• A lawsuit claims United Airlines mistreated two Jewish passengers on a flight from Mexico to Texas.
• One passenger says a pilot forced him out of the airplane bathroom for taking too long.
• The complaint accuses United Airlines and federal agencies of physical harm and discrimination.

An Orthodox Jewish passenger on a United Airlines flight says a pilot forcibly removed him from the airplane's bathroom while he was experiencing constipation.

In a lawsuit filed this week, Yisroel Liebb said the "visibly enraged" pilot broke the lock on the restroom door and forced Liebb out while his pants were around his ankles, exposing his genitalia to other nearby passengers.

Liebb and another passenger he was traveling with, Jacob Sebbag, who is also Jewish, claim they suffered physical injuries, emotional distress, and discrimination at the hands of airline staff and federal agents on the flight from Tulum, Mexico, to Houston, Texas.

According to the complaint, seen by Business Insider, the events unfolded on January 28, 2025, after a flight attendant woke Sebbag and asked him to check on Liebb, who had been in the bathroom for about 20 minutes.

Liebb responded that he was experiencing constipation and would exit shortly, but the pilot demanded he leave immediately, the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs claim that after Liebb was removed from the restroom, the pilot "proceeded to repeatedly push" them back to their seats while making discriminatory remarks about their Judaism.

Upon arrival in Houston, agents from the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation Security Administration boarded the plane and restrained Liebb, forced his arms behind his back, and handcuffed him, according to the complaint. Sebbag was also detained after confirming that Liebb was in his phone contacts, the lawsuit states.

According to the lawsuit, both men were placed in separate holding cells, subjected to searches, and endured excessive force, including painfully tight handcuffs.

As a result of their detention, the plaintiffs say they missed their connecting flight and were forced to incur additional expenses.

The lawsuit, filed by the Law Offices of Christian Martinez, PLLC at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, cites violations of the Montreal Convention, which governs international air travel and protects passengers from harm.

Business Insider contacted Martinez's office for comment.

The complaint accuses United Airlines and the federal agencies of physical harm, unlawful detention, and religious discrimination.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for their alleged injuries, emotional distress, and financial losses, arguing that their mistreatment was fueled by discrimination and unnecessary aggression by airline staff and federal authorities.

Business Insider contacted United Airlines, TSA, and DHS for comment.

• Google is suing a man it says was part of a scam network creating fake businesses on Google Maps.
• The network allegedly collected and sold the personal data of users who contacted those businesses.
• It's an example of a 'lead generation" scam, according to the lawsuit.

Google is suing a Maryland man it says made fake business listings on Google Maps.

The lawsuit alleges that Yaniv Asayag, working with up to 20 co-conspirators, then sold the personal information of users who contacted those phony businesses.

Google's complaint, filed this week in California federal court, says the group "engaged in an ongoing pattern of fraudulent conduct" by creating and modifying business listings on Google Maps and Google Search.

Google General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado told Business Insider that Google does not allow fake business listings on Google Maps and uses a "range of tools to protect businesses and users."

"Today's litigation builds on our efforts and sends a clear message that impersonation schemes will not be tolerated," Prado told BI.

The lawsuit says that Asayag and his associates created listings for service-oriented businesses that provide an immediate need, like HVAC cleaners, towing companies, or locksmiths. They would then "lure in unsuspecting consumers" to the fake business pages, which they bolstered with fake reviews, Google alleged.

They collected the personal information from consumers who contacted the fake businesses and sold it to marketers at real companies, the lawsuit says.

That strategy is sometimes known as "lead generation," which can also be a legitimate marketing tactic when those leads are based on real data.

In one high-profile example, a judge sentenced Jen Shah, a former star of "The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City," to more than six years in prison in 2023 after police charged her with wire fraud in connection to a telemarketing scheme where she generated and sold "lead lists" of innocent people to other scammers.

In the Google lawsuit, one fake business listing the company identified was named "ByDennis Cleaner," which was changed to "MS Locksmith" one month after it was created. Google said that over the course of about a year, the network edited listings for almost 150 businesses more than 1,000 times.

The alleged scammers sometimes sold users' personal information to real businesses that had a history of predatory behavior, like overcharging or extortion, according to Google's complaint. The lawsuit says that "abuse" among locksmith businesses due to lead generation scams is "well documented."

The FTC says the best way to avoid becoming a victim is to check the URL for a business you want to contact. The agency recommends searching the URL, as well as the business name, with "reviews" or "complaints" to see if anyone has warned about the listing.

There is no attorney listed yet for Asayag on the public court docket. Asayag declined to comment when reached by Business Insider on Friday.

• Apple faces a new lawsuit citing delays in delivering promised AI features in its iPhone 16.
• The lawsuit claims Apple misled consumers with ads about AI capabilities.
• Apple announced in March that Siri's AI enhancements would be delayed.

In its latest AI challenge, Apple is facing a false advertisement lawsuit citing delays in delivering its artificial intelligence features.

The complaint, filed Wednesday by Malibu-based Clarkson Law Firm in the US District Court in San Jose, accuses Apple of unfair competition, false advertising, and negligent misrepresentation.

"Consumers are excited about AI, and unfortunately that has led to Big Tech overpromising and underdelivering," Timothy Giordano, a partner at Clarkson Law Firm, said in a statement to Business Insider.

The plaintiffs in the class action suit, led by customer Peter Landsheft and other iPhone 16 owners, said Apple took "advantage of consumers' desire for cutting-edge artificial intelligence software and features on their phones," and didn't deliver on all of the Apple Intelligence tools that were announced ahead of its iPhone 16 launch.

Since the September rollout, the iPhone 16 has been advertised as the first iPhone "built for AI," and Apple Intelligence appears in a number of ads for the device. The tech is only available on iPhone 15 Pro models or later; the iPhone 16 lineup starts at $799.

But in a rare move, Apple announced earlier this month that Siri's planned AI upgrade, which was demonstrated months before the latest iPhone released, would take longer than expected. The plaintiffs referenced an ad from September featuring actor Bella Ramsey using a more personalized version of Siri.

Now, it's facing claims that it "overstated AI capabilities, leading consumers to believe they were purchasing a device with features that did not exist or were materially misrepresented," the lawsuit says.

The tech giant introduced Apple Intelligence almost a year ago at the Worldwide Developers Conference in June 2024. Apple showcased an AI-powered iPhone with tools for writing and editing photos, among other genAI capabilities set to release that fall.

Apple Intelligence launched in October, one month after the iPhone 16 came out. The complaint says "Apple's mirage of innovation" included a personalized Siri assistant that can handle complex tasks and cross-reference iOS apps, a feature that Apple said will roll out in the "coming year."

Apple's play to catch up with AI rivals like Google, Meta, and Microsoft, and boost iPhone sales has also incited criticism of what it's delivered so far and questions about what's to come.

In 2024, "Apple showed a demo, and it only does demos when things are nearly done, and it said it would ship 'later this year' and it never misses deadlines like that. So we should be using it, today," analyst Benedict Evans wrote in a blog post.

Internally, it seems that Apple is making changes to get things moving along in the AI department. Bloomberg reported Wednesday that Vision Pro creator Mike Rockwell would replace AI head John Giannandrea in overseeing Siri.

Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

The suit itself may not be enough to hurt Apple shares, but spotlighting its "failure" to deliver an AI-boosted Siri on time is a "threat to Apple's market value," Forrester analyst Dipanjan Chatterjee told BI.

Apple has no place to hide now that competitors' genAI chatbots are up and running, he added.

Elon Musk-owned social media platform X is suing the Indian government, accusing the country’s IT ministry of unlawfully expanding its powers to remove online content, Reuters reported Thursday. X has long chaffed at government orders to remove or block content in the country, such as during the farmers’ protests last year. Though it ended up […]

© 2025 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

• A jury awarded Michael Garcia, a delivery driver, $50 million after a Starbucks drink burned him.
• Garcia filed a complaint against Starbucks in 2020 after a hot tea fell on his lap.
• Garcia suffered serious burns, his lawyers argued.

A court ordered Starbucks to pay $50 million to a California delivery driver who suffered serious burns after a hot tea fell in his lap.

A Los Angeles County jury found Starbucks negligent on March 14, marking four years since the litigation between Starbucks and Michael Garcia began. Garcia, who worked at the time as a Postmates driver, first filed the complaint against Starbucks in March 2020.

A Starbucks spokesperson told Business Insider it planned to appeal the decision.

"We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury's decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive," the statement said. "We plan to appeal. We have always been committed to the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks."

Trial Lawyers for Justice, the firm representing Garcia, said he entered a Starbucks drive-thru that February and ordered three venti-sized hot teas. The firm said the barista at the pick-up window "negligently failed" to secure one of the drinks into the drink carrier.

"Within 1.4 seconds of Michael taking possession of the tray, the unsecured cup fell directly into his lap, the lid popped off, and the scalding hot tea caused third-degree burns to his penis, groin, and inner thighs," a press release said. "He was taken by paramedics to the emergency room."

Nick Rowley, Garcia's attorney, said the driver's life "has been forever changed."

"No amount of money can undo the permanent catastrophic harm he has suffered, but this jury verdict is a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for flagrant disregard for customer safety and failure to accept responsibility," he said in a statement.

• Jeniffer Castro faced online criticism after she refused to give up her airline seat for a child.
• A video of the incident was viewed millions of times and reposted across platforms including TikTok.
• Castro said she was suing GOL Airlines and the passenger who filmed her.

A woman said she is suing an airline and a fellow passenger after an on-board incident went viral late last year.

Jeniffer Castro, 29, was working in a bank in Belo Horizonte, Brazil when she boarded a GOL Airlines flight in December.

Castro said a child was sitting in her designated window seat. when she boarded. She said she waited for him to move and then took her seat in comments reported by outlets including DailyMail.com.

Another passenger then started filming Castro, who can be seen wearing AirPods and closing her eyes.

The video was viewed millions of times, reposted across TikTok, and picked up by multiple international outlets.

"What surprised me was the fact that a person who had nothing to do with the situation started filming me without permission, insulting me, and trying to publicly embarrass me simply because I didn't want to change seats," Castro said. "Since that incident, my life has taken a turn I could never have imagined."

On the one hand, she found online fame and now has some 2 million followers on Instagram, where she posts about lifestyle and travel.

However, the incident had other ramifications. "What should have been just an ordinary flight turned into an extremely embarrassing situation, exposing me unfairly and causing consequences that affected both my personal and professional life," Castro said.

Castro said she had filed a lawsuit against GOL Airlines and the passenger who filmed her, seeking compensation for distress, but did not reveal further details about the legal action.

GOL Airlines declined to comment.

Meta is facing an AI copyright lawsuit in France that’s been brought by authors and publishers who are accusing it of economic “parasitism,” Reuters reports. The French litigation was filed in a Paris court this week by the National Publishing Union (SNE), the National Union of Authors and Composers (SNAC), and the Society of People […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Alec Radford, a researcher who helped develop many of OpenAI’s key AI technologies, has been subpoenaed in a copyright case against the AI startup, according to a court filing Tuesday. The filing, submitted by an attorney for the plaintiffs to the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, indicated that Radford was served […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

• Pepperdine University filed a trademark lawsuit against Netflix and Warner Bros. Entertainment.
• Pepperdine University said the companies used its IP in a new TV series, "Running Point."
• A judge denied the university's request for a temporary restraining order against the companies.

Mindy Kaling's new sports comedy with Netflix and Warner Bros. Entertainment is making waves at Pepperdine University.

"Running Point" is a new 10-episode TV series that follows Isla Gordon (Kate Hudson), a woman who becomes president of a professional basketball franchise called the Los Angeles Waves. Kaling, Hudson, and Los Angeles Lakers president Jeanie Buss serve as executive producers. Netflix premiered the series on Thursday.

However, the rollout was nearly benched just one week before its debut when Pepperdine University sued the entertainment companies. On February 20, the university filed a legal complaint accusing the companies of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising. The university also asked a California judge to approve a temporary restraining order against them.

"When Defendants released and promoted the trailer for 'Running Point' on January 30, 2025, Pepperdine (and others) were immediately astounded at the striking correlations in branding between the fictional Los Angeles Waves and the real Los Angeles-based Pepperdine Waves," the university said. "The uses are too many and too close to be coincidental."

Moish E. Peltz, a partner at Falcon, Rappaport, & Berkman LLP, told Business Insider it's "certainly surprising that Warner Brothers and Netflix would go to market with such a strikingly similar sports team."

Prof. Betsy Rosenblatt of Case Western Reserve University's School of Law said the decision seemed "riskier than any number of other decisions they could have made."

Netflix referred to its opposition filing when contacted for comment.

Confusion among consumers?

In the complaint, the university said the fictitious basketball team's logo, branding, and colors were "strikingly similar" to Pepperdine's real-life sports franchise. Pepperdine University also said "Running Point" promoted a specific player number — 37 — which is worn by the school's mascot and correlates to its founding year.

"The lawsuit details how 'Running Point' portrayal of the 'Waves' team will cause consumer confusion and falsely suggest an affiliation between Pepperdine and the show," the university's press release said. "The university has also expressed deep concerns about some of the series' themes, which include explicit content, substance use, nudity, and profanity — elements that are inconsistent with Pepperdine's Christian values and reputation."

Peltz said trademark law aims to prevent consumer confusion, which is the focus of Pepperdine University's trademark infringement claim.

"Are consumers going to be confused about whether a sponsorship, affiliation, or consent was granted?" Peltz said. "That will depend on how you define the target market and who those consumers are."

Peltz said location could be considered when determining consumers' potential confusion.

"People watching Netflix on the East Coast or around the world may have no idea," he said. "People watching in the Southern California market might be scratching their heads like, 'Wait, I thought the Waves were a college team. Why are they a pro team in this thing? What's going on here?'"

Although trademark infringement is the first cause of action in the complaint, Rosenblatt said it may not be Pepperdine University's strongest claim.

"Their infringement claim based on confusion may not be that strong because maybe consumers won't think that Pepperdine is involved in this show. They just think, 'Isn't it weird that this fictional team has the same name and some indicators as Pepperdine?'" Rosenblatt said.

Trademark dilution, however, could hold more weight.

In the complaint, Pepperdine University said that Netflix and Warner Bros. Entertainment's "improper use of the asserted trademarks" could "dilute, tarnish, and disparage Pepperdine's reputation and marks."

"Particularly because the Netflix show has content that is so at odds with Pepperdine's conservative values and religious philosophy, it might harm Pepperdine's mark in that way," Rosenblatt said.

Peltz said the trademark dilution claim requires proof of fame, which would examine whether Pepperdine University's trademarks are well-known and being diluted by "Running Point."

A judge denied the university's TRO

If granted, the temporary restraining order against Netflix and Warner Bros. Entertainment would have barred them from certain actions, including airing "Running Point" episodes unless they're first edited to exclude references to the fictitious Waves team and the university's trademarks.

In a memorandum on Monday, Netflix argued against the temporary restraining order, saying the use of Waves is not "explicitly misleading" and the use is "artistically relevant," among other arguments.

A judge denied Pepperdine University's request two days later.

"The First Amendment, broadly speaking, allows people to use other people's trademarks in expressive ways," Rosenblatt said.

In response, the university's senior vice president, Sean Burnett, said the case against Netflix and Warner Bros. Entertainment will "continue on its regular course."

"We do not believe Netflix and Warner Bros. can be permitted to take the Waves trademarks and colors we have used for almost 90 years to identify Pepperdine to instead identify the team that is the subject of their series," Burnett said in a press release. "While we are disappointed with today's ruling, we believe the University will ultimately prevail and prevent the continued unauthorized use of Pepperdine's intellectual property in a way that misrepresents our institution."

Representatives for Warner Bros. Entertainment, Mindy Kaling, Kate Hudson, and Jeanie Buss, did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• A judge ruled that federal workers associated with the White House DOGE office can be subpoenaed in a current lawsuit.
• The lawsuit filed by AFL-CIO seeks information on how the DOGE office is handling sensitive data.
• US District Judge John Bates highlighted DOGE's "unclear" structure and authority as keys to the legal decision.

A federal judge on Thursday granted a motion to require federal workers tied to the White House DOGE office to testify under oath.

The decision came in a lawsuit from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, one of the country's largest trade unions. The group sued the DOGE office and the Department of Labor on February 5 over access to sensitive personal data.

The ruling granted the plaintiffs' request to conduct four depositions, one each with the agencies named in the lawsuit — the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — and the United States DOGE Service. However, it also said the depositions would be capped at "eight hours in the aggregate."

The judge wrote that "understandably, defendants argue most strongly against" the depositions. But he said the depositions being limited to specific topics and in length meant they did not pose too high a burden.

The topics that can be discussed in the depositions include how access to systems at each agency changed after the DOGE office was created, the role of DOGE office employees at the agencies, and how those employees are using sensitive systems at the agencies.

It's unclear which specific Trump administration officials would be asked to sit for the depositions.

The lawsuit is one of more than 85 lawsuits challenging the scope of the DOGE office's authority.

AFL-CIO filed a motion for expedited discovery, citing limited information about the DOGE office's current operation. Washington, DC, District Judge John Bates wrote in the ruling that the DOGE office's "structure" and "scope of authority" are "not only unclear on the current record but also critical" to decide how the law applies to the agency.

Bates wrote that it would be "strange to permit defendants to submit evidence that addresses critical factual issues and proceed to rule on a preliminary injunction motion without permitting plaintiffs to explore those factual issues through very limited discovery."

The White House, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

For years, Meta employees have internally discussed using copyrighted works obtained through legally questionable means to train the company’s AI models, according to court documents unsealed on Thursday. The documents were submitted by plaintiffs in the case Kadrey v. Meta, one of many AI copyright disputes slowly winding through the U.S. court system. The defendant, […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

• The DOJ plans to drop a lawsuit against SpaceX that alleged discrimination in its hiring practices.
• The lawsuit, filed in 2023, said SpaceX discriminated against refugees and asylees for years.
• The DOJ has asked that a federal judge in Texas lift a pause in the case so it can file a dismissal.

The Justice Department says it plans to drop a lawsuit it filed against SpaceX in 2023.

The lawsuit alleged that Elon Musk's rocket company violated the Immigration and Nationality Act from September 2018 to May 2022 by discriminating against refugees and asylees.

SpaceX quickly sued to block the case, and proceedings were paused as both sides prepared to argue their case in court.

On Thursday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge in Texas to lift the stay in the initial lawsuit so it could file its notice dismissing the case.

"Defendants respectfully request that the Court lift the stay on the administrative proceeding for 30 days solely for the purpose of allowing the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to file a notice of dismissal of the administrative proceeding with prejudice and to allow the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer to process the notice," the filing says.

The Justice Department says that if the case is dismissed after 30 days, it will then move to SpaceX's case against the government, and "SpaceX will not oppose that relief."

The original lawsuit against SpaceX said that the rocket company discouraged asylees and refugees from applying to positions by falsely stating in job postings that it could only hire US citizens.

It also quoted a 2020 tweet from Musk, in which the billionaire wrote that "US law requires at least a green card" to be hired at SpaceX since rockets are "advanced weapons and technology."

The Justice Department said at the time his claim was untrue.

Lawyers SpaceX didn't immediately return a request for comment from Business Insider. The Justice Department declined to comment, saying the litigation is pending.

Musk is closely linked to the White House DOGE office, an initiative to cut costs that has targeted agencies ranging from the Energy Department to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This story will be updated.

• Florida's pension board has sued Target over its DEI practices.
• The complaint argues that Target misled investors about the impact of backlash to its Pride collection.
• The suit blames Target's stock price troubles on DEI, rather than other business challenges.

The state of Florida has joined the growing legal challenges against Target.

The State Board of Administration of Florida, an agency that oversees public pension funds that own Target stock, has sued the retailer, arguing it misled investors about the impact of backlash to its Pride campaign and DEI initiatives.

Florida argues Target's handling of its 2023 LGBTQ Pride collection was uniquely harmful to shareholders.

"The Campaign provoked immense consumer backlash and boycotts that caused Target's sales to fall for the first time in six years and wiped out over $25 billion in Target's market capitalization—leading Target's stock to experience its longest losing streak in 23 years," the complaint says.

Target did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

The proposed class action lawsuit is related to an earlier shareholder lawsuit filed in August 2023 against Target, as well as one filed last month by the City of Riviera Beach police pension fund. All three lawsuits were filed in federal court in Ft. Meyers.

Target executives did say during an August 2023 earnings call that traffic and top-line trends were affected by backlash to its Pride collection, but added that "it's not possible to reliably quantify the separate impact."

The company has also recently struggled to compete for inflation-weary consumers against larger rivals like Walmart and Amazon, among other business challenges.

Target may be facing the reverse backlash as well, as numerous employees and customers have told Business Insider they no longer support Target after they feel it has caved to anti-DEI pressure.

Last month, Target said it was retiring several DEI initiatives to remain "in step with the evolving external landscape."

Many other retailers have similarly been retooling their approach to DEI following President Donald Trump's executive order announcing the termination of these practices in the federal government.

The January 22 order directs all government departments and agencies to "take strong action to end private sector DEI discrimination."

• A woman is suing a fertility clinic after doctors transferred another couple's embryo into her uterus.
• A DNA test proved the baby belonged to another couple using the clinic's services.
• The woman raised and bonded with the baby for months then lost custody.

Krystena Murray knew something was wrong the moment she first saw her baby.

Murray, 38, is a white woman who elected to have a white sperm donor for her IVF procedure. She gave birth to a baby boy in late December 2023. Her baby was Black.

After taking a DNA test and reaching out to her fertility clinic, she learned that another couple's embryo was transferred into her uterus.

While she fell in love with her newborn, and bonded with him, he wasn't genetically hers. Within five months, she lost full custody of the child to his legal parents — another couple at the clinic.

"I've never felt so violated," Murray, who is suing Coastal Fertility Specialists in Savannah, Georgia, said in a press conference with Peiffer Wolf, the firm representing her.

She said she felt "emotionally and physically broken" after having to give up a child who, until he was born, she believed was hers, and one she grew attached to ever since.

5 months of bonding

Murray had wanted a child for a long time. She'd found a sperm donor — a white man who, like her, had blue eyes and dirty blonde hair — to create embryos.

The moment she delivered the little boy, she felt conflicted. She'd carried him to term and delivered him. As she cuddled him and breast-fed him, she felt a deep sense of bonding.

"The birth of my child was supposed to be the happiest moment of my life, and honestly it was," she told reporters on Tuesday. "It was also the scariest moment of my life."

She had questions about their unexplained racial difference and didn't know what to do. Murray said she didn't post photos on social media or let her loved ones meet her child because she knew they'd have questions, too. Every time the doorbell rang, she worried it was someone coming to take her child away, she said.

A month after giving birth, she got the results of a DNA test she requested. It confirmed what she feared: she was not related to the baby.

The biological parents sued Murray for custody

By March 2024, the clinic realized the wrong embryo had been transferred. Coastal Fertility Specialists contacted the genetic parents of Murray's baby, who sued Murray for custody. Murray hired legal help in multiple states to fight the lawsuit.

Another DNA test confirmed that the couple was related to the baby. Murray's legal team advised her to give up custody, knowing she would lose the family-law case. She gave up the baby in May 2024 and hasn't seen him since.

Murray said the emotional aftermath has been difficult for her. "To carry a baby, fall in love with him, deliver him, and build the uniquely special bond between mother and baby, all to have him taken away," she said. "I'll never fully recover from this."

While the experience made her wary of undergoing IVF again, Murray is currently undergoing the process again at a different clinic.

"I'm hoping to continue my journey to be a mom in the next year or two," she said.

Business Insider has contacted Coastal Fertility Specialists for comment.

Fertility clinic mishaps

This isn't the first time a fertility clinic is at the center of a major lawsuit. In January, a couple sued a clinic after an error in the IVF process destroyed their embryos.

Other high-profile lawsuits involved a woman learning her mother's fertility doctor was her father and patients suing a clinic after a tank malfunctioned and destroyed 3,500 frozen eggs and embryos.

In a press conference, Wolf said he's represented clients of Coastal Fertility Specialists whose embryos were dropped on the ground or had embryos mixed with the wrong sperm or eggs.

This is the first time Wolf's firm has sued Coastal Fertility Specialists.

Copyright claims against AI companies just got a potential boost. A U.S. federal judge last week handed down a summary judgment in a case brought by tech conglomerate Thomson Reuters against legal tech firm Ross Intelligence. The judge found that Ross’ use of Reuters’ content to train its AI legal research platform infringed on Reuters’ […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

• Uber filed suit against its food delivery rival DoorDash on Friday, seeking unspecified damages.
• Uber says DoorDash has cost Uber millions of dollars in revenue through anti-competitive practices.
• A DoorDash spokesperson told Business Insider that Uber's claims are meritless.

Uber Technologies, Inc. on Friday filed suit against its food delivery rival, DoorDash, Inc., accusing DoorDash of anti-competitive business practices that Uber says inflate costs for both restaurants and customers.

In the complaint, Uber alleges that DoorDash, the largest provider of restaurant delivery services in the United States, has "devised and is engaged in an unlawful scheme to stifle competition with Uber Eats," making it difficult and expensive for restaurants to partner with more than one delivery service and allowing the delivery giant to charge customers higher fees for "lower-quality service."

"Restaurants simply cannot afford to stand up to DoorDash, and find themselves powerless to choose the service or services that are best for their businesses in the market for first-party delivery," the complaint, reviewed by Business Insider, reads. "Uber's restaurant-customers have reported feeling like they have a 'gun to their head,' that DoorDash is a 'monopolist,' and that they are being bullied by DoorDash. But most restaurants have no meaningful option to resist DoorDash, given the power it wields through the DoorDash App in Third-Party Delivery."

The complaint says DoorDash's alleged anti-competitive behavior has cost Uber millions in terminated and potential revenue streams. The suit seeks unspecified damages and aims to force DoorDash to change its business practices.

"Uber's case has no merit," a DoorDash spokesperson told Business Insider. "Their claims are unfounded and based on their inability to offer merchants, consumers, or couriers a quality alternative."

As of November, data firm Earnest Analytics reports that DoorDash controls 62.7% of the delivery market nationally, followed by UberEats, which holds 25%, and Grubhub with 6.2%. A 2024 report of mystery shopper data from Intouch Insight, which collected experiences from 300 delivery orders from the three main delivery platforms, found DoorDash leads in customer satisfaction, with the app offering more promotions, delivering to the right location, and delivering the correct food more often than its other major competitors.

The report found that DoorDash also dramatically outperformed its competitors in delivery time, with an average wait of 26 minutes and 24 seconds. Grubhub's average delivery time was 35 minutes and 49 seconds, while Uber Eats was 38 minutes and 4 seconds, per Intouch Insight.

While demand for third-party delivery services remains high — DoorDash reported an 18% rise in orders year over year in its third quarter of 2024, with revenue growing 25% to $2.7 billion, BI previously reported —  criticism over the fees charged by the apps isn't new. Customers may be charged as much as twice the cost of their meal for ordering using a delivery app compared to menu prices, and some restaurant owners find the apps' fees cut into their margins too much to be sustainable, BI previously reported.

"We've increasingly heard complaints from restaurants that DoorDash's tactics are limiting that freedom and punishing them for seeking better options," Sarfraz Maredia, head of the Americas for delivery at Uber, said in a statement to Business Insider. "We hope this filing puts an end to those unfair practices so that restaurants can choose what's best for them without fear of penalty or retribution."