That’s just what 52-year-old Brooklyn resident Jacqueline Simpson alleges. She has filed a lawsuit claiming that her voice was ruined after she bit into a penny-sized shard of glass while eating a chicken sandwich. She says that the incident occurred in 2010 in a McDonald’s near the World Trade Center.

“Now when I sing, I have a hoarse, rattly voice,” Simpson told the NY Post. “I still sing alto, but I can’t sing soprano like I used to.”

Her case is currently with the Brooklyn Supreme Court.

“I have to make a lot of calls for work, and I have to tell people that I’m not a man. Before, that never happened.”

According to the FindLaw blog, food-related injuries are usually treated as a product liability claim. More specifically – strict liability.

Under the strict liability theory, this is because Mickey D’s a business that sells chicken sandwiches regularly; they should be held responsible if any product (or sandwich) leaving their facilities is defective. A piece of glass — the size of a penny, according to Simpson’s claim — would certainly be construed as defective

But there are a lot of questions about this lawsuit. Did Simpson swallow the glass? Is that how she claims it affected her singing voice? And the incident reportedly happened nearly three years ago – why wait so long? Is there physical (or medical) evidence?

McDonald’s and liability lawsuits – they seem to go together like, well, hash browns and a McMuffin.

Manzarek met Jim Morrison while studying film at UCLA, and the rest is history. After liking some early songs that Morrison had written, Manzarek and Morrison met up with drummer John Densmore and guitarist Robby Krieger at a transcendental meditation lecture.

“I was deeply saddened to hear about the passing of my friend and bandmate Ray Manzarek today,” said Doors guitarist Robby Krieger in a statement. “I’m just glad to have been able to have played Doors songs with him for the last decade. Ray was a huge part of my life, and I will always miss him.”

“There was no keyboard player on the planet more appropriate to support Jim Morrison’s words,” said Densmore. “Ray, I felt totally in sync with you musically. It was like we were of one mind, holding down the foundation for Robby and Jim to float on top of. I will miss my musical brother.”

Manzarek is being remembered on Twitter, where fans and fellow musicians are sharing their condolences and memories.

Very sad to hear of the death of Ray Manzarek, founder & keyboards with The Doors. Played a Fender Rhodes like some funked up Bach. MCO

— Simon Le Bon (@SimonJCLeBON) May 21, 2013

Very sad to hear of the passing of Ray Manzarek – The Doors were a huge influence on all of us when we started out, especially on Ian. RIP.

— Peter Hook (@peter_hook1) May 21, 2013

Sad to here about Ray Manzarek passing. I was lucky to get a chance to rock out with him & the other two Doors.. cheers mate say hi to Jim.

— Billy Idol (@BillyIdol) May 21, 2013

He helped oil the hinges on my squeaky Doors of perception. RIP Ray Manzarek

— Nick Frost (@nickjfrost) May 21, 2013

One of the greats in one of the greatest bands. Ray Manzarek R.I.P.

— Bill Burr (@billburr) May 21, 2013

For those who don’t know: Ray Manzarek was the keyboardist for The Doors; passed away today. Describes his work here. youtube.com/watch?v=OoRFAb…

— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) May 21, 2013

Working with Ray Manzarek was one of the biggest thrills of my life. Thought it might be a good time to share this: bit.ly/12qhWDa

— Al Yankovic (@alyankovic) May 21, 2013

RIP Ray Manzarek of the DOORS!

— Chuck D (@MrChuckD) May 21, 2013

Thanks for the great music Ray Manzarek!

— Krist Novoselic (@KristNovoselic) May 21, 2013

RIP Ray Manzarek words cannot express…

— Slash (@Slash) May 20, 2013

Manzarek had a crucial part in many of The Doors’ greatest hits, but it’s hard to think of him without thinking about his blistering keyboards in the 1967 song “Light my Fire.”

But that hasn’t stopped plenty of people from going after Google when they don’t like what they see appearing next to their names or businesses. And sometimes successfully, I might add. The latest case to spring from a disputed autocomplete result comes from Germany and is bad news for Google.

A German court has ruled that Google must manually remove autocomplete results if they are determined to be defamatory. This wide ruling could have an effect on not only cases in Germany, but in other countries who could use the decision as a model.

As the AP reports, the case stems from an unidentified plaintiff, only known as “R.S,” whose company sells nutritional supplements. R.S. filed a complaint when they saw that Google autocomplete results associated the name of the company with “fraud” and “Scientology” – both of which they considered defamatory.

A lower court dismissed R.S.’ claim, but the Federal Court of Justice overruled. According to the ruling, Google isn’t being directed to turn of autocomplete or even interfere preemptively, only required to eliminate defamatory autocomplete suggestions when they are brought to the company’s attention.

This isn’t the only case in Germany involving Google’s autocomplete to make headlines. Last year, former German First Lady Bettina Wulff claimed that Google destroyed her reputation with their autocomplete suggestions. Wulff, who has battled rumors that she worked as an escort prior to marrying former German president Christian Wulff, has her name associated with “escort” and “prostitute” in multiple languages in Google autocomplete.

Of course, those suggestions only exist because of the high volume of Google searches. But this new ruling could affect that case, which is still pending.

In April, Google lost a case in Japan over their autocomplete function. A man sued Google over suggestions relating to criminal activity – activity he denied. A Japanese court ruled that Google must alter their results and they also issued a 300,000 yen fine (roughly $3,100).

Google has also faced autocomplete complaints in France.

“Skechers’ unfounded claims went beyond stronger and more toned muscles,” said David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The company even made claims about weight loss and cardiovascular health. The FTC’s message, for Skechers and other national advertisers, is to shape up your substantiation or tone down your claims.”

This week, a federal judge approved the $40 million class-action settlement between Skechers and “Shape-Ups” customers. According to an Associated Press report on the lawsuit, more than 520,000 people can claim up to $80 for a pair of “Shape-Ups,” $84 for a pair of “Resistance Runner” shoes, $54 for a pair of “Podded Sole” shoes, and $40 for a pair of “Tone-Ups.” $5 million of the settlement was awarded to the lawyers in the case.

Skechers has denied that its ads are misleading and stated that it settled to avoid a drawn-out lawsuit. The company’s “Shape-Ups” ads featured celebrity endorsements from the likes of Brooke Burke and Kim Kardashian.

Here’s what Allen said in her initial post:

Last post on someone i’m completely over. I’ve never been lonelier in my entire life. To all my friends who loved me for who I am – thank you. Power hungry people, I loved Michael Arrington for 8+ years starting when i implemented Eurekster search at the time on Techcrunch in 2006 and throughout the years i didn’t know he cheated on me multiple times, then tells people it was me immediately after he did it. It hurts when you love someone borderline and they can’t feel anything at all for you, and threaten to murder you if you told anyone about the physical abuse – all for keeping his reputation. The emotional abuse was equally bad. On a positive note, it can’t get any worse than this and I can’t get myself of this bed.

And here’s what she said in the comments on the Gawker article:

I’ve looked inward and outward long enough to finally say something and know exactly why I had to say it. His lies, abuse, threats and what he did to a friend of mine 5 months ago was unforgivable as well. He raped her, and she told me in person he called her to confirm he did it after the fact. I’ll leave it up to her if she ever wants to report it or say anything. This madness needs to stop, or he needs to start controlling his rage and rape ‘disorder.’

Arrington remained quiet for a period, while others rushed to throw in their judgments of his character, until finally, he put out a statement saying:

There have been some extremely serious and criminal allegations against me over the last week. All of the allegations are completely untrue, and I’ve hired a law firm to represent me in the legal actions against the offending parties.

I’ve also asked my attorneys to contact appropriate law enforcement agencies about these false allegations. Given the gravity of the claims, I think it’s important that the police be involved in this now.

The whole thing had largely been ignored by the media and blogs other than a select few, until Arrington’s statement, then everyone started covering it. Likewise when former TechCrunch CEO Heather Harde jumped to Arrington’s defense. She wrote:

During my five years at TechCrunch, there were no complaints or cases of sexual harassment or misconduct against Michael Arrington. If there had been any rumors of misconduct from staff or other third parties, I would have taken the matters seriously and investigated them. Many people, including Michael’s friends and girlfriends, sought me out as a confidante for disagreements or challenges they faced with Michael, so I would have been aware of rumored bad behavior.

You can read her full post here.

About a month ago, Arrington posted a detailed letter refuting the allegations. Here’s that letter:

And now this week, the lawsuit has been filed. In it, Arrington alleges that Allen felt “betrayed and slighted,” and aimed to “destroy his reputation and to deter third persons from associating with him.” The suit includes a demand for jury trial, and seeks $75,000 in damages.

Here’s the court document:

The case involved Chicago-based Timelines.com, which lets users to create interactive “timelines” based on historical events. Back in October of 2011, they sued Facebook for trademark infringement just weeks after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg unveiled the new Timeline profile page at the company’s f8 conference. Soon after, Facebook countersued, saying that the word “timeline” was generic and did not deserve trademark protection. The trial was supposed to have begun on April 22nd, but was delayed at the last minute.

Here’s the pertinent bit from the filing:

We are also party to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. Among these legal matters, in two cases, Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion Corporation et al. , and Timelines, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., we have reached agreements to settle the matters. The cost of settlement in each case, which is included in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2013, was not material to our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Facebook adds that they expect no adverse effect from the settlements:

Although the results of these other lawsuits, claims, government investigations, and proceedings in which we are involved cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the final outcome of these other matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

That’s all we have right now. I’ve reached out to Facebook for additional info and will update this article accordingly.

[Form 10-Q via Inside Facebook]

The plaintiffs in the case, Charles Schmidt and Christopher Orlando Torres*, are the creators of Keyboard Cat and Nyan Cat, respectively. They allege that Warner Bros’ use of the characters in various Scribblenauts games amounts to copyright and trademark infringement. The game’s developer, 5th Cell, is also named in the suit.

Here’s what Schmidt and Torres are accusing Warner Bros of:

Plaintiffs accuse Warner Bros and 5th Cell of including, without any licenses or authorizations, the Keyboard Cat and Nyan Cat characters in their original Scribblenauts videogame released in 2009, the 2010 Super Scribblenauts, 2011 Scribblenauts Remix, and the 2012 Scribblenauts Unlimited. Defendants are accused of shamelessly using identifying “Nyan Cat” and “Keyboard Cat” by name to promote and market their games. Plaintiffs claim that Warner Bros and 5th Cell’s trademark infringement was willful and intentional and are requesting an award of treble damages

Maybe the best part of this whole thing is the lawyers’ descriptions of the memes. Especially Nyan Cat:

“Nyan Cat is a cartoon. Nyan cat, a character with a cat’s face and body resembling a horizontal breakfast bar with pink frosting sprinkled with light red dots, flies across the screen, leaving a stram of exhaust in the form of a bright rainbow in its wake.”

The lawsuit explains hows both videos were viral sensations, Keyboard Cat being named to many “greatest viral videos” lists and Nyan Cat winning the 2012 Webby award for “meme of the year.”

Both Schmidt and Torres have copyrights for their memes registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Schmidt has two pending trademark applications and Torres has one.

*It’s important to note that Torres created the Nyan Cat animation, but is not the one to set it to that famously annoying music and throw it up on YouTube.

[Milord & Associates via Ars Technica]

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Let’s say you left a negative review on eBay. Maybe the seller wasn’t prompt in delivery, or maybe they weren’t completely honest about the product. Whatever. At what point would you feel like you needed to remove or edit that feedback? What if the buyer corrected their mistake – or made it up to you in some way. What then? Would you reconsider if the buyer sued you for damages?

An eBay seller is suing a buyer after she left a negative review on the site and refused to rescind it – and the buyer isn’t backing down. The negative feedback was over an unexpected $1.44 postage charge.

According to the complaint, Amy Nicholls purchased a microscope part from Med Express in February. As a result of that purchase, Nicholls incurred shipping costs ($12 on top of the $175 purchasing price).

Med Express took her payment via PayPal, and shipped out the device. When it arrived to Nicholls, there was an extra $1.44 postage due.

Who’s in the right? Is there any reason for a seller (or business) to sue over a negative review? Should a buyer ever be instructed to remove a review? Is it all about what can be proven libelous? Where do you draw the line? Let us know in the comments.

Nicholls, operating under the eBay moniker chimera_studios, posted on February 26th that the “Order arrived with postage due with no communication from seller beforehand. It was logged as a negative feedback on eBay.

Med Express quickly responded, saying that “Sorry – no idea there was postage due. This has happened alot (sp) from USPS lately.”

Over the past year, Med Express has 298 ratings, only 2 of which are considered negative. Their positive feedback percentage stands at 99.3%.

“When notified of the problem, Med Express immediately offered to reimburse Nicholls for the postage due amount. Despite this offer, and before giving Med Express a chance to reimburse her, Nicholls on February 26, 2013, apparently as a result of the $1.44 postage due, posted negative feedback and comments for the transaction on eBay’s website and gave Med Express low ratings in the Detailed Seller Ratings section of eBay’s Feedback Forum, resulting in an unfavorable feedback profile for Med Express. In so doing, Nicholls falsely and deliberately slandered the good name and reputation of Med Express.”

Med Express goes on to say that Nicholls caused them irreparable harm and caused them to lose customers and income.

They seek not only an injunction to remove the negative feedback, but also damages (both punitive and reparative).

The facts of the case do not seem to be in dispute. And in a letter to Med Express, Paul Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group (on behalf of Nicholls) makes it clear that the feedback about them is true, and that Med Express admitted to that in communications with him. That, and the lawsuit itself is the definition of frivolous.

“In a sense, what you and your client seem to be contending is that your client’s offer to pay the $1.40 is a sufficient display of contrition that Nicholls ought to be forgiving. But the point that she made in her message to you was that the problem wasn’t the money but the hassle. she indicated that she would have been willing to pay $1.40 more in shipping up front, but that she was posting feedback because a company that ships products ought to be able to do a better job.

That opinion might be right, or it might be wrong, but harboring it and expressing it is not a tort. And it is certainly no reason to seek damages, attorney fees, and an injunction. Consumers might well take this sort of bullying into account when they are thinking about whether to do business with Med Express,” says Levy.

“Moreover, the relief you are seeking would be injurious to consumers. Your other potential buys have an interest in knowing the history – that, for a period of time, you were repeatedly using a shipper knowing of problems that could result in user having to pay postage due.”

Remember the response Med Express had for Nicholls? “This has happened alot (sp) from USPS lately?”

Of course, Levy argues that’s not really the most important part. Summarily, Ohio law and the First Amendment prevents Med Express from suing over this type of negative review.

eBay isn’t the only place online where reviews have been an issue for the courts. A few months ago, a judge ruled that a women must edit part of her review of a contractor on Yelp and Angie’s List, after she accused the company of stealing jewelry from her home. A later decision overturned that one, ruling that her postings were free speech until proven defamatory.

There are a lot of far-reaching implications in cases like this, and the aforementioned eBay case. On one hand, courts can’t universally protect anything a reviewer ever says under the umbrella of free speech. That would open the doors to false reviews and flat-out lies directed at businesses in the attempt to smear. We know that this isn’t legal.

On the other hand, it’s dangerous to set a precedent that says businesses can successfully win suits like this. At that point, it’s a slippery slope to open season on internet users and their legitimate complaints. Do we really want the courts clogged up with lawsuits over a one-sentence blip of text like “God, worst burgers ever”?

What do you think? Where’s the line? Do you think that the eBay case we’ve discussed is pretty cut and dry? Can you foresee circumstances where this sort of thing gets more complicated, and the right decision becomes harder to discern? Let us know in the comments.

[via Ars Technica]

The 43-year old actor reportedly smacked the hand of a paparazzi on Tuesday as the man was trying to catch Norton on video via cell phone, and now the photog is complaining that Norton hurt him.

“He went to the hospital claiming hand pain…It was classified as harassment,” said a police spokesperson.

There were no witnesses to the incident and the matter has been referred to civil court, but it’s not yet known whether the man will file suit against the actor. Of course, this falls under the category of “exactly what is acceptable for paparazzi to do in order to get a shot of a celebrity?”, but since Norton was out in a public place at the time it may be hard to argue that the photographer was in the wrong.

Kate Middleton and Prince William saw two people involved in their topless-sunbathing scandal charged today after facing similar issues with photographers; the couple have been on a crusade of sorts to spotlight the intrusiveness of the paparazzi, as Middleton was snapped at a private residence while on vacation.

The case involves Chicago-based Timelines.com, a site that allows users to create interactive “timelines” based on historical events. Back in October of 2011, they sued Facebook for trademark infringement just weeks after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg unveiled the new Timeline profile page at the company’s f8 conference.

That trial was supposed to have begun this morning, but Bloomberg is reporting that it has been delayed without further explanation.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah conferred with lawyers for approximately 90 minutes before declaring a recess, after which he said that the tril would be postponed until either tomorrow afternoon, or if need be, May 7th.

After Timelines.com sued Facebook for the supposed trademark infringement, Facebook countersued, claiming that the word “timeline” was too generic for federal trademark protections. They argue that Timelines.com has no legal rights to them, and that they should be canceled.

Facebook moved for dismissal, but Judge Darrah rejected that motion earlier this month. He said that Facebook “failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the marks are generic.” He noted that the word “timeline” may very well have specific meaning to Timelines.com users, and therefore the case should see a trial.

As of now, that trial will have to wait.