Suit also alleges the site sells counterfeit products, including fake Louisville Slugger baseball caps

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Temu accused of illegal data collection, privacy violations, and counterfeit sales in Kentucky.

• Nachawati Law Group joins forces with Kentucky Attorney General in consumer protection lawsuit.

• State seeks civil penalties, restitution, and further relief in sweeping legal action.

The Chinese-owned shopping app Temu is under legal fire in Kentucky, facing a lawsuit that alleges serious breaches of consumer trust from harvesting private user data without consent to peddling counterfeit goods that undermine the states iconic brands.

The lawsuit, filed in Woodford Circuit Court, accuses Temu and its parent company, PDD Holdings Inc., of violating the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) and the states common law, by profiting through a range of unlawful and deceptive practices.

The case is being spearheaded by Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman in collaboration with the Dallas-based Nachawati Law Group.

Exploiting users using bargain prices

Temu, which has become one of the most downloaded apps in the U.S. by offering deeply discounted consumer goods, is alleged to be doing much more than connecting buyers with inexpensive items. According to the lawsuit, the platform functions as a massive data-mining operation, collecting and exploiting personal user data without consent.

This app was designed to get data from the customers who use it, and the owners use it as a lure for that purpose, said Majed Nachawati, founder of Nachawati Law Group. The worst part is that these breaches of privacy are all being done without the customers knowledge or consent.

Allegations of fraud and counterfeiting

The complaint also outlines a series of alleged fraudulent practices, from misleading product listings and falsified customer reviews to unauthorized purchases made with consumer payment data.

Violation of customer privacy is just one concern with this app, said Brian McMath, trial attorney at Nachawati Law Group. It is a hub for consumer fraud from advertising items that look nothing like what eventually arrives, to faking customer reviews, to using consumer payment information to order items the customer never asked for.

Temu is also accused of profiting from the sale of counterfeit products, including fake Louisville Slugger baseball bats and imitation University of Louisville merchandise. The Kentucky AG's office argues these practices damage the state's economy and tarnish the reputation of its most trusted brands.

Kentucky seeks significant penalties

The state is seeking civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation of the KCPA, along with restitution for affected consumers and any further relief the court may grant. The case, titled Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. PDD Holdings Inc. et al., aims to hold Temu accountable for its alleged disregard of consumer protection laws.

After three tries, judge's ruling is final

• Federal judge dismisses class-action lawsuit over Amazons ad-supported Prime Video tier.

• Court rules Amazon acted within its rights under existing user agreements.

• Plaintiffs barred from refiling after third failed attempt to plead claims.

A federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon that claimed the company deceived Prime Video users by introducing advertisements unless they paid an additional monthly fee. The decision ends months of litigation over Amazons controversial change to its streaming service.

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, ruling from the Western District of Washington on July 16, granted Amazons motion to dismiss the consolidated class-action complaint with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot try again.

Amazons right to modify upheld

Central to the courts ruling was the finding that Amazon had not violated its terms of service. Judge Rothstein referenced a previous ruling that determined the introduction of ads was not a price increase but rather a benefit modification a change the company was authorized to make under the membership agreement.

Amazons terms, the judge emphasized, gave the company sole discretion to add or remove Prime membership benefits at any time. Amazon never promised to Prime members or anyone else that Prime Video would be always, or entirely, ad-free, the company stated in its legal filings.

Plaintiffs' claims ruled unreasonable

The plaintiffs had argued that Amazons move amounted to a bait and switch, misleading customers who believed ad-free streaming was a guaranteed feature of their Prime membership. The lawsuit, originally filed in February 2024, said customers were unfairly forced to pay an additional $2.99 per month to maintain ad-free streaming, something they had already paid for.

Judge Rothstein was not persuaded. She ruled that it was not reasonable for customers to assume that Prime Videos ad-free model would remain unchanged. The decision criticized the plaintiffs for relying on personal expectations rather than the language of Amazons user agreement.

This ruling marks the third time the plaintiffs have attempted to bring similar claims against Amazon. Judge Rothstein noted that each version of the complaint failed to present new or viable legal theories and therefore denied any further opportunity for amendment.

[T]his is Plaintiffs third attempt to plead viable claims, Rothstein wrote. No further amendment will be permitted.

Background and impact

Amazon began rolling out ads on Prime Video content in early 2025, offering users an option to pay $2.99/month to continue watching without commercials. The change sparked widespread customer backlash and legal scrutiny.

Despite customer frustration, the courts ruling affirms that Amazons service agreements allow for such changes. The decision is a major legal win for Amazon and sets a precedent for subscription-based platforms seeking flexibility in adjusting their service offerings.

Lee Enterprises accused of digital privacy violations

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Lee agrees to pay $9.5 million in a privacy settlement with subscribers.

• Now faces three class-action lawsuits from employees over a 2025 data breach.

• Lawsuits allege negligence, breach of contract, and failure to disclose crucial details.

Lee Enterprises, the Iowa-based media company that owns hundreds of newspapers across 25 states, including flagship titles like the Quad-City Times and Omaha World-Herald, is at the center of a growing legal crisis. The company has agreed to a $9.5 million settlement with subscribers alleging digital privacy violations and is now facing three federal lawsuits brought by employees over a massive data breach earlier this year.

Lee reached the $9.5 million settlement Lee with nearly 1.53 million subscribers earlier this year. The lawsuit accused the company of embedding tracking technology in its websites that shared users video-viewing habits with Facebook without proper disclosure or consent.

The class-action case, which involved subscribers who accessed video content on Lee websites between December 2020 and March 2025, claimed that data could be cross-referenced with Facebook accounts to identify individual viewing habits.

After a daylong mediation session in November 2024, the parties accepted a proposal by Judge Wayne R. Andersen to resolve the case. The settlement, if approved at a scheduled August 7 hearing, would not only compensate affected users but also require Lee to revise its digital privacy practices.

New lawsuits allege systemic negligence

Three new class-action lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa accuse Lee of failing to protect employee data during a February 2025 cyberattack. Plaintiffsclaim that sensitive personal information including Social Security numbers, financial records, and health data was accessed by cybercriminals due to Lees lax cybersecurity practices.

The suits allege negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of an implied contract, and invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs are seeking damages on behalf of thousands of current and former employees.

According to the filings, Lee began notifying affected individuals on June 3, 2025, but failed to offer meaningful detailsccomitting the nature of the breach, exploited vulnerabilities, and any protective actions taken afterward. One lawsuit calls the companys notice no real disclosure at all.

Plaintiffs further argue the breach could have been prevented through basic cybersecurity protocols, including encryption, staff training, and intrusion detection systems.

Fallout from February cyberattack

Lee Enterprises disclosed that it incurred $2 million in costs to restore data systems following the February 2025 breach. The attack disrupted operations, including billing and vendor payments. The ransomware group Qilin claimed responsibility, alleging it accessed 350 gigabytes of company data, including contracts and internal documents.

According to filings with the SEC and the Maine attorney general, data from 39,779 individuals was exposed. The compromised files reportedly included a mix of names, Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, medical information, and insurance details.

The employees are represented by law firms in West Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.

The latest incidents add to Lees troubled cybersecurity history. In 2020, Iranian hackers were accused of breaching Lees systems as part of an election-related disinformation campaign. Two Iranian nationals were charged in federal court, and that criminal case remains ongoing.

Consumers who have been supporting local stations may lose programming

As expected, Congress has clawed back funding for public broadcasting in the U.S., culminating an effort that started during the Nixon Administration, led by conservatives who objected to what they say is a liberal taint in the system's programs.

Despite extensive coverage, there has been little attention paid to the consumers who are a major source of funding for public programmingeven though they contribute the largest share, approximately 30%, most of it coming from occasional fund-raising drives and monthly contributions.

Other major sources include foundation grants at 25% and corporate underwriting, about 15% to 20%. Federal funding amounts to 10% to 15%, depending on the station, with states, cities and other sources making up the rest.

Listening to National Public Radio newscasts this morning, there were frequent mentions of impending doom, ignoring the old journalistic principle that one should downplay one's own involvement in a story. There was next to no mention of the $8 billion clawback of foreign aid, which dwarfs the $1.1 billion snatched back from public broadcasting.

One Washington, D.C., station sent out urgent emails Thursday afternoon, hours before the House voted to go along with the Senate to cut public broadcasting's funding.

"Im writing today as someone who shares your belief that trusted journalism is essential for our community and for our democracy.Federal funding for public media has been eliminated."

The email went on to say the loss would amount to "$1.5 million each year about 4-5% of our budget." Given the prominence awarded the story, one might have expected that figure to be higher.

Did it outgrow its roots?

What has come to be known as "public" broadcastingwas originally described as educational broadcasting when it was launched during the Johnson Administration.

There had been educational stations long before 1967, when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed. They were licensed mostly to universities or public school systems and broadcast programming that was intended primarily for use in schools, targeting rural school systems and those in impoverished areas.

Educational radio stations often broadcast mostly classical music and some carried lectures and other instructional programming. Stations licensed to universities trained students who were seeking careers in broadcasting.

Initially, the stations were prohibited from carrying advertising and were warmly supported by commercial broadcasters, who were relieved at not having to produce low-profit educational programming themselves.

Eventually, both the radio and TV stations formed networks to share programming and soon NPR and PBS were producing live news broadcasts, syndicating supposedly high-brow entertainment programming and seeking corporate and foundation underwriting which in many cases grew to closely resemble advertising.

Opinions aside ...

Leaving aside the question of political bias, critics contended that much of what public broadcasting does today needlessly duplicates the content to be found on the internet and on the hundreds of cable and streaming channels now available nearly everywhere.

Stations are now expected to urgently increase their campaigns for funds from viewers and listeners while also stepping up appeals to foundations and corporate underwriters.

They may also have to take a page from the commercial broadcasters and publishers who deal daily with declining audience share, risingcosts and changing audience tastes.

Consumers who for years have invested funds in their local stations may want to make their feelings known and encourage their stations to work harder to stretch every dollar, or to willingly increase their donations if they find public broadcasts to be worthy of increased support.

The agency lifts a ban it put in place, then suspended in 2022

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• FDA authorizes Juuls tobacco- and menthol-flavored e-cigarettes to stay on U.S. shelves, reversing a previous ban due to new data supporting adult smoking cessation benefits.

• Juuls recovery marks a rebound from near-bankruptcy and substantial legal settlements, as it regains a path to investment and potential expansion.

• Public health groups express concern, warning the decision may risk reversing gains in youth vaping reduction.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Juul Labs permission to continue marketing its flagship e-cigarette device, along with tobacco and menthol flavored pods. The action lifts a 2022 ban over concerns about youth vaping.

In June 2022, the FDA issued a marketing denial, citing inadequate toxicology data and concerns about widespread use by teens. A court later paused the ban to permit further review. Juul faced financial collapse, laying off staff and enduring hundreds of millions in legal settlements related to youth-targeted marketing.

The FDA began its investigation of Juul in 2018, demanding it turn over marketing and research materials among numerous other internal company documents. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, at the time FDAs commissioner, said the agency was scrambling to learn why the Juul device was so popular with underage users.

This weeks decision comes after Juul submitted extensive new dataincluding a two-year longitudinal study showing smokers successfully switching completely to Juuland persuaded the FDA that adult smoking-cessation benefits outweigh public health concerns.

Balancing gains and risks

In granting authorization, the FDA emphasized that evidence shows Juuls products can be less harmful than traditional cigarettes when used by adults who quit smoking. However, regulators stressed that the approval does not equate to a declaration of safety, and strongly cautioned that people who do not smoke should not use e-cigarettes.

A spokeswoman noted the agency will continue monitoring compliance, especially in efforts to prevent youth access and usage.

Public health advocates are not happy

The move triggered strong pushback from anti-tobacco advocates. Yolonda Richardson of Campaign for TobaccoFree Kids criticized the decision, calling it a big step in the wrong direction and pointing to Juuls prior contribution to youth vaping.

Public health groups argue that despite falling teen vaping rates owing in part to crackdowns on flavored disposables from unauthorized brands Juul retains enough remaining appeal to minors to pose a renewed threat.