, the trucking company prevailed.) In a controversial move, he represented a Pennsylvania developer who was a central player in a corruption scandal that exploited juveniles, handling a dispute this crooked developer had with his insurance company.

As an apparent representative sample of Cruz’s more “egregious” acts, Corn details two other cases in which Cruz served as appellate counsel (one of which was on-brief only).  First, in Tire Engineering and Distribution v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Company and Al Dobowi Ltd., 682 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2012), Cruz wrote an appellate brief for a Chinese manufacturer hit with a $26 million verdict in a copyright infringement case.  Second, in Lynn Morrison v. B. Braun Medical, 663 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2011), Cruz handled an appeal of a verdict against a company accused of wrongfully terminating the plaintiff for refusing to violate anti-kickback laws. So, what is the point of all this?  Essentially, to call Cruz a hypocrite.  As Corn writes:

Cruz, a tea party favorite who calls himself a “courageous conservative,” has railed against “crony capitalism” and decried “corporate welfare.” He has boasted that he authored “legislation to end federal dollars subsidizing corporate fat cats.” Yet as a private legal gun for hire—who billed at least $695 per hour—Cruz sometimes defended corporations that engaged in sleazy practices to screw the little guy or gal.

Again, we must ask what is the point?

If one wants to write a negative piece on Ted Cruz, feel free to criticize his position on immigration, marriage equality, foreign policy, or any other viewpoint with which you might disagree. If you want to accuse Cruz of being a hypocrite, point out that he reaps the benefits of his health insurance from Obamacare while simultaneously opposing the law. Associating Cruz with his former clients or his work as an attorney, however, should have nothing to do with it.

As attorneys, we all have a job to do – advocate for our clients.  Whether it is civil or criminal, plaintiff or defendant, an attorney’s job is to counsel and to look out for the well-being of his or her clients. As a former lawyer, Cruz was simply doing the job he was hired to do in the best way he could to protect his client’s interests. There is no reason to chastise him for it. People and businesses deserve to have attorneys to help navigate them through the legal system.

The fundamental flaw in Corn’s logic lies within his premise itself, that being that Cruz is a “well-paid private attorney who helped corporations found guilty of wrongdoing.” In the two cases specifically cited by Corn, Cruz stepped in as appellate counsel following an unfavorable result for the client at the trial level.  Apparently unbeknownst to Corn, the legal process does not necessarily end at the trial stage (nor do civil cases result in corporations being found “guilty”), but, rather, can continue on with the right to appeal.  When Cruz stepped in to “help” these corporations with their appeals, he did so on the grounds that the verdicts were somehow reached in error.  While the corporation may have been found liable at the trial stage, it did not necessarily mean that the judgment would stand on appeal.  Of course, Corn would apparently have us ignore this whole process and essentially put appellate lawyers out of work.

The point of all of this is that lawyers are not their clients.  Lawyers aid their clients in reaching a resolution to legal disputes.  While lawyers can, and often do, turn down cases for a variety of reasons, lawyers shouldn’t be criticized for doing their job in the cases that they do decide to take. With any political candidate, there is plenty to criticize without the necessity of reviewing every legal brief he or she wrote in her pre-political career.

Apparently, there are various services out there which provide fake reviews for products in exchange for payment. Who knew? Amazon did, and it may be the first company to take a stand via a lawsuit to combat this practice:

According to GeekWire, the e-commerce giant has filed a lawsuit against a man known as Jay Gentile from California, who was identified as the operator of several websites that peddle product reviews, including bayreviews.net, buyreviewsnow.com, buyazonreviews.com and buyamazonreviews.com. The Seattle Times, however, notes that while the last two are included in the lawsuit, they are owned by different people, and that buyamazonreviews.com belongs to someone named Mark Collins.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants were “offering fake verified reviews for a price and . . . telling potential customers that they can just ship empty boxes to his writers for the website to recognize the purchase.” According to sections on www.buyamazonreviews.com explaining the nature of the business:

Never has it been easier to get multiple 4 and 5 star reviews on your Amazon product page. We provide real reviews from aged accounts with real buying activity. Most products in the Amazon marketplace will never even be seen. The more positive reviews you have the better your chances are.

The website also explains that:

A purchase of your product is not required for us to post a review. If you would like a verified purchase review however we can buy your product first. If the cost is $2.00 or less we will cover the price. If it is more than this you will need to make arrangements with us to reimburse the cost. We are only accepting very limited amounts of verified purchase reviews, please contact us before ordering if you are interested in these.

The site also provides pricing information for various quantities of reviews:

Thus, it appears that buyamazonreviews.com is quite up front and public about the nature of its business.  Presumably, someone has at least looked into whether the practice is legal or in compliance with the website’s terms of service.  It will be interesting to see whether the business model is defensible in court.

We have several questions regarding the legal issues surrounding the case.  For example, does Amazon have standing to file suit essentially on behalf of its customers?Presumably, if the “enhanced” reviews drove more sales, Amazon actually experienced increased sales.  What if a product for which review are purchased is simply a great product, and the review from a normal customer would have been a four or five star rating anyway?  Along those same lines, if the customers who actually purchased the products because of the high reviews, and the customers ended up liking the product, are there damages?  What if the reviews at issue actually caused Amazon to have increased sales? As noted above, we suspect this may be an abuse of the terms of service, and Amazon is just policing things to ensure that its reviews are intellectually honest. We’ll see.

Okay, since the new Star Wars trailer was released this week, that’s really all we here at Abnormal Use can think about. We’re so distracted, mind you, that we just ended the previous sentence in a preposition! It’s a calamity! Have you seen it? If not, click here immediately. So, above, for this edition of Friday Links, you get the cover to Darth Vader #1, published this very year. After seeing the new trailer, we may need to investigate this new comic book series. Apologies for nerding out.

On an entirely different note, did you see that Nick Farr earned a shout-out this week over at Overlawyered? See here for that.

By the way, dear readers, did you all survive Tax Day this week?

“Officer is Charged with Murder of a Black Man Shot in the Back.” This was the headline from The New York Times on April 8, 2015. A white police officer in North Charleston, South Carolina was caught on video shooting and killing an unarmed black man while he was running away. This was the lead story on “The Today Show” the same day. On April 9, Matt Lauer interviewed the young man who captured the video. The entire nation is engaged in a fierce debate over the appropriate use of deadly force by law enforcement. The White House created a task force, which is recommending changes to police policies. The Attorney General is visiting cities all across the country, soothing the tensions between the police and minority neighborhoods. This South Carolina incident reminds everyone of the recent use of lethal force by police in New York, Cleveland, and Ferguson, Missouri. We are outraged!

“Coroner: USC Student…Died of ‘Toxic’ Blood Alcohol Level”. This was the headline from The State newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina on April 8, 2015. The University of South Carolina freshman was found dead last month at a house commonly used by a USC fraternity. According to The State, he “had a blood alcohol level more than four times the legal driving limit at the time of his death.” A toxicology report showed that he had a blood alcohol level of 0.375 percent; the coroner said this was a toxic level, which “ultimately” caused the student’s death. The coroner further commented that “There is no way to tell whether that amount of alcohol was ingested voluntarily or by force.” The coroner called the death “tragic and totally preventable.”

The coroner went on to say: “It is something that I think we see too often. Everybody’s drinking and having a good time, and somebody says, ‘Well, my friend passed out. We’ll let him sleep it off.’” Watts said, “They’re not going to sleep it off. They’re going to die. Some type of medical intervention needs to take place in a lot of these cases, and it didn’t.” The coroner concluded that a blood alcohol level that high would often be the result of binging or chugging.

Where is the outrage over this young man’s tragic death? Where is the outrage over underage drinking? Where is the outrage over binge drinking on college campuses?
There was no headline in The New York Times. There was no lead story on “The Today Show.” Matt Lauer did not interview anyone about the incident. The White House did not create a task force to study the problem of underage drinking, binge drinking on college campuses, or our collective casual attitude toward alcohol abuse. The Attorney General has not visited our state or the USC campus to express his concern.

Where is the outrage?

Where is the outrage over the fact that four out of five college students drink alcohol with about half consuming alcohol through binge drinking? Where is the outrage over the thousands of college student deaths between the ages of 18 and 24 each year from alcohol-related injuries? Where is the outrage over the students between the ages of 18 and 24 who are assaulted by another student who has been drinking? What about the students between the ages of 18 and 24 who are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape? Where is the outrage?

Where is the outrage over the fact that 34 percent of eighth-graders reported drinking in the past year? Where is the outrage that 64 percent of eighth-graders say that alcohol is easy to get?

Medical research on alcohol and the brain is clear. First, the earlier a young person starts to drink, the more likely they are to have a drinking problem later in life. Second, research shows that a teen’s brain is not fully developed until well into the twenties. Indeed, as with other teens, my 14-year-old’s brain does not have a “stop button.” The teen brain simply does not have the wiring necessary to tell them when to stop. As a result, teens act impulsively and often seek out dangerous situations, including drinking alcohol.

While college students commonly binge drink, 70 percent of binge drinking episodes involve adults age 26 years and older. Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage over the fact that about 90 percent of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 in the United States is in the form of binge drinking? Binge drinking is more common among those with household incomes of $75,000 or more than among those with lower incomes. Where is the outrage? Binge drinking costs everyone; where is the outrage over the fact that it costs the United States $223.5 billion from losses in productivity, health care, crime and other expenses?

Where is the outrage over our failure to implement evidence-based interventions to prevent binge drinking? Where is our outrage over the failure to hold alcohol retailers responsible for the harm caused by their under-age customers? Where is the outrage over our failure to consistently enforce laws against under-age drinking and alcohol-impaired driving? Where is our outrage at our failure to screen and counsel for alcohol misuse?

As with most things, it begins at home. We can make a difference by talking to our kids about alcohol. We can start by talking to our kids about alcohol facts, reasons not to drink and ways to avoid drinking in difficult situations. We can help by knowing whether our kids are at high risk for a drinking problem, knowing the warning signs of a teen drinking problem and acting promptly to get help for our kids.

Until then, where is the outrage?

Okay, so above is the cover of Taxman #1, a comic series about which we literally know nothing. However, based on its title alone, it seemed appropriate for this exhausting day. We here at Abnormal Use are hopeful that you have already accomplished all of your tax related tasks today. If not, we wish you well.

Well, yesterday, we pointed you to an article that Kyle White had written for another publication, and today, we do the same for our editor. As you may know, we sometimes contribute content to other online ventures. Last week, our editor, Jim Dedman, saw the publication on an article he wrote in DRI’s Strictly Speaking newsletter (the official publication of DRI’s Product Liability Committee). It’s an intermingling coupler case!

Here’s the first paragraph of the piece:

On Christmas Eve 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied two motions for summary judgment arising from a product liability case involving a high-pressure quick connect coupler and its intermingled components. See Gregory v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., et. al. No. CIV-13-01031-M, 2014 WL 7365941 (W.D. Okla. December 24, 2014). After sustaining personal injuries while using the coupler while on the job at Kemper Valve and Fittings, the plaintiff filed suit in state court in Oklahoma against a series of defendants, those being Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Maxbar, Inc., H. Lorimer Corporation, and Kurt Walther GmbH & Co. KG. H. Subsequently, H. Lorimer Corporation removed the action to federal court. Following the removal, the plaintiff amended the complaint to assert to two causes of action: product liability and, in the alternative, negligence.

You can read the full article here.