Latest news with #LanhamAct
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Urges Judge Not To Dismiss CBS '60 Minutes' Lawsuit As Paramount And POTUS Teams Talk Settlement
Donald Trump's legal team made its latest filing in his lawsuit against CBS as settlement negotiations continue between network parent Paramount and the president's team. Sources said that an opening offer to Trump has been made, in the eight figures, but that the discussions are still in the early stages. More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Elon Musk Bids Farewell As Official Trump Administration Role Comes To An End Fox News Continued To See Audience Growth In May While MSNBC And CNN Posted Double-Digit Declines Vs. 2024 Meanwhile, Trump's team faced a deadline on Wednesday to file a response to CBS' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Trump sued the network over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris, part of an election special that was broadcast in October. In a preview of the segment that aired on Face the Nation on October 6, Harris was shown giving an answer to a question about Israel-Gaza that was different than the one that was featured on the 60 Minutes broadcast the next day. Trump claimed that the broadcast was deceptive in a way to boost Harris' electoral chances. His amended, $20 billion lawsuit, filed in February, claimed violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the federal Lanham Act, laws typically used by consumers against false advertising. Trump contended that the interview 'improperly diverted' traffic from his media platforms, including Truth Social. In a motion to dismiss, CBS argued that the 60 Minutes preview and broadcast were not commercial speech, but news programming protected by the First Amendment. The network also has denied that the 60 Minutes edits were deceptive and merely made for time constraints, noting that the first part of Harris' answer was shown on the Face the Nation preview and the second for the show's broadcast. In their latest filing, made overnight to a federal district court in Texas, Trump's legal team argued that determining 'that the First Amendment precludes the instant lawsuit would put the cart before the horse—the First Amendment is no shield to news distortion.' Trump's lawyers wrote that 'because they were misled by Defendants' false advertising and tampering with the entirety of the Interview, viewers withheld attention from President Trump and Truth Social by directing their attention to Defendants' media platforms. This increased Defendants' engagement, viewership, and advertising revenue, and decreased the value of President Trump's ownership in TMTG and other media holdings.' Read Trump's response to CBS in 60 Minutes lawsuit. They further added that Trump 'was forced to re-direct significant time, money, and effort to correcting the public record regarding the content of the Interview and Election Special.' A number of legal experts see the lawsuit as meritless. Katie Couric, the former anchor of CBS Evening News, called it 'bulls—' in a recent interview with Jim Acosta, the former CNN host and correspondent. And based on a transcript of the unedited interview, neither part of Harris' answer is clear. But Paramount Global is seeking Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media, and a settlement of the lawsuit is viewed as a way to secure a green light for the transaction. In his interview with Harris, 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker asked her why Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not listening to the Biden administration. Harris replied, 'Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris' answer was shown on the 60 Minutes broadcast; the first part was shown on Face the Nation. But in arguing that they were harmed by the broadcast, Trump's team wrote that merely 'having access to Defendants' services does not mean that a consumer would have watched the Election Special even without Defendants' deceptive advertising of it. Harris's meandering answer in the Preview was engaging in much the same way one cannot look away from a car crash happening in slow motion.' The Face the Nation preview was aired during the show, not during an advertising break. But Trump's team argued that CBS' legal team, in their motion to dismiss, 'neglects to reckon with modern forms of advertising monetization; the consumers' attention is the product which content creators vie for, which they can then monetize with advertisements.' In another filing, Trump's legal team also argued that the Texas court, rather than New York, was a proper venue for the litigation, as CBS had argued that the president was engaged in forum shopping. In his amended lawsuit, Trump added a resident of the state as plaintiff – Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), the former White House physician. The federal judge assigned to the case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was nominated by Trump in his first term. During Joe Biden's presidency, conservative groups sought to file cases in his Amarillo jurisdiction, seeking favorable rulings, per the Texas Tribune. In April, Kacsmaryk noted that he already had granted five deadline extensions for filings in the case, and that any further extensions would have to 'demonstrate good cause.' Best of Deadline 'The Morning Show' Season 4: Everything We Know So Far 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Urges Judge Not To Dismiss CBS '60 Minutes' Lawsuit As Paramount And POTUS Teams Talk Settlement
Donald Trump's legal team made its latest filing in his lawsuit against CBS, as settlement negotiations continue between network parent Paramount and the president's team. Sources said that an opening offer to Trump has been made, in the eight figures, but that the discussions are still in the early stages. More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Elon Musk Bids Farewell As Official Trump Administration Role Comes To An End Fox News Continued To See Audience Growth In May While MSNBC And CNN Posted Double-Digit Declines Vs. 2024 Meanwhile, Trump's team faced a deadline on Wednesday to file a response to CBS' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Trump sued the network over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris, as part of an election special that was broadcast in October. In a preview of the segment that aired on Face the Nation on October 6, Harris was shown giving an answer to a question about Israel-Gaza that was different than the one that was featured on the 60 Minutes broadcast the next day. Trump claimed that the broadcast was deceptive in a way to boost Harris' electoral chances. His amended, $20 billion lawsuit, filed in February, claimed violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the federal Lanham Act, laws typically used by consumers against false advertising. Trump contended that the interview 'improperly diverted' traffic from his media platforms, including Truth Social. In a motion to dismiss, CBS argued that the 60 Minutes preview and broadcast were not commercial speech, but news programming protected by the First Amendment. The network also has denied that the 60 Minutes edits were deceptive and merely for time constraints, noting that the first part of Harris' answer was shown on the Face the Nation preview and the second for the show's broadcast. In their latest filing, Trump's legal team argued that determining 'that the First Amendment precludes the instant lawsuit would put the cart before the horse—the First Amendment is no shield to news distortion.' Trump's lawyers wrote that 'because they were misled by Defendants' false advertising and tampering with the entirety of the Interview, viewers withheld attention from President Trump and Truth Social by directing their attention to Defendants' media platforms. This increased Defendants' engagement, viewership, and advertising revenue, and decreased the value of President Trump's ownership in TMTG and other media holdings.' Read Trump's response to CBS in 60 Minutes lawsuit. They further added that Trump 'was forced to re-direct significant time, money, and effort to correcting the public record regarding the content of the Interview and Election Special.' A number of legal experts see the lawsuit as meritless. Katie Couric, the former anchor of CBS Evening News, called it 'bulls—' in a recent interview with Jim Acosta, the former CNN host and correspondent. Neither part of Harris' answer is clear. But Paramount Global is seeking Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media, and a settlement of the lawsuit is viewed as a way to secure a green light for the transaction. In his interview with Harris, 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker asked her why Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not listening to the Biden administration. Harris replied, 'Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris' answer was shown on the 60 Minutes broadcast; the first part was shown on Face the Nation. But in arguing consumer harm, Trump's team wrote that merely 'having access to Defendants' services does not mean that a consumer would have watched the Election Special even without Defendants' deceptive advertising of it. Harris's meandering answer in the Preview was engaging in much the same way one cannot look away from a car crash happening in slow motion.' The Face the Nation preview was aired during the show, not during an advertising break. But Trump's team argued that CBS' legal team, in their motion to dismiss, 'neglects to reckon with modern forms of advertising monetization; the consumers' attention is the product which content creators vie for, which they can then monetize with advertisements.' In another filing, Trump's legal team also argued that the Texas court, rather than New York, was a proper venue for the litigation, as CBS had argued that the president was engaged in forum shopping. The federal judge assigned to the case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was nominated by Trump in his first term. During Joe Biden's presidency, conservative groups sought to file cases in his Amarillo jurisdiction, seeking favorable rulings, per the Texas Tribune. Best of Deadline 'The Morning Show' Season 4: Everything We Know So Far 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Veteran Trial Lawyer Mary-Olga ‘Mo' Lovett Named to Inaugural Lawdragon 500 Global IP Lawyers
Listing recognizes top intellectual property lawyers HOUSTON, May 28, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Leading trial lawyer Mary-Olga "Mo" Lovett has been named to the inaugural Lawdragon 500 Global IP Lawyers guide, a listing of the world's best intellectual property lawyers. Lawdragon says the guide spotlights attorneys who "nurture patent portfolios, monetize and license them, protect trade secrets and engage in the highest profile litigation over technology, trademarks and other intellectual gold around which the world economy now revolves." "It is an honor to be part of this list," said Ms. Lovett. "I am pleased that my body of work has been recognized in this way, but at the end of the day it all really comes down to ensuring that my clients receive the best representation I can provide." Ms. Lovett, who was recognized for her work in intellectual property litigation, patent, trade secret and infringement cases, launched Mo Lovett Law in January after a 30-plus-year career with King & Spalding and Greenburg Traurig. The firm handles a wide variety of complex legal issues, including patent infringement, trademark infringement, theft of trade secrets, commercial disputes, class actions, employment litigation and product liability matters in state and federal courts across the United States. Ms. Lovett's work includes defending a global energy giant against allegations of billions of dollars in environmental damage, defending a global tech firm in a multibillion-dollar Lanham Act case and prosecuting trademark claims for a Grammy-winning country music group. Ms. Lovett is ranked as a Band 1 trial lawyer by Chambers USA. She has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America and listed for multiple years as one of the Top 50 Women Lawyers in Texas by Super Lawyers. Lawdragon selected honorees through journalist research, attorney submissions and a thorough vetting process. Read the full guide here. About Mo Lovett Law In her 30-year career, Mo Lovett has built a reputation as a battle-tested litigator who has the experience and tenacity to take even the most complex cases to verdict. She has handled dozens of jury trials, over 50 with more than $100 billion at stake combined. Based in Houston, and with principal counsel licensed in Houston and New York, the firm tries cases in state and federal courts. Learn more: View source version on Contacts April Cadena800-559-4534april@ 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
Business Wire
28-05-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Veteran Trial Lawyer Mary-Olga ‘Mo' Lovett Named to Inaugural Lawdragon 500 Global IP Lawyers
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Leading trial lawyer Mary-Olga 'Mo' Lovett has been named to the inaugural Lawdragon 500 Global IP Lawyers guide, a listing of the world's best intellectual property lawyers. Lawdragon says the guide spotlights attorneys who 'nurture patent portfolios, monetize and license them, protect trade secrets and engage in the highest profile litigation over technology, trademarks and other intellectual gold around which the world economy now revolves.' 'It is an honor to be part of this list,' said Ms. Lovett. 'I am pleased that my body of work has been recognized in this way, but at the end of the day it all really comes down to ensuring that my clients receive the best representation I can provide.' Ms. Lovett, who was recognized for her work in intellectual property litigation, patent, trade secret and infringement cases, launched Mo Lovett Law in January after a 30-plus-year career with King & Spalding and Greenburg Traurig. The firm handles a wide variety of complex legal issues, including patent infringement, trademark infringement, theft of trade secrets, commercial disputes, class actions, employment litigation and product liability matters in state and federal courts across the United States. Ms. Lovett's work includes defending a global energy giant against allegations of billions of dollars in environmental damage, defending a global tech firm in a multibillion-dollar Lanham Act case and prosecuting trademark claims for a Grammy-winning country music group. Ms. Lovett is ranked as a Band 1 trial lawyer by Chambers USA. She has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America and listed for multiple years as one of the Top 50 Women Lawyers in Texas by Super Lawyers. Lawdragon selected honorees through journalist research, attorney submissions and a thorough vetting process. Read the full guide here. About Mo Lovett Law In her 30-year career, Mo Lovett has built a reputation as a battle-tested litigator who has the experience and tenacity to take even the most complex cases to verdict. She has handled dozens of jury trials, over 50 with more than $100 billion at stake combined. Based in Houston, and with principal counsel licensed in Houston and New York, the firm tries cases in state and federal courts. Learn more:
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Falsely Claims ‘60 Minutes' Admitted to ‘Crime' of Editing Harris Interview in a Way That ‘Cheated and Defrauded the American People'
President Trump said his $20 billion lawsuit against Paramount Global and CBS, which alleges '60 Minutes' deceptively edited an interview last fall with then-VP Kamala Harris, is 'a true WINNER.' He claimed that Paramount, CBS and '60 Minutes' admitted to committing 'this crime' of editing Harris' answer to eliminate her 'bad and incompetent' response, which he described as having 'cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena.' In fact, Paramount and CBS have argued that they did nothing wrong in the matter — and called Trump's suit 'an affront to the First Amendment' that 'is without basis in law or fact.' Trump's comments came as the president's lawyers and Paramount Global's legal team were said to be starting mediation Wednesday to determine a potential resolution to the lawsuit. Paramount's board outlined 'acceptable financial terms for a potential settlement with the president' at an April 18 meeting, according to a New York Times report, which did not include details of the dollar amount the company has allegedly settled on. More from Variety CBS Delays Matthew Gray Gubler Drama 'Einstein' Until 2026-2027 TV Season Sony Film Chief Tom Rothman and Two Others Sue White House Over Firing From Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board '60 Minutes' Goes on Alert: How the News Program Is Grappling With Paramount and Trump Trump sued CBS a few days before the November 2024 presidential election, alleging that CBS News' '60 Minutes' report violated a Texas consumer protection law by deceptively editing an interview with Harris, and thereby interfered with the presidential election. Earlier this year, the president expanded the lawsuit, alleging an additional claim under the federal Lanham Act and seeking at least $20 billion in damages. 'The case we have against 60 Minutes, CBS, and Paramount is a true WINNER. They cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena,' Trump wrote in a post Wednesday morning on Truth Social, his social-media platform. 'Kamala Harris, during Early Voting and, immediately before Election Day, was asked a question, and gave an answer, that was so bad and incompetent that it would have cost her many of the Votes that she ended up getting. It was a disastrous answer! 60 Minutes and its corporate parents, in order that this not have a negative impact on her, removed and deleted Kamala's entire answer, every word of it, and replaced it with a response that she gave later on to an entirely different question. The new answer was not good, but it didn't show Gross Incompetence like the one that was removed by 60 Minutes. In other words, 60 Minutes perpetrated a Giant FRAUD against the American People, the Federal Elections Commission, and the Federal Communications System [sic].' In the post, Trump suggested that the New York Times — because it reported that 'Legal experts have called the suit baseless and an easy victory for CBS' — could 'possibly' be 'liable for tortious interference, including in Elections, which we are intently studying.' 'Despite all of the above, and Paramount's/CBS'/60 Minutes' admittance to this crime and, with other similar corrupt removals of answers to questions, the Failing New York Times, which is Fake News both in writing and polling, claims that 'people' said that the case is baseless,' the president wrote. 'They don't mean that, they just have a non curable case of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, possibly to the point where the Times' interjection makes them liable for tortious interference, including in Elections, which we are intently studying.' Trump concluded his post by asserting: 'The bottom line is that what 60 Minutes and its corporate owners have committed is one of the most egregious illegalities in Broadcast History. Nothing like this, the illegal creation of an answer for a Presidential Candidate, has ever been done before, they have to pay a price for it, and the Times should also be on the hook for their likely unlawful behavior. It is vital to hold these Liars and Fraudsters accountable!' A Paramount Global rep declined to comment. In March, Paramount moved to dismiss Trump's suit, filing two motions to dismiss the case (one for lack of jurisdiction and the other on grounds that consumer fraud laws do not govern editorial speech). 'If the First Amendment means anything, it means that public officials like Plaintiffs cannot hold news organizations like CBS liable for the simple exercise of editorial judgment,' the Paramount motion said. 'Whether Plaintiffs believe the entire unedited Interview should have aired or only edited in a way they approve, they are not entitled under the First Amendment to demand only news that fits their wishes.' Best of Variety What's Coming to Netflix in May 2025 New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week What's Coming to Disney+ in May 2025
