Foods to avoid while receiving Stelara
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
As class action trial looms, Meta and Flo could face 'mind-boggling' damages
July 15 (Reuters) - It's hard to imagine more intimate queries than those that fertility tracking app Flo allegedly asked its users. Among them: When was your last period? How often do you have sex? Masturbate? Do you get yeast infections? As app maker Flo Health and co-defendant Meta are set to face a class action trial in San Francisco federal court next week for allegedly violating the privacy of millions of Flo users, the question now is whether the companies will cut a deal or risk what Flo on appeal, opens new tab termed "mind-boggling" damages. Litigators sometimes bandy about the phrase 'bet-the-company case,' but this could be the real thing. Facebook parent Meta is defending against claims of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which carries statutory penalties of $5,000 per violation. That would add up to at least $190 billion in damages if, as plaintiffs have previously suggested, opens new tab, there are 38 million class members. If each app entry is treated as a separate violation, total damages could be quadrillions of dollars — "a sum so large it may as well be infinite," as Flo put it. A spokesperson for Meta, which is represented by outside counsel from Latham & Watkins and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, said the plaintiffs' claims against the company "are simply false, and we are confident that the evidence at trial will demonstrate the realities." Flo, represented by Dechert, separately is dealing with claims including violations of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which carries penalties of $1,000 per violation. A spokesperson for the London-based, privately held company said Flo "is committed to protecting the privacy of its users, and any allegation otherwise has no merit." The companies have argued that Flo's privacy disclosures gave users notice of the alleged misconduct and that they impliedly consented, that the shared data did not contain personally identifying information and that Meta never 'intended' to intercept communications. According to the Meta spokesperson, the company does 'not want health or other sensitive information' and its terms 'prohibit developers from sending any.' Google, which was also named in the suit, reached a settlement in principle last week on as-yet undisclosed terms. A Google spokesperson did not respond to my request for comment. Given the risk of outsized verdicts (even those that don't involve 16 figures), class actions rarely go to trial. For example, Google last month took a chance on one involving cellular phone data, only to be hit with a $314 million verdict by a California jury on July 1. The Flo plaintiffs invoke California's 1967 invasion of privacy law, a Cold War relic that makes it illegal to covertly eavesdrop or record telephone conversations. As I previously wrote, the cause of action has enjoyed a resurgence of late among plaintiffs' lawyers, especially in connection with the use of chatbots, tracking pixels and other data analytics software. The Flo jury trial, set for July 21 before U.S. District Judge James Donato, looms as current and former Meta leaders face an $8 billion shareholder suit in Delaware that kicks off Wednesday. The shareholders allege Meta executives violated a 2012 agreement between Facebook and the Federal Trade Commission to protect users' data, my Reuters colleague Tom Hals reports. The Flo class action also has its roots in an FTC case. The agency sued Flo, opens new tab after The Wall Street Journal in 2019 reported that it was able to intercept identifying health information about Flo users transmitted by the app to Facebook. The FTC's 2021 settlement required Flo to obtain users' consent before sharing their health information and to notify affected women about the disclosure. According to the follow-on class action, opens new tab, which covers all Flo app users nationwide from Nov. 1, 2016, to Feb. 28, 2019, plus a California subclass, Flo integrated code from Meta and Google's software development kits, which are used for data analytics, into its app. That allegedly allowed the companies to review personal information on users' menstrual cycles, sex lives and pregnancies, despite promises by Flo that the data would remain confidential. The third parties were "were free to use this data for their own purposes," including marketing and advertising, the complaint alleges. "If Plaintiff and Class members had known that Flo Health would share their intimate health data, they would not have used the Flo App." Plaintiffs' lawyers from Labaton Keller Sucharow; Lowey Dannenberg and Spector Roseman & Kodroff did not respond to requests for comment. Donato certified the class in May, writing, opens new tab that the 'loss of control over one's personal information' is a concrete harm, "whether from stealing access to a personal diary in 1916 or obtaining user information in a healthcare app in 2016.' The decision prompted an interlocutory appeal, opens new tab in June by Flo to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Flo argued that Donato wrongly held that the company's class action waiver was unenforceable. The judge deemed the provision unconscionable because it was buried in Flo's terms of service. Flo also argued that the company's use of the software development kits is 'a practice as unremarkable as it is widespread,' and that it disclosed using the kits in its privacy policy and terms of service. Flo also said the transmitted data was de-identified, consisting of alphanumeric strings corresponding to the device on which the app was used. The appeals court in six-sentence order, opens new tab on June 17 denied Flo's petition and declined to stay the lower court proceedings. 'Cases of this magnitude almost never proceed to trial,' Flo noted in its appeal, describing the 'hydraulic pressure' to settle. I can only imagine. But if it does indeed go to trial, all I can say is, pass the popcorn.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Legendary bodybuilder Ronnie Coleman reveals 13-year-old daughter stopped him dying from sepsis
Bodybuilding legend Ronnie Coleman has revealed how his teenage daughter helped save his life as he opened up on his severe health battle. Coleman's family announced earlier this month that the 61-year-old had been ' admitted to hospital' before later revealing he had suffered an 'infection in his bloodstream'. On Tuesday, the former Mr. Olympia spoke out for the first time since being hospitalized with sepsis - a life-threatening medical emergency that arises when the body reacts improperly to infection. The Louisiana native revealed just how close he came to losing that battle, if not for his 13-year-old daughter. 'Man, let me tell you, these past few weeks have been some of the toughest of my life,' he said in a video shared to his Instagram. 'Your boy was hit with sepsis, and it nearly killed me. Had it not been for my 13-year-old daughter, it probably would have.' View this post on Instagram A post shared by Ronnie Coleman (@ronniecoleman8) Coleman didn't expand on how his daughter helped prevent the disease from killing him. The bodybuilder has six daughters - two from his previous marriage and four he shares with his wife and personal trainer Susan Williamson. 'Y'all know me, I've been faced with battles in my life, but nothing like this,' he continued. 'I'm still here because the grace of God still wants me to be here. The support I get from all of y'all, that all helps out a lot.' Coleman went on to announce that his horrific ordeal had inspired him to support the Sepsis Alliance ro raise awareness. Concerns over his health initially arose after he was forced to postpone a scheduled trip to the UK last week. In an Instagram post, Coleman broke news of his illness as he wrote: 'Hey guys, I hate to break it to y'all, but I won't be able to make it out to the UK this week like I planned. Unfortunately, I had a medical emergency and had to stick around here in the U.S. for treatment. 'But don't worry… I'm in great hands, getting the best care, and I'm staying strong through it all. I'll be back and better than ever, and I can't wait to get out there and see you all real soon!' His family later revealed that Coleman would require emergency surgery after doctors discovered an 'underlying health issue' during testing to identify the source of the infection. Coleman holds the, joint, all-time record for most Mr. Olympia titles at eight. He's also previously won 26 International Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation (IFBB) titles and retired back in 2007 after his reign as Mr. Olympia came to an end.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
NHS physician associates should not diagnose untriaged patients, review finds
NHS physician associates should be banned from diagnosing patients who have not already been seen by a doctor, a government review has concluded. The review calls for the government to overhaul the role of physician associates (PAs), who it says have been substituted in for doctors to fill staffing gaps despite having significantly less training. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, ordered the review of the more than 3,500 PAs and 100 anaesthesia associates (AAs) working in the NHS after six high-profile deaths of patients who were misdiagnosed by PAs. Prof Gillian Leng, the president of the Royal Society of Medicine, spoke to more than 1,000 people for the review and concluded there were 'no convincing reasons to abolish the roles of AA or PA' but there was also no case 'for continuing with the roles unchanged'. She wrote in the report: 'Despite the significantly shorter training, PAs and to a lesser extent AAs have sometimes been used to fill roles designed for doctors. The rationale for doing this is unclear, and was probably one of pragmatism and practicality, relying on medical staff to provide the additional expertise when required. 'This lack of planning may have been responsible for driving the resentment felt by some resident [doctors] and potentially exposed patients to unnecessary risk.' One of her main recommendations is that PAs should not see 'undifferentiated or untriaged patients', meaning those who have not yet been diagnosed by a doctor. Leng recommended further work to establish which patients they should be able to see and to set clinical protocols that would enable PAs to diagnose patients with mild ailments. 'Let's be clear, [the role of PAs] is working well in some places, but there indeed has been some substitution and any substitution is clearly risky and confusing for patients,' she said. Leng recommended PAs should be renamed 'physician assistants' and AAs 'physician assistants in anaesthesia' to ensure that patients and their families are clear on whether they have been seen by a doctor. She observed that this confusion was the core concern voiced by the bereaved families she had spoken to, who believed it was a contributing factor in their loved ones' death. She noted in her report that despite the role's rapid expansion since it was introduced in the early 2000s, there was limited data and evidence on whether PAs were safe or unsafe. Most concerns related to PAs being the first clinician to see patients unsupervised. 'Making the wrong initial diagnosis and putting patients on an inappropriate pathway can be catastrophic,' she said. The report found that 'relatively few doctors felt it was appropriate for PAs to diagnose illness' and it identified disparities between the tasks PAs considered right for them to carry out and what doctors thought. Leng recommended that newly qualified PAs work in hospitals for two years before they are allowed to work in GP surgeries or mental health trusts, enabling them to start their careers where there are more training opportunities and supervision. She also recommended more leadership training for doctors, who shared concerns about the lack of preparation for supervision duties, and better career development for PAs and AAs. She suggested a named doctor supervise each PA, while uniforms, lanyards, badges and staff information should be standardised to 'distinguish physician assistants from doctors'. Dr Tom Dolphin, the chair of the British Medical Association, said the report 'laid bare the catastrophic failures in NHS leadership that have put patients at serious risk of harm', but he argued the recommendations did not go far enough on national patient safety standards. 'Prof Leng has succeeded in exposing how NHS England introduced these roles and encouraged their expansion without any robust evidence of their safety,' he said. 'The report reveals inadequate national leadership, no accountability and no attempt to listen to the concerns raised by doctors, patients and coroners. 'The blurring of lines between doctors and non-doctors, aided and abetted by the GMC [General Medical Council], has been an unfolding disaster for all to see, and many doctors today will be relieved to see that they were right to raise the alarm,' Dolphin said. Dr Naru Narayanan, the president of the hospital doctors' union, the HSCA, said: 'Safety concerns will continue until a properly defined national scope is established. The review acknowledges this by calling for standardised job descriptions and clinical protocols. This work needs to be fast-tracked. 'Given how poorly these roles have been defined, and the fact physician assistants earn more after a couple of years of clinical training than resident doctors do after nearly a decade in medicine, it's not surprising there's been tension. We've got a shortage of medical training places and a limited supply of trainers. Additional support and time for senior doctors, as recommended by Prof Leng, are essential.'
