Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In its Sept. 2023 complaint, the Justice Department accused eBay of illegally allowing the sale of more than 343,000 aftermarket "defeat" devices that help vehicles generate more power and get ...
[19] eBay's former SVP Global Operations Wendy Jones and Progressive F.O.R.C.E Concepts' CEO Steve Krystek were also added to an amended version of the complaint on March 1, 2023. [10] The lawsuit claims that Wenig and Wymer "provided the other Defendants with carte blanche authority to terminate the reporting of the Steiners by whatever means ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Many of these cases have lead to class action lawsuits and proceedings by the Federal Trade Commision (FTC), resulting in a number of settlements worth millions — or even billions — of dollars ...
The U.S. Congress passed the CALEA to aid law enforcement in its effort to conduct criminal investigations requiring wiretapping of digital telephone networks. The Act obliges telecommunications companies to make it possible for law enforcement agencies to tap any phone conversations carried out over its networks, as well as making call detail ...
Joffe v. Google, Inc. is a federal lawsuit between Ben Joffe and Google, Inc. Joffe claimed that Google broke one of the Wiretap Act segments when they intruded on the seemingly "public" wireless networks of private homes through their Street View application. Although Google tried to appeal their case multiple times, the courts favored Joffe's ...
The 19-page lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Worcester, alleges Motorola and interim State Police Col. John Mawn Jr. should be held liable for violating the Massachusetts Wiretap Act and ...
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]