Aug. 7 (UPI) — Families of victims of last year’s Legionnaires’ disease outbreak in Harlem are suing New York City, alleging neglect and failures to follow to its own regulations led to dozens being sickened by bacteria and several deaths.
Three lawsuits filed Thursday by Attorney Ben Crump, along with co-counsel Jared Scotto and Nabeha Shaer, represent five of the seven people who died in the outbreak and 41 individuals and families who say it harmed them.
Announcing the lawsuits during a press conference, Rev. Al Sharpton, founder of the civil rights organization National Action Network, said they were not going to allow those harmed to be forgotten, while Crump stated that Harlem, a historically Black neighborhood, was neglected during the outbreak compared with other parts of New York City.
“Harlem is the center of Black America, historically has always been; that does not mean Harlem should be the center of a Legionnaires’ outbreak in the center of New York,” he said. “And so, we’re here today telling people that Harlem should never get less than — it should get everything that everybody else gets.”
Harlem was struck by a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak from July to August 2025, consisting of 118 confirmed cases and seven deaths.
Legionnaires’ disease is a type of pneumonia caused by Legionella bacteria that grow in warm water. It is contracted by inhaling water vapor that contains the bacteria.
According to the lawsuits, the plaintiffs were exposed to Legionella bacteria while in the vicinity of cooling towers that tested positive for the bacteria at two locations: Harlem Hospital and the NYC Public Health Lab.
The complaint alleges that the city, along with its health department and a handful of contractors, failed to develop and follow a water management plan required by the New York State Sanitary Code and failed to meet the code’s cooling tower registration, inspection, testing and other related requirements.
Crump and Sharpton spoke during the press conference surrounded by victims of the outbreak, including the fiancee and 6-year-old daughter of Bruce Scott, who died from the outbreak.
“I’m a single mother now,” Lakisha Plowden said as she hugged her and Scott’s daughter, Brooke. “We don’t have her best friend and we don’t have my soul mate.”
UPI has contacted NYC for comment.
“Our lives mean something,” Sharpton said. “You cannot act as though the lives of people and the worth of people depend on what part of the town they live in. Geography does not have anything to do with biology. If Legionnaires’ disease was bad in one part of town it should be valued the same in every part of town. And that is what this is about.”
The announcement came nearly a week after the NYC Health Department declared an end to the Upper Easter Side Legionnaire’s disease outbreak that led to 92 confirmed cases and seven deaths.
Susanna Hoffs calls it “the list”: a faded piece of paper ripped from a Filofax day planner on which are scrawled the names of every guy she’s ever gone out with — some famous, some not, some “kind of douchey,” as she puts it with a what-can-you-do shrug.
“It was like a dating profile but pre-internet,” Hoffs says of the tally, which she composed sometime in the late 1980s as she was racking up hits — among them the chart-topping “Walk Like an Egyptian” and “Eternal Flame” — as the frontwoman of the Bangles. “I’m a nice Jewish girl,” she adds. “I was just keeping track, doing my homework.”
Today at the bottom of the list in all caps sits the name of Jay Roach, the movie director whom Hoffs met on a blind date in 1991. He’s the subject of a new song called “None of Them Were You,” in which the singer runs down some of Roach’s predecessors — “a very dapper Brit,” “a suave and handsome actor” — before musing on her deep connection with the man to whom she’s now been married for 33 years.
“I ended up with such a good guy,” she says. “It almost brings a tear to the eye.”
“None of Them Were You” isn’t the only tune with that potential on an album Hoffs is preparing to release next month. Due Sept. 18 from her Baroque Folk label, “The List” — Hoffs’ first set of original material in more than a decade — collects a dozen touching and witty songs based on tales from her life as an artist, wife, businessperson and mother. At 67, her winsome singing voice is remarkably unchanged from the era of big hair and dangly earrings. Yet the music reflects an emotional wisdom that had to be earned through experience, as in the folky “Time,” which ponders her and Roach’s relationships with their two adult sons.
“I see you dancing in the kitchen / I feel your tiny hand in mine,” she sings, “What if you fly back home this summer? / We could spend a little while.” (Beware, parents — this one will wreck you.)
A voluble presence with an easy laugh, Hoffs points out that she’s hardly been “hiding in a cave” since 2012’s “Someday.” In 2024, she put out a long-shelved solo record of songs she’d cut back in 1999; before that, she made a series of expertly curated covers albums, including three she recorded with the power-pop maestro Matthew Sweet. But publishing her first novel in 2023 — “This Bird Has Flown,” a charming bestseller about a one-hit wonder looking for a comeback — rejuvenated Hoffs’ devotion to songwriting.
“I never thought the book would sell, and I never thought it would get great reviews,” she says on a recent afternoon at her home in Brentwood. “That was a big turn career-wise.”
For “The List,” Hoffs teamed with CJ Camerieri, a musician and producer known for his work with Paul Simon and Bon Iver, among others; Camerieri in turn recruited an array of songwriters to collaborate with the two of them, including a couple of Grammy winners in Dan Wilson and Jesse Harris.
“Sue has built up decades and decades of goodwill in this town,” Camerieri says, seated next to Hoffs on a sofa, “so you call up somebody like Dan and you say, ‘Hey, you want to write a song with Susanna Hoffs?’ and he goes, ‘Great, yeah, I’m in.’”
The process was simple, the producer explains: “We’d start in Sue’s kitchen with coffee at 10 in the morning —”
“I’m really good at coffee,” Hoffs interjects. “I mean, I use Nespresso. But I’m good at being a hostess to all the lads.”
“So I’d give everybody a yellow legal pad and Sue would start telling stories,” Camerieri continues. “We’re all scribbling notes, and after about an hour, we’d go, ‘I think we got enough here,’ and we’d go write songs about what she’d told us.”
They recorded at Hoffs’ place — “We’d move this couch and the drums would go right here,” she says — beneath a vaulted ceiling that provided just the right ambience. First-call players like Greg Leisz and Wendy Melvoin stopped by to take part in the sessions; for harmony vocals in a country-ish ditty called “Bad Case of Loneliness,” they got Rufus Wainwright, with whom Hoffs had done a version of the Turtles’ “Happy Together” for Roach’s 2025 comedy “The Roses.”
The dreamy-rootsy arrangements are never less than handsome — and never prettier than in “Fool,” which Hoffs says was inspired by her love of the records Dionne Warwick and Burt Bacharach made together. Yet “The List” was built to showcase Hoffs’ rich storytelling.
The LP opens with “Casablanca,” in which she recounts a run-in with the Grateful Dead’s Bob Weir in New Orleans in the late ’80s. The Bangles were on tour opening for George Michael; the Dead had a gig at the University of New Orleans’ Lakefront Arena. After Hoffs and Weir ended up at a crawfish boil put on by the Neville Brothers, the two took a walk along Lake Pontchartrain — “He was very cute,” Hoffs says — then later strolled again through the French Quarter.
“At one point, I looked back and there was a sea of Deadheads who realized it was Bob Weir,” she says. “But I was with him. I got to be his pal, which I just couldn’t believe was happening. It was delicious.” (Between the two walks, the Bangles famously jumped onstage with the Dead to perform “Iko Iko.”)
As we’re talking, Camerieri tells Hoffs that he recently met Weir’s former tour manager — Weir died in January at age 78 — and that he’d relayed Hoffs’ memory of the encounter. “He was like, ‘I know this story,’” Camerieri says the manager replied. “‘Bob used to talk about the time he got to walk around New Orleans with Susanna Hoffs.’”
“Oh my God!” Hoffs says, eyes starting to glisten. “So it meant something to him too.”
Bookending “The List” is “What Are Wings For,” a stately ballad about sticking to one’s guns that Hoffs and Camerieri wrote with Edie Brickell, who’s married to Simon, on a trip they took to the couple’s ranch in Texas.
“We were there during the World Series [in 2024],” Camerieri recalls, “and we watched the Yankees game with Paul every night after working on songs.”
Adds Hoffs with a laugh: “He also told me that he thinks the Bangles’ version of ‘Hazy Shade of Winter’ is better than his. I was like, ‘Please don’t — yours is the iconic version.’”
By the time the Bangles covered that Simon & Garfunkel tune for the soundtrack to 1987’s “Less Than Zero,” the band was already a fixture on the radio and MTV. Hoffs formed the group in 1981 with sisters Vicki and Debbi Peterson, who learned to play together in the garage of Hoffs’ parents’ house, just a few blocks from where the singer lives today.
The Bangles came up through L.A.’s ’60s-steeped Paisley Underground scene and found stardom after the addition of Michael Steele with “Manic Monday,” a sparkling pop-rock gem gifted to the band by Prince. (Beyond her list of boyfriends, one of Hoffs’ prized possessions from back in the day is Prince’s original cassette demo of “Manic Monday.”)
“He was brilliant but mischievous,” Hoffs says of the late trailblazer, on whom she modeled the character of Jonesy from her novel. “I remember one time he invited us to Sunset Sound in the middle of the night. We get there and we’re jamming, then suddenly we look around and he’s disappeared. ‘OK, I guess we’re done.’”
The Bangles with an assortment of music execs in Los Angeles in 1987.
(Lester Cohen / Getty Images)
After eight Top 40 singles and a triple-platinum LP, the Bangles split in 1989 amid differing ideas about the band’s creative direction and ambitions. The members pursued solo and other projects but reunited to record a song for 1999’s “Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me,” which Roach directed; two more Bangles albums followed in 2003 and 2011, the second minus Steele, whom Hoffs says she’s not in touch with at the moment.
Compared to the Go-Go’s, whose parallel career was detailed in a 2020 documentary and who were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame a year later, the Bangles haven’t quite cemented their legacy, though an authorized biography came out last year and a doc is currently in development.
Yet Hoffs doesn’t seem especially troubled by the possibility that the Bangles might be underappreciated, perhaps because she’s got plenty of her own stuff going on. Before “The List” comes out, she’ll play her old hits in a Sept. 5 gig at Largo at the Coronet and in a handful of dates opening for Billy Idol; after the new album drops, she’ll head east for a residency at New York’s Café Carlyle.
She and Camerieri are also at work on a musical adaptation of “This Bird Has Flown” for the stage or the screen. And just the other day she found a folder on her computer full of songs she wrote years ago with her friend Marvin Etzioni of Lone Justice.
“I don’t like using the word ‘bucket list,’ but all these things are labors of love,” Hoffs says.
What’s the trouble with “bucket list”?
“Oh, I don’t know,” she says, smiling. “It just seems, like, death-y.”
The line-up for Celebrity Masterchef 2026 has been announced, with stars from Coronation Street, I’m A Celeb and Strictly Come Dancing heading to the kitchen
SACRAMENTO — Backers of a November ballot measure that would require Californians to verify their identity when voting sued state officials on Monday, alleging bias in how the ballot’s summary is written.
A group led by California State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) allege in a 10-page lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court that Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta violated election laws that require the “impartial” labeling of a measure’s purpose.
DeMaio accused Bonta of trying “to rig the vote” against the measure with “a false title claiming it prohibits citizens from voting” in California elections.
He also said the measure, which will appear as Proposition 39 on the November ballot, is “a bipartisan solution to Voter ID and is supported by a supermajority of Democratic, independent, and Republican voters.”
“We take our duty to prepare a title and summary and ballot label seriously, and we are confident the court will agree we have faithfully executed that duty here,” said a spokesperson for Bonta.
Proposition 39 would require voters to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote in person.
Voters who use mail-in ballots — by far the most popular method of voting in California — would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a PIN, on their ballot envelopes. The PIN would come from ID such as a driver’s license or could be generated from the county.
The measure also requires that the secretary of state and county elections officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists, verify citizenship, and report annually the percentage of each county’s voter roll that have been citizenship-verified.
Under current law, Californians are required to provide identification when registering to vote and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and are U.S. citizens.
They are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail.
The lawsuit, filed by Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 and Donald DiCostanzo, a registered voter who lives Orange County, argues that the attorney general office’s summary “is not a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose” and violates California Elections Code 9051, which requires neutrality.
The suit claims the language used for the summary during the signature-gathering process — a required step to get the measure on the ballot — was “neutral” and named both of the measure’s chief purposes.
The final language omits the measure’s mandate to maintain accurate voter rolls and and verify citizenship, and describes the measure in “prohibitive terms,” according to the suit.
The original language said the measure “establishes additional voters identification and citizenship verification requirements.”
“This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; the State provide voter identification cards on request; and elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”
The summary language now states that the measure: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”
“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”
Election law expert Fred Woocher said that the law allows the ballot measure summary to be different than the description of the measure in circulation.
UCLA law professor Rick Hasen declined to weigh in on the arguments in the lawsuit, but said that “it’s common practice for the AG to write things in ways that that align with the political interests of the Attorney General.”
Hasen previously called the ballot measure a “disaster,” writing in a blog post that its requirements are vague and it would be costly and difficult for agencies to verify citizenship.
Proponents of an initiative to repeal gas tax increases in California sued then-Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, now a candidate for governor, in 2017 over a state-drafted title and summary which they argued was misleading and negative.
A judge sided with proponents, but an appellate court later rule in Becerra’s favor.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over imposing what they contend are “unlawful” conditions on federal grants intended to help states prepare and respond to disasters.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island on Thursday, argues that the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been using their control over billions of dollars in federal grants to operate what the attorneys general see as an aggressive “campaign of coercion” to adopt the Trump administration’s preferred voting and immigration policies, according to the complaint.
“Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit stated. The legal action was filed by a coalition of 24 attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, both Democrats.
A spokesperson for the White House did not respond to a request for comment.
At the crux of their legal complaint are two federal programs: the Homeland Security Grant Program, which was established by Congress as a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which helps states pay for emergency management staff who plan for and respond to natural disasters and mass casualty events, as well as software programs used by state emergency operations centers.
For the homeland security grant, the Trump administration has attached “radical” new terms based on Trump’s preferred policies, the states contend.
These terms include verifying the citizenship of all individuals in state voter databases, transitioning their voting systems to equipment that reads hand-marked paper ballots and conducting post-election audits “according to nonexistent guidelines to be set by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” according to the complaint.
And the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have threatened to make states “promise to devote their scarce resources to the federal government’s own task of civil immigration enforcement” in order to receive both the homeland security and the emergency management grants, according to the complaint.
At a news conference Thursday, Bonta laid out the stakes.
“These grants help communities prepare for emergencies before disaster strikes,” he said. “They support emergency management personnel, strengthen disaster response capabilities, improve coordination among first responders, and help protect our residents when they need government the most.”
The Trump administration restrictions would mean “our communities would have fewer resources to prepare for wildfires, earthquakes, floods, terrorist threats, and other emergencies,” Bonta stated.
“Time after time, courts have told Trump’s corrupt administration that it can’t coerce California into doing its bidding by threatening to withhold public safety funding,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “Yet, they’re coming back for more. This time they’re demanding states rewrite their own election laws to access money that pays for public safety readiness and response, and that Congress already approved. We simply won’t allow it.”
Sailors on board a Thai cargo ship that was hit by a deadly attack in the Strait of Hormuz are suing the ship’s owners, claiming they ignored warnings issued by Iran. Al Jazeera’s Tony Cheng has the story.
July 13 (UPI) — The attorneys general of 12 states sued Monday to block the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros., saying it would undermine competition in the entertainment industry.
A news release announcing the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James said Paramount Skydance Corp.’s purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. “would combine two of the five major film studios and two of the five major basic cable companies, creating a massive conglomerate in markets for basic cable and theatrical film releases.”
“For over a century, Paramount and Warner Bros. have competed to create movies and television that bring people together, inspire and sustain generations of artists, and help us understand the world,” James said. “This merger would destroy that competitions, creating a massive company with unprecedented power and influence over news and entertainment across the globe.”
The release said the merger would increase costs for consumers and put jobs at risk.
The lawsuit comes one month after the Justice Department approved the planned merger, saying it doesn’t harm consumers in the United States.
Warner Bros. shareholders gave their blessing to the merger in April after Paramount offered to buy the company for $31 per share — a deal worth $110 billion.
Joining New York in the lawsuit were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.
Deadline reported that Paramount could threaten to leave California in retaliation for the state’s involvement in the lawsuit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the two companies as “behemoths” in the entertainment industry and said their merger would lead to higher prices, lower quality and less content for consumers.
“California’s film and entertainment industry touches the lives of Americans daily — it comes into the living rooms of families, has a starring role in many young people’s first dates, and is a point of immense pride and employment for Californians up and down our state,” he said in a news release.
“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”
Olympic canoeist David Hearn departs the Moultrie Courthouse after pleading not guilty to damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Thursday. Hearn was indicted on July 2 on one count of destruction of property of more than $1,000 for allegedly damaging the Reflecting Pool, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison if convicted. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday to block Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — a last-ditch effort to derail a deal that would transform Hollywood.
Tech scion David Ellison’s proposed merger has been hurtling toward the finish line after securing approvals from the U.S. Justice Department and numerous foreign governments. President Trump, an ally of Ellison’s billionaire father Larry Ellison, favors the deal. He is eager for a big shakeup at CNN, which is currently controlled by Warner Bros.
David Ellison now faces his biggest challenge yet as he attempts to build a new entertainment behemoth.
A Paramount representative did not immediately comment.
The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that the proposed merger would violate the U.S. Clayton Act, a century-old antitrust law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and increase costs for consumers.
“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences,” Bonta said in a statement.
“California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets,” he said.
California and the 11 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington and Colorado, allege the merger would devastate the theatrical film business by combining two historic film studio rivals. The Ellison family would control such storied franchises as Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Batman, “Top Gun” and “Game of Thrones.”
The proposed purchase also would unite two prominent news organizations — CNN and CBS News.
The states have asked Paramount to delay the closing of its Warner Bros. takeover until the litigation can be resolved.
If Paramount refuses, Bonta said the coalition would seek a temporary restraining order asking a judge to hold up the merger, a move that would cause costly delays and escalate legal expenses for Paramount in their quest to finalize the deal.
Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired control of CBS-owner Paramount in August and, at the time, David Ellison touted the move of Paramount’s headquarters from New York’s Times Square to Hollywood.
Now, Paramount is reportedly threatening to leave California in the face of Bonta’s legal action.
If the merger goes through, Paramount would own four streaming services, including Warner’s HBO Max and the dominant U.S. cable TV channel owner with HBO, TBS, HGTV, Animal Planet, Food Network, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.
The U.S. Justice Department last month approved the merger, saying the combination would likely bolster competition — not harm it. The agency’s decision had been expected because of Larry Ellison’s strong support of Trump.
In a show of confidence earlier this year, the Ellisons agreed to increase the payout to Warner investors should the regulatory approval process drag on. Those extra 25-cent-per-share payments begin with the October-December quarter, and would add more than $650 million in deal costs each quarter — giving David Ellison an increased incentive to quickly close the deal.
The proposed merger has sparked fears in Hollywood that it will bring thousands of job losses — similar to past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties.
Some theater owners, hard hit by the pandemic and production slowdowns, have expressed concerns the merger would lead to fewer films being made.
The new colossus would significantly dampen competition, Bonta and the other Democrat prosecutors argue. They pointed to the wide-release movie film distribution business, where Warner Bros. and Paramount control about 27% of the market.
After the merger just four companies — Paramount-Warner, Disney, NBCUniversal and Sony Pictures — would control 86% of the films that were widely released, Bonta said.
Paramount has said the deal will boost competition — not hamper it. Ellison has promised to continue releasing 30 films a year with a combined Warner Bros.-Paramount studio, roughly the current output of the two studios.
Ellison also vowed to protect the HBO brand.
Another concern is the licensing of basic cable TV channels, including CNN and HGTV, to pay-TV providers such as Charter’s Spectrum, DirecTV and Google’s YouTube TV. Warner Bros. is the second largest cable channel owner and Paramount is the third largest. Together their channels would represent about 27% of the market.
The typical threshold for antitrust concerns is at least 30% marketshare.
More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter calling on Bonta to block the merger.
The Ellison family recently shed its movie theater chain, which it picked up as part of the Paramount acquisition, to clear the way for the Warner deal.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is leading an effort by state attorneys general to block Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.
(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)
The deal also faces opposition outside the U.S. . The British culture minister in late June said she was weighing whether to intervene in the deal due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also has opened an investigation into Paramount’s proposed merger.
In April, a federal judge in Sacramento granted a request from Bonta and seven other attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, which freezes the merger of Nexstar Media Group, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5, and Tegna. The deal was designed to create the nation’s largest TV outlet group .
A larger group of state attorneys general also won a New York jury verdict against Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster. Jurors found that Live Nation had illegally monopolized the live concert industry.
Bonta also has an ongoing case against Amazon for price fixing, which the company denies.
Still, legal experts say the states may face an uphill climb to detrail the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger because the arrival of Netflix, Amazon and Apple dramatically shifted the landscape.
The tech giants, which introduced consumer-friendly streaming options, have lessened the influence of traditional companies like Paramount and Warner Bros.
Paramount’s deal would mark the third time Warner has changed hands in the last decade.
StubHub is getting a red card from some World Cup fans
Two World Cup customers are suing the New York-based ticket-selling company, alleging “false and misleading” advertising that left them without tickets or a refund for the World Cup games they paid to attend.
In federal court in New York last week, two Californians — Julia Reeker Moghal and Reuben Renteria — sued StubHub seeking monetary damages and a ban on the company selling World Cup tickets. The lawsuit aims to become a class action and comes after weeks of fierce criticism and complaints from customers regarding the company’s practices.
Throughout the World Cup, videos have emerged on Instagram and TikTok of StubHub customers describing their nightmare experiences with the ticket-selling platform.
Some said they had purchased tickets to World Cup games as early as November of last year, booked flights and hotels and arranged travel plans, then StubHub notified them days to weeks before the match of a refund for their tickets, which they never requested.
There were similar complaints about last-minute cancellations from people who bought Coachella tickets on StubHub.
In the lawsuit, Moghal said she had purchased three tickets for nearly $2,000 for the June 18 match between Switzerland and Bosnia-Herzegovina at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, which were then canceled by StubHub. Moghal said she was contacted by StubHub and told her tickets would remain canceled, then was later told the tickets would be available one hour before the game.
When the match began, Moghal said she was at SoFi Stadium, but the tickets never came.
Renteria said he paid around $2,300 for the June 18 Mexico versus South Korea match in Guadalajara, Mexico, but they were canceled
“Devoted soccer fans have traveled from around the world to attend World Cup matches — and they reasonably relied on StubHub to provide the tickets they paid for as well as on StubHub’s warranty,” Blake Hunter Yagman, the attorney representing the two, said in a statement. “Instead of rewarding their business, StubHub sold them World Cup tickets that they either could not provide or on speculation, only to be stranded, in many cases, at the stadium gates without any recourse.”
According to StubHub’s website, its Fan Protect Guarantee states the platform will deliver valid tickets or refund in the event of a ticket issue, and that it will “go out of our way to find replacement tickets” of a comparable value. The lawsuit alleges the replacement tickets many fans were given by StubHub were worse than their original tickets.
FIFA, the World Cup organizer, states in its terms and conditions that the FIFA Marketplace, its own ticket-selling platform, is the only authorized platform for World Cup tickets, and that only tickets purchased through it are guaranteed by FIFA to be valid.
Despite the risk of purchasing through a third-party platform such as StubHub, many fans opted to do so to avoid the 30% FIFA resale tax, believing that the Fan Protect Guarantee would safeguard their order.
Since World Cup tickets began selling on FIFA Marketplace last September, fans have expressed disappointment in the expensive price tag. FIFA utilized a dynamic pricing system for the sale, and as sales phases progressed leading up to the games, the cost of tickets increased tremendously. In March, the extreme cost of tickets prompted 69 members of Congress to write a letter to FIFA urging them to lower their prices.
Tickets for the upcoming Friday match between Spain and Belgium in Los Angeles are selling on StubHub for over $1,300.
StubHub said in various statements to the news and in legal proceedings that ticket cancellations were a result of transfer problems and issues with FIFA’s ticketing infrastructure.
StubHub did not respond to requests for comment.
A FIFA spokesperson responded to this accusation in a statement, saying, “FIFA has no visibility over, or control of, secondary market ticket transactions carried out on third-party platforms. The transactions facilitated on these platforms occur entirely independently of FIFA’s official ticketing platform. With reference to the reliability of the services available to fans on FIFA’s official ticket platform, FIFA rejects any suggestion that the functional issues being experienced by users of third-party platforms with respect to FIFA World Cup 2026 tickets are the result of FIFA’s ticketing infrastructure.”
WASHINGTON — Prison inmates whose religious rights are clearly violated by guards and wardens may not sue them for damages, a divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices said federal law protecting religious liberty allows for suits against state prison systems, but not employees of the prison.
The decision came in the case of a devout Rastafarian in Louisiana. Damon Landor had grown dreadlocks for nearly two decades. He had three weeks left in a five-month prison term when he was transferred to another prison in Louisiana.
He had with him a copy of a federal appeals court opinion that said Rastafarian inmates had a protected religious right to wear dreadlocks.
But the guards threw the appeals court decision in the trash, and the warden ordered the guards to handcuff Landor to a chair and shave his head.
Shortly after he was released, Landor sued the warden and the guards for violating the 2000 law, known as RLUIPA, which promised “appropriate relief” to those whose rights were violated.
But a federal judge, the 5th Circuit Court and now the Supreme Court have tossed out Landor’s suit.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the six conservatives.
He explained that when the federal government gives states money for prisons, education, healthcare and other matters, it can require them to follow the law but it does not authorize private lawsuits against their employees
“To know that is enough to know the Court of Appeals was correct. Mr. Landor does not have a federal RLUIPA cause of action against the officers,” Gorsuch wrote. “Congress lacks regulatory authority to impose liability on them directly.”
The three liberals dissented.
“Today’s decision magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Prisoners like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons — no matter how blatant — will often be left remediless.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.
Civil liberties advocates denounced the decision.
“Our justice system is built on the promise of accountability when rights are violated,” said Rachel Rossi, president of the Alliance for Justice. “If there is no remedy for such a transgression, then there is no justice. This ruling will further erode critical civil rights protections of the far too many incarcerated people in this country.”
Rachel Laser, chief executive of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said today’s decision “endangers the religious freedom of incarcerated people, like Damon Landor, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse and having unnecessary burdens placed on their religious exercise. Once again, we see a court that will bend over backward for the religious freedom of Christians, but allows the government to trample the religious freedom of non-Christians.”
Embattled reality TV personalities Todd and Julie Chrisley are suing an Atlanta law firm and one of its attorneys, alleging that legal mistakes led to the couple’s conviction.
The lawsuit, filed June 5 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that Atlanta-based Balch & Bingham LLP and attorney Chris Anulewicz “put their own interests ahead of their clients’ lives” by taking on the couple’s case and appointing Anulewicz as the lead, which they say meant “money, publicity, and the kind of high-profile notoriety that brings in business.”
According to the Chrisleys, Anulewicz “had no meaningful criminal defense experience,” and “Balch knew this — or should have.” They also claim that while representing them, Anulewicz steered them into a $75,000 investment in his brother-in-law’s food truck business.
The lawsuit claims that the couple’s conviction and subsequent federal prison sentence were the result of an “unlawful, warrantless search of the Chrisleys’ warehouse” by the Georgia Department of Revenue, and that Anulewicz missed a deadline to suppress derivative evidence that was ultimately used as the foundation of the prosecution’s case.
“That illegal search launched the entire federal case,” reads the lawsuit. “The district court agreed the search was illegal and suppressed the physical documents. But Anulewicz — operating without supervision from Balch — never moved to suppress the derivative evidence: the emails, bank records, and financial documents that federal agents obtained because of what they learned from the illegal search.”
The couple is seeking $25 million in damages, claiming that because their team didn’t have the documents suppressed, they were convicted on every count.
“They served time in federal prison,” reads the suit. “They were separated from each other and from their children. They lost their television show and endorsement deals, costing them more than $25 million in income. Their reputations were destroyed. They have spent millions more in appeals and post-conviction proceedings, all of it an attempt to undo harm that a single timely motion would have prevented.”
In 2022, an Atlanta court found the “Chrisley Knows Best” couple guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and tax fraud. Julie Chrisley was also charged with wire fraud and obstruction of justice.
Todd Chrisley received a 12-year sentence, along with 16 months’ probation, while his wife was sentenced to seven years in prison and 16 months’ probation.
In 2024, the Chrisleys’ daughter, Savannah, appealed to President Trump to free her mom and dad. During the Republican National Convention, she gave a speech about the “rogue prosecutors” who locked up her parents.
Last year, Trump granted the reality stars a full pardon.
Jay V. Surgent, an attorney who represents Todd and Julie Chrisley, said in a statement to The Times that the reality stars “have correctly been pardoned by President Trump.” He alleged that Georgia officials violated the “Chrisley Knows Best” stars’ constitutional rights due to their notoriety and criticized local authorities’ “improper seizure of evidence.”
Times staff writer Alexandra Del Rosario contributed to this report.
David Ellison, head of Paramount Skydance, has said that when his company completes its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, it will likely look to make about $6 billion in cuts to the combined company. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo
June 5 (UPI) — The attorneys general of several states are preparing to file a lawsuit in the coming weeks to prevent the $111 billion merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery.
As many as 10 states are involved in a California-led antitrust investigation of the merger, which would create an entertainment monolith comprised of two of the biggest major players in television, film and streaming globally, the Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg and The Wrap reported.
Officials in the states have started working on the lawsuit and where to file it, the news organizations confirmed, and the litigation could potentially be filed before the end of June.
Although California Attorney General Rob Bonta told The Wrap in early April that “red flags are everywhere when you have a merger of this type,” his office did not confirm that the lawsuit was taking shape and could be filed soon.
“The Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation, and we do have any updates to share at this time,” Bonta’s office told the news organizations in a statement.
The states that have been involved in Bonta’s investigation and may join the lawsuit, aside from California, are Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
Paramount and Netflix competed for months to win the right to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, with Warner’s shareholders voting to approve selling the company to Paramount for $31 per share.
The merger has been controversial because Paramount Chairman David Ellison has said that after the company receives regulatory approval, he plans to make $6 billion in cuts between both companies.
Although Ellison said that the Paramount and Warner Bros. film studios will maintain their current pace of 15 theatrical releases per year, the deal has drawn sharp rebukes from across Hollywood and some parts of the federal government because the downsizing will most likely include job cuts.
Troops in landing craft approach Omaha Beach on D-Day in Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944. D-Day was the largest seaborne invasion in history and turned the tide of World War II. Photo by UPI | License Photo
The state of California is leading an effort to prepare a possible lawsuit that could thwart Paramount Skydance Corp.’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, a potential obstacle for the $111 billion deal.
The lawsuit, which could be filed as early as this month, would likely involve multiple states, according to a source familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to comment publicly.
The litigation would seek to challenge the proposed merger on antitrust grounds, arguing it would thwart competition, lower wages and lead to widespread job losses.
“The Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation, and we do not have any updates to share at this time,” said California Atty. General Rob Bonta’s office in a statement.
In a statement, Paramount said it “will continue to fight against any attempt to derail a deal that plainly benefits consumers, creators and the industry as whole.”
“Opposing this deal means opposing expanded consumer choice, new opportunities for creators and workers, and greater competition throughout the creative ecosystem — the opposite of what antitrust law is meant to achieve,” the company added.
Under Paramount Chairman David Ellison’s proposal, Warner investors would receive $31 a share, nearly four times the price of the company’s stock in April 2025. He also said he will keep both studios’ release schedules of 15 movies a year for a total of 30 films a year.
Nonetheless, Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger, which requires regulatory approval. The combined company would have to contend with $79 billion in deal debt.
The prospect of substantial job cuts during a period of downsizing in Hollywood has ignited widespread opposition to the sale.
Thousands of people who work in the TV and film industry, including actor Joaquin Phoenix and director-writer-producer JJ Abrams signed an open letter opposing Paramount’s planned acquisition of WBD, saying it would lead to fewer production jobs and fewer choices for consumers. Others have also raised concerns about the impact it could have on content.
“The consequences would be felt nationwide, from destroying CNN the way that Ellisons have devastated CBS to entertainment industry job losses and consumers losing access to independent voices and a competitive market,” said Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, one of the groups that organized the open letter. “State attorneys general have both the authority and the responsibility to act when a transaction of this scale directly threatens the public’s interest, and I hope states across the country will join any effort to challenge this deal,” Eisen said in a statement.
The potential lawsuit, first reported by Bloomberg and Reuters, is being considered by other states, including New York and Colorado.
“Paramount and Warner Bros. haven’t cleared regulatory scrutiny,” Bonta told The Times in March. “My office has an open investigation into [the deal] and we intend to be vigorous in our review.”
Despite the potential obstacle, Raymond James equity analysts said in a note on Thursday that they “still believe the deal is likely to close.”
Last month, Paramount hired antitrust attorney Jeffrey Kessler to defend its planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. Kessler recently led a case for state attorney generals against concert promoter and ticketing firm Live Nation, resulting in a win for states, including California.
“We also think there are win/win solutions to be had particularly in California given exodus of production from CA in recent years and efforts to bring production back to Hollywood,” the analyst said in their note.
Donald Trump speaks Oct. 5, 2024, at at the Butler Farm Show grounds, the site of an assassination attempt three months earlier. Two men injured in that incident are suing the federal government for negligence. Photo by Archie Carpenter/UPI. | License Photo
June 2 (UPI) — Two supporters of President Donald Trump who were injured during an assassination attempt during Trump’s 2024 campaign rally in Butler, Pa., are suing the federal government for negligence.
James Copenhaver and David Dutch, both of Pennsylvania, attended the rally in July 2024 and were shot by Thomas Crooks, whom authorities say tried to assassinate Trump. Copenhaver was struck twice and received injuries to his abdomen, spine and left arm, his lawsuit says, while Dutch was shot and suffered “severe, serious, permanent and grievous injuries” according to his lawsuit.
Crooks killed one person, attendee Corey Comperatore, in the attack. Trump received a minor wound to his ear. Secret Service members killed Crooks on site.
The two lawsuits say the Secret Service failed to properly secure the rally, leading to their injuries. Copenhaver’s wife, Marianne Copenhaver, is also part of his lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking at least $150,000 in damages each, Politico reported.
“The events which led to [Dutch’s] grievous and permanent injuries were shocking and preventable, should not have happened, and the failures, as highlighted herein, exposed President Trump and all Butler Rally attendees … to grave, mortal danger,” Dutch’s lawsuit says. It says the security failures at the rally were “rampant.”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Florida’s long-shot attempt to sue California and Washington state over the issuance of commercial driver licenses to truckers who don’t speak English and are not authorized to be in the United States.
The case stems from a crash in Florida last year that killed three people. The driver, Harjinder Singh, is accused of making an illegal U-turn that caused the accident. Singh, who is from India, was carrying a valid commercial driver’s license from California and had earlier been granted one by Washington state.
Republican-led Florida has accused the Western states, led by Democrats, of openly defying immigration laws and asked the justices to rule that states lack the authority to issue CDLs to people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents.
The Supreme Court typically hears appeals of lower-court decisions, but it sometimes takes on what are known as original lawsuits in which states sue each other in the nation’s highest court.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented from Tuesday’s order, as they often do when the court rejects an original lawsuit, saying that the court has no choice but to hear such cases.
Separately, a federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration proposal to impose new restrictions that would severely limit which immigrants can get commercial driver’s licenses to drive a semitrailer truck or bus.
Survivors of Indonesia’s deadly Sumatra floods are suing the government over what they say was an inadequate disaster response. As Al Jazeera’s Jessica Washington reports, they’re seeking a court order to declare the floods a national disaster and improve recovery efforts.
WASHINGTON — Two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from an attack by a mob of President Trump’s supporters sued on Wednesday to block anyone — including Jan. 6, 2021, rioters — from receiving payouts from a new $1.776-billion settlement fund for people who claim to be victims of politically motivated prosecutions.
The officers’ attorneys filed the federal lawsuit a day after acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche defended the fund’s creation during a congressional hearing. Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Justice Department, wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for fund payouts.
The lawsuit claims the government’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is an illegal slush fund that Trump will use to “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.” It describes the fund’s creation as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century” and calls for dissolving it.
“No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law,” the suit says.
The fund stems from a settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It’s designed to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Decisions on payouts will be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.
More than 100 police officers were injured during the Capitol riot. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Jan. 6-related crimes, but Trump used his pardon powers to erase all of those cases in a sweeping act of clemency last year.
The plaintiffs suing Trump over the fund are Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who is running in Maryland for a seat in Congress. Hodges and Dunn both testified before Congress about their harrowing experiences on Jan. 6. Videos captured a rioter ripping a mask off Hodges as he was pinned against a door during a fight for control of a tunnel entrance.
The officers claim the fund “encourages those who enacted violence in the President’s name to continue to do so.”
“Dunn and Hodges already face credible threats of death and violence on regular basis; the Fund substantially increases the danger,” the suit alleges.
On Tuesday, members of Congress peppered Blanche with questions about the fund. He described it as “unusual” but not unprecedented. Blanche failed to acknowledge that Trump’s Justice Department has investigated and prosecuted some of the Republican president’s political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.
Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also are named as defendants in the officers’ lawsuit. Spokespeople for the Justice and Treasury departments didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.
One of the attorneys for the officers is Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department prosecutor who handled Jan. 6 cases.
California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states are suing the Trump administration over new limits on federal borrowing by aspiring nurses, physician’s assistants, therapists, social workers, mental health practitioners and other healthcare workers, arguing the changes will further reduce a struggling but vital workforce.
“This case is about protecting access to education, protecting our healthcare workforce, and protecting patients who rely on these providers every single day,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said during a virtual news conference Tuesday. “The Trump administration is going out of its way to make it harder and more expensive for students to pursue the advanced degrees necessary to serve their communities and pursue meaningful careers that allow them to support themselves and their families.”
Bonta said the new limits on loans sought by nursing and other healthcare students — which the U.S. Department of Education initiated in response to Republicans passing broader student loan caps as part of last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — was an illegal overreach by the agency that was “deeply shortsighted” and went beyond the scope of the legislation.
“Congress can act,” he said. “But what the Department of Education can’t do is — contrary to law and in an arbitrary and capricious way and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act — redefine what a professional student is.”
In response to the litigation, Trump administration officials defended the new rules, saying they will help student borrowers in the long run by driving down schooling costs at universities nationwide and preventing them from taking on too much debt.
“After decades of unchecked student loan borrowing that gave schools no reason to control costs, these commonsense loan caps — created by Congress — are already incentivizing colleges and universities to lower tuition,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement to The Times.
Kent said Bonta and his fellow Democratic litigants “are more concerned about institutions’ bottom-line [than] American students and families’ ability to access affordable postsecondary education.” As one example of institutions responding to loan caps by lowering costs, Kent pointed to UC Irvine reducing the costs of its master’s in business programs by up to 38% to keep them below a federal loan cap for such programs.
The One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress in July 2025, placed new limits on student loans, which could previously be sought for the full cost of such degrees. Starting this July, applicants categorized as “graduate students” will be capped at borrowing $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total, while applicants categorized as “professional students” will be allowed to borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in total.
On May 1, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new rule defining the “professional student” category as including those pursuing degrees to become doctors, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, various medical specialists, pastors and other religious academics, and excluding those pursuing nursing and other advanced healthcare degrees.
In announcing the change, Kent said it would “simplify our complex student loan repayment system and better align higher education with workforce needs,” “drive a sea change in higher education by holding universities accountable for outcomes and putting significant downward pressure on the cost of tuition,” and “benefit borrowers who will no longer be pushed into insurmountable debt to finance degrees that do not pay off.”
Others fiercely disagreed, including healthcare industry leaders who also had objected to the rule change during a public comment period. Some said the changes would simply increase student reliance on less favorable, private-sector loans.
The American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing, in a statement, said it and its members were “angered by the Department of Education’s failure to support the nursing profession as the demand for patient care services rises.”
Nearly 150 members of Congress — including more than a dozen Republicans — wrote a letter the day after the rule was promulgated expressing “disappointment” over the exclusion of post-baccalaureate nursing degrees.
“At a time when our nation is facing a health care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs,” the lawmakers argued.
Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, which is not party to the lawsuit but operates a vast network of public health programs, said in a statement Tuesday that UC “strongly opposed” the administration’s new caps on federal loans for nurses and other health professionals, which she said “will be felt most strongly by lower-income graduate students.”
“UC will continue to do all we can to ensure that cost is not a barrier for anyone who wants to pursue higher education, and we will continue to advocate with our federal partners for the programs and policies that make this possible,” Zaentz said.
Bonta rejected the administration’s argument that the new caps would help students pursuing a dream of a medical career avoid taking on too much debt — calling it “tone deaf.” He said those students are already “struggling with all costs right now” thanks to the Trump administration’s tariffs, war in Iran and lax approach to regulating monopolies and other big business.
He also rejected the idea that the new loan caps would force institutions to reduce costs for students, calling that “wishful thinking.”
The lawsuit is the 68th filed by Bonta’s office against the second Trump administration. Joining Bonta in the lawsuit — which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland — were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.
