Author Archive

Billy was Lovin’ Tinder’s Cattle Call for Hookups until…

March 18th, 2015. By LucyC

…he found out love (even the meat market kind that’s based on, uh, appearances) ain’t cheap.

Here’s the deal: $2.99 for unlimited “Likes”—(I guess that means “Likes” are officially a currency now). Sounds like a great deal, right? Not if you’ve been getting if for free. The hook-up, sorry, dating app—Tinder.com is raising its rates—from free to $2.99 – and at least one user has his knickers in a knot over it.

California resident Billy Warner has filed a class action against Tinder alleging the social media company/app lures people into signing up by offering a free service. Then, when you’re hooked— BAMMO!! That’ll be $2.99 please! Less than your average moderate sized cappuccino—just to put it in perspective.

For those of us not familiar with the app– the short course on Tinder is that it enables you to find people within a certain radius of where you are located—using your phone. You look at complete strangers’ profiles and pictures which are uploaded from their Facebook accounts – with their permission – and qualify them, pretty much on the spot, presumably with the goal of hooking up – at some point and for some purpose. Qualifying them involves swiping to the right to “like” someone and to the left to pass on someone.

“A swipe can change your life” the website claims. No kidding.

So what’s the problem with paying for all that potential fun? Especially for such a nominal fee?  Well, the problem for Billy is, he’s hooked. Warner claims that he is “entrenched in the use” of the app and had he known that Tinder would charge for it, he would not have downloaded it. Seriously?

He’s alleging a classic “bait and switch”. Oh – there is a principal involved…?

According to the Tinder class action lawsuit, “Tinder has, up until now, allowed users to enjoy unlimited free swipes and has been a free app,” Warner contends. “Tinder has never advertised, represented, or otherwise indicated to its customers, including plaintiff, that the use of its services will require any form or payment.”

“Defendant offered these free services with the goal in mind of enlisting a user base of tens or hundreds of millions of users, with the ultimate goal of later changing the rules of participation and deceptively and forcibly migrating a substantially percentage of its user base to a paid subscription model,” the complaint states. That certainly has the potential to generate serious amounts of cash.

Warner contends that “Had Defendant warned Plaintiff that additional fees may apply, Plaintiff would have reconsidered Plaintiff’s use of Defendant’s app….Failure to disclose that additional fees may apply unfairly induced Plaintiff’s downloading of Defendant’s app, as he reasonably believed it to be a ‘free’ service.” So—why pay for the cow…right?

Poor old Billy discovered that he would have to pay $2.99 per month to continue using the app when he was notified that he was out of “likes” and that he could purchase unlimited “likes” for $2.99 per month. Out of Likes? That’s gotta take some doing (and let’s hope Billy didn’t blow one of those precious likes on Ava (25, from NYC…)

“[Tinder’s] abrupt policy change constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice, put into place to forcibly migrate users to paid subscription services, in order to receive the same services that had previously been provided and advertised free of charge,” the class action lawsuit states.

Maybe a bait and switch is going on and maybe it’s a problem for Billy and thousands of other users, but I’m betting it’s still one of the cheapest sources of booty going. And, if they’re not monetizing the app through registration fees, you have to like wonder what the options are.

Oh wait…the options are (drumroll) to charge more registration fees. As reported earlier this month, looks like Tinder is going to charge fees for premium features on a tiered fee basis. Tiered? Uh-huh…the fees are higher for the over-30 set (to cut those poor budget-constrained under-30 somethings a break). Sounds a bit discriminatory, eh? But then again, wasn’t it Crosby, Stills & Nash who said, “…and it gets harder as you get older…”

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »

Hipster BKLYN Pizza Joint in Fight over Ownership Dough

March 10th, 2015. By LucyC

Is a lawsuit good for business? In this case, very possibly—ah—make that a yes. It would seem that the Michelin starred pizzeria in Brooklyn— Roberta’s—has never enjoyed such popularity/notoriety as now. It’s currently the subject of an ownership lawsuit. And yes, it’s all about the dough.

Celebs to have graced the eatery include the Clintons with Gloria Steinem and “The Big Lebowski” director Joel Coen, and Beyoncé—who apparently stomped out while fighting with hubby Jay Z (I wonder if there’s something in the food?)

So, the backstory, three owners—Brandon Hoy, Carlo Mirarchi and Chris Parachini—can’t agree on how to expand. What’s that old saying—two’s company three’s a crowd? So Hoy and Mirarchi fired co-founder Parachini—as you do. The firing led to buyout negotiations but the talks broke down when Parachini snubbed an offer of $2 million for his 25 percent share in the company. Parachini countered at $2.9, to include his share of Roberta’s and its spinoffs including another restaurant in the Rockaways and another $2.5 million for intellectual property (?). Wow. That’s a big piece of the pie!

His argument, according  to a letter he wrote in September 2014 to his now estranged business partners, is “Roberta’s has grown into a name representing quality and success that is synonymous with Brooklyn and recognized across the world.” Um. I know the world’s a small place, but… He was, apparently, referring to a pending deal in Asia and possibly the Ace Hotel chain.

So, the deal stalls, and four months after being a no show in the eatery, Parachini puts in an appearance only to have his partners call the cops, according to court documents.

“Our worst fears became a reality on Dec. 22, 2014, when Parachini appeared at the restaurant and began telling staff he was the ‘boss’ and ‘owner’ and they had to listen to him,” Hoy says in an affidavit.

“We are concerned that this will end in a physical altercation before the police will take any action, based on the prior history with Mr. Parachini and his erratic behavior,” Hoy says.

Wisely, the police didn’t get involved. So, Hoy and Mirarchi filed a lawsuit to keep Parachini away from the restaurant.

A judge granted the emergency order on December 31, but also said that Parachini should be paid a salary and given access to their books during the lawsuit. Sounds reasonable to me.

Parachini lobbed back in a written response to the allegations of physical violence and erratic behavior that, “I have no history of violence nor have I ever threatened any of my partners or employees. This is a total fabrication…presented to inflame the court.” He goes on to call the allegations  “malicious, unconscionable” and “an attempted theft of my ownership.” You know, I would say he does appear to be on the losing end of this one. But it ain’t over until the fat lady sings…

Parachini claims that things began to go sideways when he went to LA last summer to talk to the Ace Hotel chain about opening a restaurant in a new hotel that’s slated to open on the Lower East Side.

Court papers state that this is when Hoy went behind Parachini’s back to make changes to a new takeout counter next to Roberta’s.

The three amigos—who incidentally are in their mid 30s and early 40s—started the restaurant with something like $43,000. Now they’re headed to court to duke it out over millions. According to court papers filed by Parachini, his partners will net $10 million to $15 million over the next 10 years with the New York business alone.

And the irony in all this is that, according to Hoy and Mirarchi’s attorney, Kevin Sean O’Donoghue, Roberta’s has been “more successful than ever” since Parachini was fired. “His involvement is not a material need for the company,” he told The New York Post.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »

Naked Cowgirl Sues NYC

February 25th, 2015. By LucyC

What do you do when the city you love—the city you “rebuilt” arrests you? You sue, of course. Sandy Kane, the Naked Cowgirl of Times Square, is suing the city for wrongful arrest, to the tune of $2 million. Well, that should keep her off the streets for a while.

52-year old Kane is no shrinking violet. A bare-breasted busker, well actually she wears pasties—a cowboy hat and a guitar—or is that gittar—has been working Times Square for seven years. Long enough, she told a judge recently, to have “rebuilt Times Square . . . and made Manhattan and Times Square history.”

“I really feel that if there’s one thing I did in my life, I did that,” she told the New York Post. “All the Elmos and the Sponge Bobs, that wasn’t out there when I first came . . . I put a lot of people to work.” Um. So, what’s the problem? And why was she in court?

She was arrested for having an unattended package. Really. And the “package” was her guitar case. Ah, not my first guess.

Hmm. Kane acted as her own lawyer, and the judge, according to Kane, laughed while dismissing the charges against her. “I feel like I inspired Bloomberg” to turn Times Square into a pedestrian mall, she said. “I gave it to the people. I gave it to the tourists.” That defense would have been worth seeing.

All this took place last year. Cut to 2015 and Sandy is now suing the City of New York for wrongful arrest. It’s not illegal to go topless in New York, apparently, something worth noting if you’re planning on being in the Big Apple in August. So the guitar case does seem like a bit of a ruse, and New York’s finest have apparently been warned about making “controversial” arrests over public nudity. As well, there is no statute outlawing leaving a bag unattended, so, Sandy could have a slam dunk here. Well, I wish her luck and at the very least a new pair of pasties!

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Lawsuit: Fifty Shades of Grey Gel Misses the Big O

February 11th, 2015. By LucyC

Spent but not exhausted… Far from it in fact, if plaintiff Tania Warchol is correct. She’s filed  a lawsuit—are you ready—against the author of “Fifty Shades of Grey” and a British sex toy retailer for promoting Fifty Shades of Grey Sex Gel that does not live up to its promise of providing a “…a draining, soulgrabbing orgasm that leaves me spent and exhausted.” A quote apparently taken from the book.

Of course, it goes without saying that there could be several other reasons why Warchol failed to achieve the orgasm of lifetime (a widespread failing, I’m told), but we won’t go there, will we?

The consumer fraud lawsuit claims that author E.L. James and Lovehoney Ltd, among others, are peddling snake oil, essentially, and its subsidiaries are in violation of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws by making misleadingly claims. (hey—everyone knows that writers never embellish).

The lawsuit also claims that the defendants use purported consumer endorsements as well as portions of James’ book to coax consumers into buying the product under false pretenses. Specifically, advertising for the over-the-counter “Fifty Shades of Grey Come Alive Pleasure Gel for Her”, claims to have beneficial and aphrodisiac properties to increase pleasure and enhance orgasms. According to Warchol, not so much. None of the ingredients in the product provide those benefits.

“Defendants prominently label the product as an ‘Intimate Arousal Gel,’ expressly and impliedly conveying to consumers that the product’s ingredients will help a user to experience heightened stimulation, pleasure and orgasm, despite that the product fails to be effective as an aphrodisiac,” the suit states. How are they defining aphrodisiac? I’ve always found a good red wine very helpful, taken orally, of course. A good lover is also helpful, but, in a pinch, not absolutely necessary.

While Warchol contends that the gel contains small amounts of extracts from organic substances including herbs and roots, some of which the defendants claim have an effect on the human body, it appears that not only are none of the ingredients effective as an aphrodisiac, but they may also cause an allergic reaction to genital areas. Oh, this is so going from bad to worse.

Even the FDA gets a mention, with Warchol claiming that Lovehoney didn’t seek US Food and Drug Administration premarket clearance required for patient lubricants that are used as accessories to condoms, Lovehoney is illegally marketing and selling the product at issue as “latex compatible.” No comment.

Warchol’s story is that she bought the pleasure gel at least twice in August 2014 at an Adam and Eve adult store owned by PHE Inc., another named defendant. While she relied on the defendants’ advertising, the product turned out to be “unsatisfactory,” she said. And that’s not subjective?

In case you’re interested in putting this stuff to the test personally, the “pleasure gel”, according to the complaint, is sold online and through retail stores for about $15. It is part of a larger group of products called the “Fifty Shades of Grey: The Official Pleasure Collection Approved by E.L. James.”

Bottom line, the truth really is stranger than fiction.

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | 1 Comment »

Daytripping, yeah…Hikers Saved and Sued by Rescuer

February 6th, 2015. By LucyC

If you go down to the woods today—be sure to tell someone where you’re going, dress appropriately, and carry some water and a well charged cell phone—oh—and don’t forget the methamphetamine, because you may need help finding your way home. Savvy?

Two kids—i.e. 18-year-old Kyndall Jack and 19-year-old Nicholas Cendoya from California went “hiking” (open to interpretation as you’ll see) in Trabuco Canyon in Cleveland National Forest, which, interestingly, is located just an hour outside of San Diego(?). They were carrying drugs and a cell phone—of course—I can see the selfies now. Guess they didn’t get the memo. Not surprisingly, they got lost, managed to make one emergency phone call before the cell died, and subsequently spent 4 nights in the canyon until they were rescued by some very well-intentioned folks. BUT—you knew there was a “but”—one of rescuers fell off a 110 foot cliff while searching for the “hikers.”

Volunteer rescuer Nick Papageorge’s (not sure if the apostrophe and the “s” are accurate as different media outlets are spelling the surname differently…I digress) fractured his spine, which required surgery to implant two titanium rods and 11 metal screws in his back, the Orange County Weekly reported.

Papageorge’s was looking for Kyndall Jack when he fell in April 2013. Apparently, Cendoya was found weak and dehydrated on his fourth night in the canyon, but Papageorge’s fell over the cliff before Jack was discovered the following morning, not surprisingly in a similar condition to her friend.

Papageorge’s medical bills were off the chart, so he sued Cendoya and Jack, claiming that they “headed out unprepared and unqualified to a remote and dangerous mountain area with the intent to take hallucinogenic drugs, knowing the likelihood of becoming disoriented, lost and requiring the subject rescue.” The lawsuit states that the hike wasn’t so much a “hike” as a “trip into the woods to smoke meth.” Ya think?

Papageorge’s sued under something called the Rescue Doctrine, which is a part of tort law that states if a person places herself in a situation where she needs to be rescued, and that situation is potentially dangerous, then that person is liable for any harm that befalls any rescuers. Good to know.

Poor Mr. Papageorge’s certainly suffered harm. The lawsuit stated that the teenagers’ actions were more than just negligent: Jack’s “willful conduct of placing herself in a recklessly dangerous situation caused the subject injury and devastation to plaintiff,” the suit alleged. Papageorge’s sued for in excess of $500,000 in medical bills.

FYI—Police later found methamphetamine in Cendoya’s car, which was still in the park’s parking lot. Cendoya pleaded guilty to possession of 500 milligrams of methamphetamine, according to Los Angeles’ KABC-TV.

According to the LA Times, Papageorge’s settled his suit with Jack for $100,000, which came from Jack’s mother’s homeowner’s insurance (bet she was pleased!). Cendoya had apparently already settled for an undisclosed sum.

Crazy stuff. But a happy PS—according to Papageorge’s attorney, Eric Dubin, Papageorge’s is “fully recovered and feeling great.”

Posted in Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | 1 Comment »