Legal Insights: Key Court Rulings & Industry Shake-Ups – February 2025
The Allied Outsourcing
Medical Record Reviews | Virtual Assistance | Paralegal & Support | Legal Administrative & Secretarial Services
From Accusation to Abandonment: Lawyer Calls Off Case Against Morgan & Morgan Over Allegations of Deceptive Advertising
Competitors in every industry have been found to have healthy competition, but a case in the Eastern District of Arkansas reflected something unusual. Jody Shackelford, a personal injury attorney in Arkansas, accused a notable law firm, Morgan & Morgan, alleging that the firm is using false advertising, which in turn is harming his business. The lawsuit initially claimed that the firm used unfair and deceptive advertising practices. He later voluntarily called off his case against the national plaintiffs' law firm Morgan & Morgan after submitting a notice to dismiss his case in federal court, stating that he had reached an agreement with the firm without providing any additional details.
Steven Quattlebaum, a lawyer for Morgan & Morgan, emailed that no settlement has been reached in Jody Shackelford's lawsuit against the firm. He sued the firm in July for allegedly violating professional conduct rules. He further claimed that their advertisements featured dramatizations and client testimonials, which amounted to deceptive advertising and eventually harmed his business. Later, he voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice when facing a court hearing regarding a motion to dismiss and a potential sanctions motion for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Morgan & Morgan is a renowned law firm based in Orlando, Florida, famous for its potent marketing efforts. It has invested approximately $240 million in TV adverts and $40.3 million in digital advertisements in 2023. The data was stated in a blog post published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform in February 2024.?
Following the accusation and abandonment, U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. retracted the firm's request to impose sanctions on Jody Shackelford. Morgan & Morgan claimed it was necessary due to frivolous claims intended to harass and cause reputational harm to a competitor. Shackelford, in response, had argued that the sanctions bid was "unwarranted and unfounded."
Source Link:
OpenAI Escapes Indian Court: US Ties Used as Get-Out Clause
OpenAI, a notable AI-induced company with Indians as its second-largest market, is trying to escape the allegations initiated by domestic news agency ANI (Associated Newspapers India), which has accused the tech company of using copyrighted content. In response to the challenge, OpenAI has opposed ANI, stating that its terms of service stipulate dispute resolution in San Francisco, which makes Indian courts beyond their jurisdiction. They also further claimed that they do not have servers or data centers in the Indian subcontinent.?
Dharmendra Chatur, a legal expert, argued that these arguments are outdated and likely to be lost in Indian courts today. He also added that "Google, X, and Facebook all perform services through their foreign companies and are party to litigation across India," explaining that courts typically assess whether a website is accessible and offers services to customers in India when deciding the point.
The case also has garnered attention widely due to the conglomeration of major book publishers and named billionaires, including Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani, to oppose OpenAI. The tech firm has challenged the jurisdiction of Indian courts over lawsuits claiming they come into foreign jurisprudence and would go to its U.S.-based operations.?
What are the chances of loss, and how much?
A similar parable glistened amidst challenges faced by other U.S. tech companies in India, like Telegram, that faced similar backlashes regarding compliance and legal defenses. OpenAI, the technology facing competition from its Chinese competitor DeepSeek, claims that all the AI models developed using public information are being used fairly and in accordance with the law. Despite the verbatim, the company has also faced similar copyright infringement lawsuits in other countries, including the USA, Germany, and Canada.
"India is really important ... we've seen a massive uptake of ChatGPT," OpenAI India executive Pragya Misra said last year. Meanwhile, OpenAI has made its services available to users in India, charges an 18% tax on paid offerings, and has seen a "massive uptake" of its ChatGPT service nationwide. Suppose the lawsuit in the Delhi court is ongoing between DeepAI and ANI. In that case, If the former loses the jurisdiction argument, it will have to contend with ANI's demand to delete its training data, face a copyright lawsuit in India, and pay $230,000 in damages. The case is to be heard in the Delhi court in February.?
Source Link:
Appeals Court Strikes Down Federal Handgun Sales Ban for Young Adults
In a pivotal legal shift, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has struck down a longstanding federal law that barred licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to adults aged 18 to 20. The court's ruling declared the restriction unconstitutional, reshaping the landscape of gun rights interpretations in the United States.
This marks the first time a federal appeals court has deemed the ban a violation of the Second Amendment, which grants one the right to keep and bear arms. The decision reverses the court’s 2012 ruling upholding the restriction, signaling a new direction for interpretation of firearm law.
The turning point for this shift can be traced to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling set a new legal standard, requiring that contemporary firearm regulations be consistent with the nation's historical traditions. Applying this benchmark, the 5th Circuit found that barring handgun sales to young adults failed to meet constitutional requirements.
The original federal restriction, which was passed in the year 1968 as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, aimed to reduce gun violence by restricting handgun access for individuals under 21. However, the appeals court found limited historical precedent to justify this age-based regulation.
Writing on behalf of the three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones asserted that the ban was “unconstitutional in light of our Nation's historic tradition of firearm regulation.” She emphasized that 18-to-20-year-olds fall within “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.
The case was brought by a group of young adults, supported by gun rights advocacy organizations such as the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs successfully appealed after a lower court ruled in favor of the ban. Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, praised the outcome, calling it a victory against what he described as an unjust and unconstitutional restriction.
The U.S. Department of Justice, under President Joe Biden’s administration, had defended the ban. However, the court found that the government provided scant evidence showing that similar age-based restrictions on gun rights existed during the nation’s founding era.
This decision carries significant implications. It may open the door to further legal challenges against age-based firearm restrictions and other contemporary gun laws. Legal analysts suggest the case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court for further review.
The ruling underscores the evolving judicial approach to Second Amendment rights and highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting constitutional protections through a historical lens. As the debate over firearm regulations continues, this decision will likely influence future legislative efforts and court rulings, reshaping discussions on gun control in America.
Source Link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ban-gun-sales-adults-under-age-21-is-unconstitutional-court-rules-2025-01-30/
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Settlement Sparks Law Firm Showdown
A heated legal battle is brewing as a critical deadline for a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) approaches. Hospitals and healthcare providers must soon decide whether to participate in the settlement or opt-out and pursue separate lawsuits against the insurer. At the heart of the dispute is a tug-of-war among law firms vying for a slice of the potential legal fees.
The Key Players
Whatley Kallas, the plaintiffs' firm that negotiated the antitrust settlement in an Alabama federal court, is facing opposition from other firms eager to represent hospitals opting out of the deal. The stakes are high, with millions in potential legal fees.
To protect its position, Whatley Kallas has requested Chief U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor to bar law firms Zuckerman Spaeder and Polsinelli from soliciting and representing opt-out plaintiffs. The firm cited attorney ethics concerns, arguing that decisions by class members must be based on complete and unbiased information.
"As class counsel, we want to make sure that the decisions of class members are based on complete information, coming from lawyers who are not conflicted," the firm told Reuters.
Ethical Conflicts and Allegations
Whatley Kallas has accused Zuckerman of misusing confidential information from its previous work for insurance subscribers in a $2.7 billion settlement with BCBS in 2020. According to Whatley Kallas, Polsinelli faces a conflict of interest based on other prior work for BCBS.
Zuckerman Spaeder has rejected the allegations, arguing that disqualifying it from representing hospitals could also impede many other law firms that previously participated in the subscriber case. "A large number of highly qualified law firms...would be barred from advising and representing prospective opt-outs," the firm argued.
Boies Schiller Flexner Weighs In
Adding to the complexity, Boies Schiller Flexner, one of the lead firms in the earlier subscriber settlement, recently sought court approval to continue representing an anesthesia practice suing Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Boies Schiller emphasized that its prior involvement in the subscriber case does not present an ethical conflict.
The Deadline Looms
Hospitals and healthcare providers have until March 4 to decide whether to remain in the settlement class or pursue independent legal action. Opt-outs can sometimes jeopardize class action settlements, though Whatley Kallas has indicated that this is not the driving factor behind its disqualification motions.
Broader Implications
The outcome of this legal battle could set significant precedents for attorney ethics and conflicts in large class action settlements. It also underscores the intense competition among law firms in high-stakes antitrust litigation, where legal fees can reach hundreds of millions of dollars.
As the March 4 deadline looms, healthcare providers must weigh their options carefully, considering both the potential benefits of opting out and the risks of navigating new litigation without the support of the class settlement. This legal showdown will undoubtedly be one to watch for its implications on future antitrust settlements and attorney ethics.
Source Link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/law-firms-clash-over-clients-28-billion-blue-cross-settlement-2025-01-30/
Supreme Court Declines to Block Anti-Money Laundering Law: A Legal Tug-of-War Unfolds
The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to block the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), an anti-money laundering law requiring millions of business entities to disclose their real beneficial owners to the Treasury Department. Despite this decision, law enforcement remains on hold due to ongoing legal battles, leaving its fate in the hands of the newly inaugurated President Donald Trump.
The CTA, which was passed in 2021 under President Joe Biden’s administration, mandates that corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs) report information about their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The law was crafted to combat money laundering, tax fraud, and the financing of terrorism by increasing transparency in financial transactions.
The Supreme Court’s action comes after Texas-based U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant issued a nationwide injunction on December 3, 2024, halting the law’s enforcement. Judge Mazzant ruled that Congress overstepped its constitutional powers when enacting the CTA, suggesting it infringed on states’ rights protected by the 10th Amendment. This decision was further bolstered by a separate injunction issued on January 7 by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle.
Despite the injunctions, the Biden administration argued that millions of entities had already complied with the reporting requirements before Judge Mazzant’s ruling. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasized that the reporting requirements are essential for detecting and prosecuting crimes, including money laundering and tax fraud.
The legal landscape became more complex when the conservative Center for Individual Rights, representing small businesses, challenged the law. Todd Gaziano, the center’s president, expressed confidence that the law’s reporting requirements and penalties would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional. He noted that the matter now lies with President Trump’s administration deciding how to proceed.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, representing the court’s conservative wing, agreed to holdhold the injunction but expressed concern over whether a single judge in one state should have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction. Conversely, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that further delays in implementing the law would not harm the government, which had already delayed enforcement for nearly four years.
The CTA’s supporters maintain that the law addresses a critical loophole in U.S. financial regulations. They highlight the rising trend of criminals using anonymous LLCs to launder illicit funds. Proponents argue that the CTA’s reporting requirements are vital for national security and financial crime prevention.
However, critics, including small business advocates, view the law as an overreach with invasive requirements and severe penalties. Judge Mazzant described the CTA as a “quasi-Orwellian statute,” asserting that it exceeds Congress’s constitutional powers.
As legal battles continue, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the complex balance between federal regulatory authority and individual privacy rights. With enforcement still on hold, all eyes are now on President Trump’s administration to determine the next steps in this pivotal legal and regulatory saga.