Jst legal settlement text

Case Law Index Food Labeling



January 1, 1995 – February 1, 2025


This index provides a comprehensive though not necessarily exhaustive compilation of reported and unreported federal and state court decisions involving Food Labeling that were decided between the dates listed above. The cases are listed in reverse chronological order. The “Text” link goes to the freely available Google Scholar text of the opinion.  These listings are for educational purposes only and are not a substitute for legal counsel.


SUPREME COURT

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014) (allegedly deceptive labeling of its product as “pomegranate blueberry” when it contained only 0.3% pomegranate juice) Text

Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59 (2003) (state labeling of fluid milk) Text

U.S. v. United Foods, Inc. 533 U.S. 405 (2001) (finding the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act unconstitutional under the first amendment) Text

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (1995) (First Amendment challenge to FAAA banning disclosure of the alcohol content of beer) Text

Federal Sec. Adm’r v. Quaker Oats Co, 318 U.S. 218 (1943) (judicial review of a

We Defend You Against
JST Capital, Inc.


The Langel firm will defend consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by JST Capital, Inc. In appropriate cases, we may investigate claims against JST Capital, Inc. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other applicable laws.

As of August 2013, JST Capital, Inc. has filed at least 97 cases in Queens County alone. JST Capital, Inc. is mainly represented by Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP.

JST Capital, Inc. purchases defaulted consumer debt to collect and sue on them.


JST Capital, Inc. Biographical Information


JST Capital, Inc. is a domestic business corporation incorporated in New York and is principally located at 401 Railroad Avenue, Westbury, New York, 11590. JST Capital, Inc. is licensed (#1320972) by the Department of Consumer Affairs to collect debts in the City of New York.




$20 Million Settlement in Uber TCPA Class Action


Outcome: $20,000,000 settlement



Lathrop, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
, Case No.: 3:14-cv-05678-JST in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California




Vergara v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
, Case No.: 1:15-cv-06942 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois


Tycko & Zavareei LLP achieved a victory in class action lawsuits against Uber Technologies, Inc., asserting breaches of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for the rideshare company sending unwanted non-emergency text messages. TZ was appointed as class counsel. Three distinct classes were identified under the settlement:


Settlement Class A: This class includes individuals in the U.S. who received non-emergency text messages via Twilio Inc.’s system for Uber’s Refer-a-Friend Program.

Settlement Class B: This class comprises individuals in the U.S. who began the Uber driver application process but did not become “active” drivers and received unsolicited non-emergency text messages after requesting Uber to stop such communications.

Settlement Class C: This class incorporates any U.S. persons or e

Introduction



This is not the most recent version of the supervisory methodology. You can find the latest version on the ECB’s banking supervision website.


The following sections provide a broad description of the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) methodology applied to significant institutions under the direct supervision of the European Central Bank (ECB) (as set out in the SSM Regulation
[1]
and the SSM Framework Regulation
[2]
) in SREP 2022, thereby complementing the SREP aggregate results. The ECB continuously refines its supervisory methodologies to ensure they are up to date and reflect the latest supervisory developments as well as regulatory requirements. For example, the credit risk and market risk methodologies for assessing banks’ risk exposure will be revised for SREP 2023.

The ECB carries out the SREP assessment on the basis of a case-by-case approach using a standardised methodology, applying a principle of business and corporate governance neutrality.

The SREP approach:


is consistent with the European Banking Authority (EBA) Guidelines on SREP (EBA/GL/2014/13)
[3]
, relevant Capital Requirements Directive (CRD)
[4]
provisions as transpose