On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of the panel’s year-old decision to uphold Facebook Inc.'s $9.5 million settlement resolving privacy claims in Lane v. Facebook. Lane revolved around privacy issues concerning the now-defunct Facebook “Beacon” feature, which shared a Facebook user’s activity on external website with the user’s Facebook network as a means of facilitating target advertising. The settlement, approved in 2009, represents an instance of cy pres jurisprudence as more than $6 million dollars were allocated to a nascent organization protecting online privacy.

The controversy surrounding the Ninth Circuit’s refusal of an en banc rehearing stems from a conservative bloc of judges’ contention that the settlement sets a dangerous precedent for cy pres distributions. The six Republican appointees authoring and supporting the dissent opinion worry that the newly formed organization, the Digital Trust Foundation, receiving the settlement funds has not established itself as a functioning, proactive organization deserving of such a distribution. As Judge Milan Smith Jr. explained in his dissent, “"If fashioning an open-ended, one-sentence mission statement is all it takes to earn cy pres settlement approval in our court, we have completely eviscerated the meaning of our previously controlling case law.” His caustic evaluation may motivate the Supreme Court to review the decision, as en banc review denials widely function as a call for the Supreme Court to offer their critique of the decision.

A class-action lawsuit has been filed in California, claiming Anheuser-Busch deprived consumers of what they paid for because there was less alcohol in the beer than what the label stated.

Ten brands are named in the lawsuit: Budweiser, Bud Ice, Bud Light Platinum, Michelob, Michelob Ultra, Hurricane High Gravity Lager, King Cobra, Busch Ice, Natural Ice and Bud Light Lime.

The lawsuit states that the condoned practice of adding water before bottling was "accelerated" since the 2008 merger. Also, the case's foundation seems to be anecdotal evidence from employees at the breweries. There is no scientific data involved. The California case is asking for more than $5 million in damages. Pennsylvania and New Jersey reportedly also have filed similar lawsuits, and other states could follow.

Apple has agreed to give more than $100 million in iTunes store credits to settle a lawsuit alleging that the iPhone and iPad maker improperly charged kids for playing games on their mobile devices.

The 2-year-old case centers on allegations that Apple didn't create adequate parental controls to prevent children from buying extra features while playing free games on iPhones and iPads in 2010 and 2011. Parents who filed the lawsuit in 2011 said they didn't realize their children were racking up the charges until they received bills or other notifications after the purchases were made. The games that had been downloaded were designed for kids as young as 4 years old, according to the lawsuit.

Apple introduced more stringent controls governing in-game purchases as part of a March 2011 update to the software that runs its mobile devices.

Under an agreement filed in federal court last week, Apple has agreed to award an iTunes credit of $5 to each of the estimated 23 million accountholders who may have been affected. Parents could receive more if they can show their bills exceeded $5. If the charges exceeded $30, cash refunds will be offered.

The lawyers who sued Apple said it's still too early to determine how many people ultimately will qualify for the iTunes credits and cash refunds. As part of the settlement, the attorneys are seeking $1.3 million in fees, which would be paid by Apple.

A proposed settlement has been reached by Apple over a class-action lawsuit involving minors purchasing in-game apps on iTunes without account holder consent. While popular games such as “TapFish 2” or “Farmville” are often free to download, players may opt in to certain features that can enhance the overall gaming experience for a fee of $1 to $20. The 2011 lawsuit was filed by parents on behalf of their children, who had incurred hefty bills purchasing these in-game features.

The forthcoming settlement offer will provide claimants who were charged $30 or less a $5 gift card to the iTunes Store. For parents who can claim charges greater than $30 for in-app purchases may be eligible for cash refunds. Some parents have even claimed bills of over $600.

Apple has since revised its purchasing policy on iTunes, requiring users to re-submit their password before a purchase is finalized.

Companies using products derived from urethane will be getting over $400 million from the Midland-based Dow Chemical Company. At the heart of the suit were urethane-based products used in the automotive, construction, appliance and furniture industries. The more than 60 companies, claimed in U.S. District Court that Dow colluded with its competitors and entered a price-fixing conspiracy.

Three other companies, BASF SE, Huntsman International and Lyondell Chemical, reached out of court settlements since the lawsuit was filed in 2005. A number of the original plaintiffs dropped out of the lawsuit. The original lawsuit sought $1.125 billion in damages.

Without asking permission, Google sends developers the personal details of everyone who buys their app from Google Play.

The main problem is that Google is not asking explicit permission from buyers to share that information with developers. The Terms of Service document for Google Play do not mention the practice of sharing details with developers of purchased apps. However, it does note that email and address details can be shared with magazine publishers.

The "how we use information we collect" section of its broader Privacy Statement notes that Google shares user information between Google services, excluding Double-Click, and that it "will ask for your consent before using information for a purpose other than those that are set out in this Privacy Policy."

Ten of the biggest U.S. mortgage companies agreed yesterday to an $8.5 billion settlement with federal regulators. The settlement will end a case-by-case review program to identify Americans whose homes were improperly seized in the wave of foreclosure filings that occurred nationwide after the 2007 housing collapse.

Under the agreement, banking giants JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and six other mortgage lenders will provide $5.2 billion in mortgage assistance and $3.3 billion in direct payments to wronged borrowers, according the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve.

The other seven lenders include Aurora, MetLife Bank, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, and U.S. Bank.  The banks were among 12 lenders and two mortgage servicing companies cited by regulators in 2011 for widespread foreclosure abuses following claims that they had improperly seized homes in the wave of foreclosure filings that swamped the industry after the 2007 housing collapse.

Critics of Monday’s settlement argued that it will leave many wronged homeowners with no further recourse and that it substantially reduced the amount lenders will ultimately have to pay.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco overturned a lower court order requiring Wells Fargo Bank to pay its California debit card customers $203 million restitution for allegedly excessive overdraft fees.

On Dec. 26, the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals said the San Francisco-based bank's former practice of processing debits in a way that maximized overdraft fees was "a pricing decision authorized by federal law."

But the court also left the door open for the customers to go back to a federal trial judge to seek restitution under a state law that bans business fraud. The appeals court ruled in a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of California debit card customers in 2007 to challenge the bank's procedure for posting debit purchases to customers' checking accounts.  Attorney Richard McCune estimated there are more than one million California debit card holders in the class approved by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, the trial judge in the case.

Between 2001 and 2010, the bank used a "high-to-low" system of posting, or processing, the most expensive items in a given day first. If the highest purchase overdrew the account, the remaining smaller items, such as a $4 coffee drink, would do the same, and the bank charged an overdraft fee for each one. The current fee is $35. The procedure meant that customers could have multiple overdrafts, instead of just one, in a single day, and brought Wells Fargo $1.4 billion in overdraft fees between 2005 and 2007, the court said.

In 2010, Alsup issued a permanent injunction blocking the practice and ordered the bank to pay its California debit card holders $203 million in compensation. Alsup concluded the bank's procedure violated the U.S. Banking Act because it wasn't based on sound business principles. But a three-judge panel of the appeals court overturned both the injunction and the restitution order, saying the federal law and related regulations permitted the procedure.  At the same time, the court upheld another part of Alsup's decision in which he said Wells Fargo had violated anti-fraud provisions of California's Unfair Competition Act by misleading consumers about its system for posting debits. The panel sent the case back to Alsup to determine whether an injunction against misleading statements is needed, whether restitution is justified under the California law, and if so, how much.

A lawsuit reminiscent of the 1992 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Airlines.

Last year, Angelica Keller was aboard a Southwest flight when she ordered a cup of hot tea from the flight attendant.  Not having a drop-down tray table as she was seated in the first row, Keller spilled the hot water into her lap.  She suffered from skin blisters as well as third-degree burns and the lawsuit is asking for $800,000 in damages.

Southwest’s attorneys recently filed a response stating that the company was not negligent as Keller chose her own seat, knew there was no drop down table, and ordered the tea herself. 

After the 1992 verdict awarding the plaintiff in the McDonald’s case an undisclosed amount, tort reform proponents have attempted to pass measures intended to put caps on jury awards and to weed out so-called trivial lawsuits.  However, Daniel Clayton, an attorney on the other side of the argument says that such reform “ends up hurting those who are hurt the most.”

Two types of infant travel beds have been recalled after the death of a New York City baby who was put in the travel crib for a nap. 

KidCo Inc’s PeaPod Travel Bed and PeaPod Plus Travel Bed are portable sleep tents made for infants from birth to 3-plus years.  Both models have an air mattress that fits into a zippered pocket inside of a domed tent.  The tent collapses for easy transport.  If the mattress is placed in the floor of the tent, however, it is possible for an infant’s head to become stuck in the space between the mattress and the side of the tent, making breathing impossible.

This is what is thought to have happened in the New York accident.  To address the danger, the company is offering kits that strengthen the side of the tent and include a thinner air mattress.  The president of the company, Ken Kaiser, assures consumers that this kit will prevent the pocket from forming.

More information on the recall can be obtained on the company’s website at http://www.kidco.com