# data[].attributes.body
1. What was the legal issue(s)?
Spotify was posting tens of thousands of songs without proper licenses.

2.What could they have done differently to prevent the issue?
Got a proper license with the songs they posted.

3.What are your overall thoughts/feelings about this lawsuit or company?
I personally didn't know that Spotify was getting a lawsuit against them but honestly I don't think that you need a license for each song, I think that you just need one license for all the songs.

4. Do you think the outcome of the lawsuit was fair?
Spotify and Sosa have agreed to drop their claims against each other, without any payment by Spotify.

5.  How has this lawsuit changed the business forever?
I didn't change Spotify other than the fact they had to get license for the songs

6. Talk about anything else you feel is essential to the story or you thought was interesting?
The lawsuit was clamed by music publisher Wixen Music Publisher.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Spotify announced on Thursday that it has settled the lawsuit brought forth a year ago by Wixen Music Publishing, the publisher representing the works of artists including Neil Young, The Doors and Tom Petty. The massive lawsuit alleging that Spotify was using thousands of songs without the proper licensing and compensation - in which Wixen was reportedly seeking damages of up to $1.6 billion - has concluded with a final dismissal of the suit and a "broader business partnership between the parties."

Wixen raised the case in December 2017, claiming that the music-tech giant was hosting tens of thousands of songs managed by Wixen on its streaming service without holding the proper copyright to them. It also said Spotify offered "outrageous annual salaries to its executives" while skimping on artist payments. (For more, see Rolling Stone's breakdown of the case here.)

Thursday's settlement of the lawsuit, which involves Spotify paying an undisclosed sum to the publisher, has a markedly different tone, with Wixen's president Randall Wixen calling the streaming service a "true partner to the songwriting community."

Read the full statement below.
Spotify and Wixen Announcement of Resolution of Dispute Wixen Music Publishing, Inc. and Spotify USA Inc. have agreed to a final dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Wixen Music Publishing late last year. The conclusion of that litigation is a part of a broader business partnership between the parties, which fairly and reasonably resolves the legal claims asserted by Wixen Music Publishing relating to past licensing of Wixen's catalog and establishes a mutually-advantageous relationship for the future. Company president Randall Wixen said "I want to thank Daniel Ek and Horacio Gutierrez, and the whole Spotify team, for working with the Wixen team, our attorneys and our clients to understand our issues, and for collaborating with us on a win-win resolution. Spotify is a huge part of the future of music, and we look forward to bringing more great music from our clients to the public on terms that compensate songwriters and publishers as important partners. I am truly glad that we were able to come to a resolution without litigating the matter. Spotify listened to our concerns, collaborated with us to resolve them and demonstrated throughout that Spotify is a true partner to the songwriting community." "We'd like to thank Randall Wixen and Wixen Music Publishing for their cooperation in helping us reach a solution," said Horacio Gutierrez, General Counsel and VP, Business & Legal Affairs, Spotify. "Wixen represents some of the world's greatest talents and most treasured creators, and this settlement represents its commitment to providing first-rate service and support to songwriters while broadening its relationship with Spotify."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spotify Settles Its $1.6 Billion Publishing Lawsuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spotify announced on Thursday that it has settled the lawsuit brought forth a year ago by Wixen Music Publishing, the publisher representing the works of artists including Neil Young, The Doors and Tom Petty.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What was the legal issue(s)? One of the legal issue that McDonald's have is that their coffee is "Too Hot".

2. What could they have done differently to prevent the issue? Their are many ways to prevent this but the big one is to wait a while before you drink it.

3. What are your overall thoughts/feelings about this lawsuit or company? My thoughts on this are simple, I mean it's hot coffee. Overall I think McDonald's is a hit and miss.

4. Do you think the outcome of the lawsuit was fair?  The outcome of this lawsuit is that the lady knew the coffee was going to be hot. I personally think that McDonald's shouldn't of gave her that much money.

5. How has this lawsuit changed the business forever?  This lawsuit changed McDonald's in a way that they lost a lot of money and they need to wait to serve the coffee.

6. Talk about anything else you feel is essential to the story or you thought was interesting? Personally I think that she wanted to start something. She knew that the coffee was going to be hot.

# data[].attributes.body
New Balance claims that its shoes were made in the USA With a label that states American-made and locally sourced. But in reality, 30% of the shoes were made overseas.
They could have claimed that it was mostly American-made. They also could have had a source description on their website that would have covered them.
I feel that new balance shoes are mostly American made but they should not be marketed as American-made unless more than 95% of the product was made in the USA.
They lost the lawsuit and had to pay a fine of one million dollars. I feel it is fair they falsely advertised but it didn't hurt anyone.
In the aftermath of the case law was established that a fine of $43,280 will be charged to any falsely claimed American-made products.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What was the legal issue(s)?

In March 2021, the company announced its experimental antibody "VIR-7831" and showed an 85 percent reduction in hospitalization or death but the company has been in different lawsuits because of it. These include cancer, birth defects, and kidney failure.

2. What could they have done differently to prevent the issue?

They could have tested the drug more to make sure it was ready to be released

3. What are your overall thoughts/feelings about this lawsuit or company?

I have never personally heard of this specific company but I generally do not like Big Pharma Corporations because they make you pay so much for medicines that are manufactured cheaply

4. Do you think the outcome of the lawsuit was fair?

Almost all of the lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline, there have been many, have all made GSK give money for the damages caused

5. How has this lawsuit changed the business forever?

They agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting, the Justice Department announced today. The resolution is the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history and the largest payment ever by a drug company.

6. Talk about anything else you feel is essential to the story or you thought was interesting.

I assume this is one of those cases that people can look at and all understand why the Big Pharma Companies do not care about real people, just money.

# data[].attributes.body
What was the legal issue(s)? False claims of what the yogurt could do to improve your gut health positively.

What could they have done differently to prevent the issue?
Be honest with their consumers and not hide that it was a marketing strategy to get consumers to buy into the "facts" of it improving gut health.

What are your overall thoughts/feelings about this lawsuit or company? I think this was a good lawsuit to cover the fact that companies need to be honest and fair to their consumers and just being honest with consumers will bring in more revenue for them. It will also show other companies not to do this just for money and marketing sales.

Do you think the outcome of the lawsuit was fair? Yes, because it forced them to make changes to their advertising and compensate the customers for false advertising that Dannon shouldn't have done in the first place.

How has this lawsuit changed the business forever?
It required them to be transparent to their customers and not lie by proving they have "backed-up scientific facts" that it will improve gut health.

Talk about anything else you feel is essential to the story or you thought was interesting. I thought that Dannon wouldn't necessarily lie about the health benefits, especially for it being a product of the healthy side because they would have already had consumers buy it that have a health-focused lifestyle.

# data[].attributes.body
Airborne is a dietary supplement brand that ranges from vitamins to selling medicine to help treat illnesses.
What is the legal issue?
They are now being sued for 23.3 million dollars after a false advertisement about the product. They had been stating that it was a way to get rid of colds, and how it boosts your immune system. Many people argued against this because they could not provide people with scientific evidence that it worked. People believed that they were lying about their products.
How could they prevent it?
To prevent this from happening they could have not had misleading descriptions of what the product could do to help people from being sick.
My opinions or feelings towards this?
As someone who takes vitamins and medicine, it is hard to see that they had been lying to their consumers.
Outcome of the lawsuit?
As a result of this Airborne has to give money back to people who had bought this product. I believe this is fair because people had intentionally bought it to help themselves and soon learned that it was all a lie.
How has this impacted the business?
This case has changed people's opinions about the brand overall and some wonder if they ever lied about any of their other products.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What was the legal issue(s)? A new antitrust class-action lawsuit accuses Apple and Amazon for colluding to raise the price of iPhone and iPad.

2. What could they have done differently to prevent the issue? I think Apple could've just let this go honestly they already make enough revenue as it is or they should lower the price of products so people wouldn't be going to other retailers to buy their products.

3. What are your overall thoughts/feelings about this lawsuit or company? I think Apple trying to eliminate 3rd parties sellers is unnecessary because I think they know their prices are already to high but don't want people buying their products cheaper from someone else.

4. Do you think the outcome of the lawsuit was fair? There is no final outcome in the lawsuit yet it is still going on.

5. How has this lawsuit changed the business forever? It changes Apple because instead of people buying from their stores they have people buying Apple products from other online retailers and getting up 10% off on the products.

6. Talk about anything else you feel is essential to the story or you thought was interesting? Personally I need a new iPhone so I may buy from one of these retailers for up to 10% off.

# data[].attributes.headline
Splenda                                          There was a lawsuit filed against Splenda and the makers were accused of confusing customers into believing the product was more natural and healthier than other artificial sweeteners. their slogan was “Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar”. While their main goal was not to mislead, their advertising strategies were not the most clear with their product and could have been improved. I believe that the company is not in the wrong because the prime ingredient is cane sugar so it is okay to begin their slogan with "Made from ". Eventually the judge had stated that Splenda had to pay a settlement though it has remained undisclosed. I however don't believe that they should have paid the settlement. Though business only slightly declined while the trial was in progress, it still remains a very big competitor. J&J are actually looking to sell Splenda. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Splenda                                          There was a lawsuit filed against Splenda and the makers were accused of confusing customers into believing the product was more natural and healthier than other artificial sweeteners. their slogan was “Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar”. While their main goal was not to mislead, their advertising strategies were not the most clear with their product and could have been improved. I believe that the company is not in the wrong because the prime ingredient is cane sugar so it is okay to begin their slogan with "Made from ". Eventually the judge had stated that Splenda had to pay a settlement though it has remained undisclosed. I however don't believe that they should have paid the settlement. Though business only slightly declined while the trial was in progress, it still remains a very big competitor. J&J are actually looking to sell Splenda. 

# data[].attributes.body
kellogg

1. What was the legal issue(s)?
falsely advertises some of its cereal as healthy and nutritious when it contains added sugar and alcohol and caffeine

2. What could they have done differently to prevent the issue?
Kellogg Co said on Tuesday it plans to hire permanent replacements for some of its U.S. breakfast cereal plant workers who are on strike, after lengthy negotiations with the union again fell apart.

3. What are your overall thoughts/feelings about this lawsuit or company?
I cant believe that added to much sugar and how much the calories was oof i would be out of health. their still selling them but lower sugar and lower calories i hope.

4. Do you think the outcome of the lawsuit was fair?
yes because they put to much sugar and  it can hurt kids health.

5. How has this lawsuit changed the business forever?
Kellogg’s announced plans earlier this week to split its business into three independent companies to separate its cereal and snacking businesses

6. Talk about anything else you feel is essential to the story or you thought was interesting?
I didnt know if u make a mistake u get a strike so the question is how many strike will u get if u make mistake and get fired

# data[].attributes.body
What was the legal issue? The Volkswagen company deliberately cheated on their emissions tests.
What could they have done differently to prevent the issue? They could have simply not cheated and told the truth.
Overall thoughts/feelings about lawsuit or company? I feel like lying will always come back to get you in the end. This one lie and cheating really affected their whole business.
Do you think the outcome of the lawsuit was fair? Yes I do/ Volkswagen had a $14.7 billion settlement and $10 billion of that was paid to affected cars through buybacks, repairs and additional compensation.
How has this lawsuit changed the business forever? Some of the consumers have lost interest in diesel vehicles. More people have moved on to BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Another thing to add to the story is after the scandal Volkswagen fired 30,000 people.

# data[].attributes.body
1.the legal issue here was that in red bull's slogan they say "Red bull gives you wings" but surprisingly it doesn't actually give you wings like they said.
2. I think they could have maybe described or given details about the fact that it doesn't actually give you wings(its also common sense).
3. I think the lawsuit was stupid and ridiculous there is no reason it should have happened it was simply just a bunch of idiots taking the slogan too seriously apparently it is true common sense isn't a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
4. No the outcome was not fair because again it was just a bunch of idiots who were mad they didn't magically grow wings but even so red bull had to pay over 13 million dollars in total to their customers
5. the slogan was changed after the lawsuit to now have multiple s's at the end on wings to show you wont actually grow wings from red bull.
6. I found it interesting that a bunch of idiots got compensation for being stupid and thinking they could grow wings

# data[].attributes.body
What was the legal issue(s)? Many banks and financial institutions were charging high fees as well as restricting the ability to refuse higher cost Visa and Mastercard credit cards.

What could they have done differently to prevent the issue? They could have implemented fair priced fees as well as giving consumers freedom of their own money.

What are your overall thoughts/feelings about this lawsuit or company? I believe that the companies were taking advantage of their ability of controlling the fees and prices while doing it in a corrupt manner.

Do you think the outcome of the lawsuit was fair? Yes, I believe that the consumers deserved justices and there needed to be public awareness of how each company treated their consumers.

How has this lawsuit changed the business forever?
This will keep consumers aware of how their businesses are treating them in order to prevent something similar happening again.

Talk about anything else you feel is essential to the story or you thought was interesting?
This happened in Canada.