JLL to cut jobs at Amazon's Lake Nona facility
Editor's note: This story is available as a result of a content partnership between WFTV and the Orlando Business Journal.
JLL Inc. will cut jobs at Amazon's Lake Nona distribution facility.
The Chicago-based company (NYSE: JLL) announced in an April 14 Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) letter it will lay off 86 people at 12340 Boggy Creek Road in Orlando due to Amazon selecting a different staffing contractor.
Read: A warm start to Easter weekend across Central Florida
JLL will begin making cuts on June 14.
Click here to read the full story on the Orlando Business Journal's website.
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
37 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA - Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be "equitable." It said the contribution requirement is "inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues." Apple also said the regulator "acted prematurely" and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was "equitable." It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers "has any connection to news production" and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. "What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money," it said. "That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production." In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. "While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services," the broadcasters said. "For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade." A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. "The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants," the office of the attorney general said. "Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters." The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve "an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden." "This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament" and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Will Trump's policies kill Massachusetts' life sciences leadership?
Advertisement Although the industry is centered in eastern Massachusetts, there's a statewide benefit from all the tax dollars those businesses and workers pay. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In all, Massachusetts organizations — including universities, research institutes, and hospitals — received $3.5 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Massachusetts-headquartered companies raised $3.26 billion in venture capital funding. Among all drugs in the development pipeline in the United States, 15 percent were being made by companies headquartered in Massachusetts. But actions taken by President Trump and his administration — cutting funding for scientific research and universities, flirting with tariffs, fanning skepticism about vaccines — threaten to devastate the ecosystem. Today, the industry is at a precipice, and uncertainty abounds. Some companies are already feeling the pinch of terminated federal grants, while others are anxious about what might come. Taken together, Trump's policies could force some companies and scientists to take their money, talents, and products overseas. Advertisement Christopher Locher, CEO of Lowell-based Versatope Therapeutics, which develops a platform to deliver vaccines and therapeutics, said he worries the Greater Boston life sciences ecosystem is 'being flushed down the toilet.' For example, Trump is Trump's funding cuts are already having a large impact on some local companies. Part of the problem is the Trump administration isn't only cutting funding, but it's picking which technologies to fund — in some cases apparently based on politics more than science. Take flu vaccines. The Trump administration recently announced a $500 million campaign to fund the development of a universal flu vaccine, which doesn't require annual updates, using technology being worked on But simultaneously, he cut funding for other work on a universal flu vaccine. Versatope Therapeutics got $14 million in NIH funding and spent five years developing a universal flu vaccine. It had approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to begin clinical trials when Trump terminated the contract's remaining $8 million, with the reason given being 'convenience,' Locher said. Trump also Advertisement Company executives say decisions by Trump officials to disinvest in vaccine-related technology — and concerns about whether government will approve new technology — means it's nearly impossible to find private investment funding to replace lost federal dollars. 'We're faced with bankruptcy in the very near future,' Locher said. Ironically, given Trump's stated commitment to bringing businesses back to the United States, one potential option Locher is eyeing is opening a subsidiary abroad. Conducting clinical trials would be cheaper in another country, whether in Europe, Australia, or China, Locher said, and some countries are offering financial incentives to American companies to relocate. Companies also face a potential workforce brain drain. There have been MassBio officials said China has less rigorous — but faster — safety and research protocols than the US. Australia allows a faster timeline for clinical trials. If regulatory approval of medicines is held up because the FDA is understaffed, companies may seek European regulatory approval instead. The loss of talent to foreign countries will be compounded if the pipeline of local university graduates dries up. One draw for life sciences companies to Boston/Cambridge is the presence of elite schools like Harvard and MIT, with their potential for faculty collaboration and skilled graduates. Advertisement Trump is trying to Chip Clark, CEO at Vibrant Biomedicines in Cambridge, said cuts to university research funding both 'shrink the pipeline of great ideas' that form the basis for many biotech startups and translate to fewer available scientists. Clark said the administration's policies 'seem like a deliberate attempt to try to cede scientific leadership to Europe and Japan and Korea and China. ... They will be delighted to capitalize on our talent, technology, and investment capital to make their robust biotech sectors grow and ultimately compete successfully against the US industry,' he said. Don Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, said he has postdocs with US visas applying for jobs in Europe, and others who were accepted to work at Harvard but are going elsewhere. 'The fact that places like Harvard and MIT and American universities are magnets for the best and brightest from around the world is what's driven our technology economy and certainly the Boston/Cambridge ecosystem,' Ingber said. 'With this uncertainty, I fear we'll lose a generation.' Ingber, who was forced to stop work on two government-funded projects on drugs designed to prevent injury from radiation exposure, compared administration policies to 'eating seed corn' needed to grow crops. Advertisement Trump's vendetta will undermine one of the most vibrant state economies in the country and set back American science by years. And it's not just eastern Massachusetts that will pay a price; the entire country will. As Ingber noted, it might take years to see the impact of medicines or technologies that aren't developed because of these shortsighted cuts. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
