Mention a lawsuit involving Patricia Kotero, and most, if not all, will respond with a puzzled look. Trying the same thing with the name Apollonia instead will garner much more recognition, at least from those in Generation X.

Best known for her starring role next to Prince in 1984's "Purple Rain," Apollonia built a career in TV, movies, music, and podcasting using her unique moniker. She now finds herself filing a complaint to keep Paisley Park Enterprises LLC, the purported estate of Prince Rogers Nelson (Prince), from blocking her trademark applications and imposing its own.

Apollonia argues that she's used the name for 40 years and that Prince fully supported her career before his untimely demise in 2016. She's seeking to have Paisley Park's claims against her trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) dismissed and for the California court to issue an injunction barring them from trying to block her use of Apollonia in the future.

Out With the Vanity, in With the Apollonia

Born as Patricia Kotero, Patty dropped out of high school at 16 to pursue a career in Hollywood. After winning a beauty contest and a stint as a cheerleader for the Los Angeles Rams, she began to accumulate appearances on popular TV shows of the time like Fantasy Island, Knight Rider, and CHiPs.

Her big break came when actress Vanity left her three-woman band, Vanity 6, while the movie Purple Rain was in pre-production. After winning the movie's lead female role opposite Prince, Patty became Apollonia, and Vanity 6 became Apollonia 6. As she was not a trained singer, Lisa Coleman, a member of Prince and the Revolution, doubled her vocals on some of the movie's songs.

Propelled by a Grammy and Academy Award-winning soundtrack, "Purple Rain" became a surprise hit and propelled Apollonia into the public eye. She stayed with Apollonia 6 for another year or so and claimed to have co-written "Manic Monday" with Prince, which became a massive hit for the Bangles. It should be noted that this claim has never been verified.

In 1985, Apollonia left Apollonia 6 and went out on her own for acting roles. In 1988, she released "Apollonia," a solo album. She later mixed acting roles with starting her own multimedia entertainment company in 2005. In 2022, she started a YouTube podcast called Apollonia Studio 6, which features acting and musical guests.

Is This What It Sounds Like When Doves Cry?

Apollonia filed applications with the USPTO in 2016 for Apollonia 6 and in 2018 for Apollonia. Both claimed a start point of 1984 and requested a trademark for entertainment services, noting that she'd been using the name as her public persona for 40 years. They became registered trademarks in 2017 and 2018, respectively.

In her filing, she points out that a 2017 inventory of Prince's estate does not list either Apollonia or Apollonia 6 among the 37 trademarks claimed. Paisley Park filed for trademark registration in late 2018 for Apollonia 6, but was refused by the USPTO due to the existing trademark and because Apollonia was a person and a performer.

Undaunted, Paisley Park responded in 2019 by filing a pair of petitions to cancel with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to address the trademarks given to Apollonia. It claims that the groups involved in an agreement signed between Apollonia and Prince in 1984 are predecessors-in-interest to Paisley Park. This, it argues, means they hold the true trademark rights and that Apollonia's should be cancelled.

In her complaint, Apollonia notes that any statutes of limitations for breach of contract would have long since expired and that Prince never asked her to stop using the Apollonia name. In asking for equitable doctrines of waiver and acquiescence, Apollonia is requesting that Paisley Park's claims be quashed and an injunction put in place to end the matter for good. Receiving that type of ruling might make her "Delirious" indeed.

Related Resources

• What Is an Injunction? When Can You Get One? (findLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• Intellectual Property Law (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
• What Are Statutes of Limitations (FindLaw's Filing a Lawsuit)

The post What's in a Name? Apollonia Files Suit Against Paisley Park Over Trademark Tussle. appeared first on .

For countless college students, the decision to pursue law school can feel like standing at a crossroads — one path marked by stability and tradition, the other by uncertainty and possibility. Alexis Ohanian knows that dilemma well. Even if you’re not familiar with his name, you’ve probably scrolled through Reddit, the company he co-founded after stepping away from a future in law. Ohanian’s choice to leave legal ambitions behind didn’t just alter his own life; it ended up shaping how millions of people connect online.

Wahoos at WaHo

Before Reddit was a household name, before venture capital and tennis royalty entered the picture, Ohanian was just another college student with a plan. Well, a half-baked plan.

The son of an Armenian immigrant, Ohanian grew up in Maryland, surrounded by stories of hard work and sacrifice. “You have a tremendous responsibility to make the most out of what you have,” his aunt would tell him about their family surviving the Armenian genocide. Law felt like a way to honor his family’s journey and secure his own future. It seemed logical. But as anyone who’s ever stared down a stack of LSAT prep books knows, logic doesn’t always win out over inspiration. And for Ohanian, inspiration came in the form of entrepreneurship.

He’d prepared for the LSAT diligently, even taking a prep course. But twenty minutes into the exam, Ohanian realized he felt out of place and had no desire to be there. He walked out, went straight to a Waffle House, and decided to invent his own career instead. “If I wanted these waffles more than the LSAT, I probably shouldn’t be a lawyer,” Ohanian joked on NPR’s How I Built This in 2017.

During his undergrad at the University of Virginia, he lived with a fellow Wahoo named Steve Huffman. The pivotal Waffle House moment led him to team up with his former roommate to launch a business venture. Their first idea was “My Mobile Menu,” a mobile food-ordering app. That might seem derivative today, but this was twenty years ago.

From Rejection to Revolution

The idea was ahead of its time, to a fault; remember, smartphones weren’t ubiquitous back then, and so it wasn’t practical. That pitch was ultimately rejected by YC investor Paul Graham. But Graham saw something in Ohanian and Huffman themselves: “We don’t like your idea, but we like you guys,” he told them. If they were willing to pivot, he’d fund them. YC saw potential in the duo themselves and encouraged them to drop the original idea and work on something else — the spark they apparently needed.

Taking Graham’s advice, they built something totally different. “The suggestion Paul had was to build something people use every day,” Ohanian said in an interview on WIRED’s Uncanny Valley. “Don’t build something in a phone. Build something for a browser.”

They drew inspiration from sites like Delicious and Slashdot. Just weeks later, in June 2005, they launched Reddit. What began as a simple community forum quickly grew into one of the internet’s most influential platforms.

A Dropout and an Inspiration

Ohanian’s willingness to leave behind a conventional path in favor of entrepreneurship is often cited as an example for others facing similar decisions. His story underscores how self-awareness and courage can lead to innovative outcomes.

For anyone standing at their own crossroads, unsure whether to stick with what’s expected or take a leap into something new, Ohanian’s journey offers permission to reconsider what success looks like. Sometimes walking out of the LSAT isn’t just about abandoning one plan; it’s about opening yourself up to possibilities you hadn’t imagined.

We’re not discouraging anyone out there who wants to go to law school to tear up their half-bubbled Scantrons and walk out of the room. But for anyone facing dread of the exam or dread of a career in the law, remember: there is life after LSAT prep, and sometimes, it’s even better than you dreamed.

Related Resources:

• Survey Offers Insight Into the Thoughts, Concerns, and Fears of Potential Jurors (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
• Can the LSAT Stand the Test of Time? (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
• The Out-of-Bounds Sex Toy Shenanigans at the WNBA (FindLaw's Legally Weird)

The post Alexis Ohanian Walked Out Halfway Through His LSAT. Then, He Founded Reddit. appeared first on .

Its name means "so minor as to be disregarded." However, a new executive order targeting low-cost goods is anything but insubstantial.

President Donald Trump's executive order ended the de minimis exemption on August 28, 2025. With over 1.3 billion packages qualifying for the exemption in 2024, there are expected to be delays, costs, and disruptions in shipping that could be significant.

What Is the De Minimis Tariff Exemption?

Created in 1938 for imports with a value of under $1, the de minimis tariff exemption was last updated in 2015 to a minimum value of $800. That means the de minimis tariff exemption allowed the duty-free import of shipped goods valued under $800. Other countries have similar exemptions, although often it is lower. For example, the United Kingdom has a tariff exemption on goods valued at less than 135 pounds.

The idea behind the exemption is that low-cost goods are not worth the expense of collecting tariffs and can reduce the price of certain goods. However, the Trump administration argues that the exemption has become a loophole that other countries are exploiting — not just to import low-cost goods but also to allegedly bring fentanyl into the country.

Shippers claiming the de minimis exemption have risen dramatically in recent years. Last year, 1.36 billion packages with a combined value of $64.6 billion claimed the exemption. In 2015, it was 134 million packages, according to the Associated Press.

However, there are serious concerns that ending the de minimis exemption will increase inflation. The Tax Foundation, a center-right nonprofit policy organization, estimated that current tariff rates, including the end of the de minimis exemption, will cost an average of $1,304 per U.S. consumer in 2025.

What's the New Policy?

Importers will now have to pay a flat fee of $80 to $200 per package. The Trump administration hopes to tax those goods proportionally to their value in the future.

The flat fee is based on concerns over how the current global infrastructure will handle the new policy demands. For example, many international shippers have already suspended most of their U.S.-bound shipments of low-cost goods due to the rapid end of the exemption. Further complicating the issue are President Trump's tariff policies, which are being levied at different rates on a country-by-country basis.

The current offer of a flat duty option of between $80 and $200 per package, instead of being based on the shipment's value and tariff costs, may not be as attractive to importers as the Trump administration hopes, as demonstrated by the suspension of shipments. It remains to be seen how global infrastructure will adapt.

Low Tariffs for Low-Value Items From China

Just under two-thirds of the items that qualified in 2024 were from Hong Kong and China.

The Trump administration has already targeted low-cost goods from China. In May, the Trump administration and China reached a deal. Initially imposing a 120% tariff rate, it was lowered to 54%. According to the Reed Smith Trump Tariff Tracker, China's country-specific tariff is suspended until November 10, so Chinese goods will face a 10% baseline tariff rate on all goods, including low-value goods. A reciprocal tariff could increase to 34% in November unless a new deal is reached.

Expanding Worldwide

The de minimis exemption is now ending worldwide. Many economists fear the revocation will cause a substantial spike in inflation. Already struggling with the uncertainty and added costs from the previous Trump administration tariffs, some industries are already reporting layoffs, lowered production, and even closings.

The global economy is complicated, so there is built-in uncertainty as to the full effect the end of the de minimis tariff exemption will have. For now, American consumers might want to prepare for higher prices in the near future when visiting Walmart, Costco, and other companies reliant on imports.

Related Resources

• What Are Executive Orders? What Are Their Limits (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• Justice Department Promises Increased Enforcement of Tariff Collections (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• U.S. Import Requirements (FindLaw's Litigation and Disputes)

The post U.S. Braces for Shipping Chaos With Removal of 'De Minimus' Exemption appeared first on .

When is a door not a door? When it's ajar!

When is a window not a window? According to class action lawsuits filed against a pair of airlines, it's the blank wall you get despite your ticket stating that you paid for a window seat. Claiming that the airlines were well aware of charging extra for a "premium" seat that doesn't contain the promised window, the suits accuse United and Delta Airlines of deceptive practices and breach of contract.

Both suits allege that the airlines knowingly bilked millions of customers who paid extra for window seats but sat next to a blank wall instead. The potential financial repercussions for Delta and United could be significant.

It's a Miracle (With a Small Bag of Pretzels)

Air travel is a marvel that has become so commonplace that perhaps we're a wee bit guilty of taking it for granted. For example, a few hundred dollars will allow you to hop on a plane in New York and emerge in San Diego, 2800 miles away, in a matter of hours. A replacement for days or weeks spent in cars or boats, it makes the world feel smaller and more accessible.

In addition to being one of the safest methods of travel available, riding in a plane can offer something that would have been almost unimaginable a hundred and fifty years ago — a view of the planet from 30,000 feet above it. Most of us can remember the wonder with which we took our first look out of a plane's window, far up in the sky. Which, admittedly, would have been much more difficult if the window that was supposed to be there were a solid wall instead.

Air travel isn't all great views and rapid transit. Airlines are corporations and do their best to wring every possible dollar out of the hundreds of passengers crammed into the available space of their planes. First class seats may offer a level of comfort that isn't exhausted by the end of the flight, but that's for the few who can afford it or lucked their way into an upgrade.

The majority of travelers find themselves in coach, elbow-to-elbow with others in seats not designed for those of above-average height or weight (or sometimes even average height and weight). Savvy passengers learn which seats, such as emergency row or bulkhead, offer a little more comfort. They also become aware that the extra relief comes with a price tag.

Flying Blind

When choosing a seat to purchase on a commercial aircraft flight, passengers are offered the option of a spot on the aisle, in the middle, or at a window. As claimed in the lawsuits, airlines like Delta and United charge extra for the right to sit next to a window. Rates vary due to other factors, but an upgrade to a window seat can range from $30 to over $100, which is added to the cost of the ticket.

If a passenger pays the extra fee for a window seat, it's not unreasonable for them to expect it to have a window. Due to the construction of several types of planes used by United and Delta, some seats along the outside of the cabin compartment have air conditioning ducts in the wall, making the placement of a window impossible in that location.

Perhaps making it even more difficult for United and Delta to mount a feasible defense is that some other airlines either don't charge window fees for the windowless seats or make it clear to the passenger that there's no window available for a particular seat. These airlines use the same Boeing 737 planes that United and Delta do.

The lawsuits allege that United and Delta, both of which have long been aware of their customers' dissatisfaction with windowless window seats, are guilty of transgressions that include breach of contract, unfair competition, and breach of self-imposed undertaking. In addition to demanding that the airlines stop charging window surcharges for seats lacking a window, the class actions seek damages for those who didn't get what they paid for — a seat with a view.

Related Resources

• How To File a Class Action Suit (FindLaw's Litigation and Appeals)
• Can I Sue an Airline? (FindLaw's Filing a Lawsuit)
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation (FindLaw's Business Laws and Regulations)

The post Delta and United Airlines Face Class Action Suit for Windowless Window Seats appeared first on .

For decades, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) has been the gatekeeper for aspiring lawyers in the United States. Introduced in 1948, the LSAT became a near-universal requirement for law school admissions, serving as a standardized measure of critical thinking skills. But recent years have seen a growing debate over whether this test should remain the gold standard—or whether it’s time to open new pathways to legal education.

A Testy Situation

The push for alternatives began picking up steam in the 2010s, driven by concerns about persistent racial score gaps and the financial burden of test preparation. Critics argued that the LSAT was not only expensive but also contributed to inequities in admissions. For example, Black test takers averaged scores significantly lower than their white and Asian peers (142 vs. 153 out of 180, according to a 2019 study). Supporters of change believed that removing or supplementing the test requirement would foster diversity and allow law schools more flexibility.

In response to these concerns, some law schools began experimenting with admitting small numbers of students without LSAT scores. The American Bar Association (ABA) standards at the time allowed up to 10% of a law school’s admitted class to bypass standardized testing, though most schools stuck with traditional requirements.

GRE and JD-Next

A pivotal moment came in November 2021 when the ABA authorized law schools to accept the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) as a “valid and reliable” (to borrow the ABA’s language of requirements) alternative to the LSAT. Meanwhile, another alternative was quietly taking shape: JD-Next.

Developed by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, JD-Next offers an eight-week online course focused on contract law, followed by an exam testing students’ ability to apply what they’ve learned. JD-Next’s public rollout began in 2023, just as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in university admissions—a decision that incentivized law schools to seek new ways to maintain diversity without explicit racial preferences.

Proponents claimed that JD-Next provided a level playing field across racial and socioeconomic backgrounds and reduced score disparities compared to the LSAT. Law school officials cited peer-reviewed studies supporting JD-Next’s predictive validity and its smaller racial score gaps compared to LSAT. Still, LSAC disputed these claims, arguing there is no evidence that JD-Next reliably predicts law school success like decades-old LSAT data does.

ABA Debates

In 2022, the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar proposed removing the standardized test requirement altogether from its accreditation standards. They argued that mandatory testing constrained innovation and noted that no other accreditor required such tests for professional degrees. Other professional programs, such as medical schools, often use standardized entrance exams like the MCAT, but their accrediting organizations don’t require them to do so. The ABA’s prior move to allow alternatives to the LSAT suggested that law schools should catch up to other fields in having similar flexibility.

However, this proposal met resistance from many law deans and from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which develops the LSAT. Critics warned that eliminating standardized tests could make admissions more dependent on subjective factors like undergraduate institution prestige, potentially disadvantaging minority applicants (which would be counterproductive to the ABA’s goals of being more equitable. Critics also pointed out a lack of data on how such changes would affect student outcomes.

After heated debate, the ABA’s House of Delegates rejected outright removal of the test requirement in early 2023. In response, the Council formed a working group tasked with finding a compromise. They landed on a system that would allow individual law schools to experiment under controlled conditions while gathering data on impacts.

Variance Ventures

In November 2024, the ABA voted to create a new “variance process” – a special procedure that allows individual law schools to apply for permission to waive (or bypass) the usual requirement of standardized tests. If a school is granted a variance, it can admit some or all of its incoming students without requiring these test scores for a set period (usually three to five years). This process lets schools experiment with new admissions methods while the ABA monitors results and collects data.

Under this system, law schools can apply for permission to admit up to 100% of their incoming class without requiring any “valid and reliable” admissions test (including both LSAT and alternatives like GRE or JD-Next) for three to five years. Schools granted variances must share data with the ABA, which partnered with AccessLex Institute to analyze that data. Researchers used the data to examine whether applicant pools grow more diverse, how demographics shift, and how students admitted without test scores performed on bar exams.

By August 2025, over a dozen law schools had applied for this variance, a significant increase from previous years when only small pilot programs existed.

Adoption Rates Remain Mixed

Despite these changes, most applicants still take the LSAT. According to ABA data released in December 2024, out of those admitted with an exam score 38,728 were accepted using LSAT scores, 701 were admitted with GRE scores, and only 23 used JD-Next.

JD-Next saw wider adoption among law schools after Aspen Publishing fully acquired it in November 2024. As of December, 59 out of 196 accredited law schools had sought ABA authorization to accept JD-Next as an alternative admission test — up from just 33 in October 2023.

Some prominent institutions—including Georgetown Law, George Washington University Law Center, Emory University School of Law, Boston College Law School, and Vanderbilt—have received permission to accept JD-Next scores in lieu of LSAT for upcoming admissions cycles (starting fall 2025). However, some schools have delayed implementation or are using JD-Next scores only as supplements rather than replacements.

Looking Ahead

Even as formal requirements relax or diversify, cultural expectations remain strong. Most aspiring lawyers still prepare for the LSAT and submit scores because it remains widely accepted and trusted by admissions committees. The application process may not change overnight: similar trends are observed in medical school admissions, where MCAT scores are submitted even if not strictly required.

For now, while alternatives are gaining ground slowly but surely, the LSAT doesn’t look like it will disappear completely anytime soon.

Related Resources:

• Law School Applicants Play Waiting Game in Highly Competitive Class (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
• Online LSAT Testing To Shut Down in China Over Cheating Concerns (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
• Preparing for the LSAT (FindLaw's Resources for Law Students)

The post Can the LSAT Stand the Test of Time? appeared first on .

The 1957 film "12 Angry Men" is about one juror's conflicting vote keeping a jury from immediately convicting a defendant of murder. Over the course of the movie, the other 11 jurors come to share the holdout's doubts about witness testimonies and the available evidence. Jurors originally convinced the defendant was guilty of murder and deserved the death penalty eventually realize he's innocent instead. The jury casts a unanimous vote to set him free as the film hits the 96-minute mark.

If the movie had been set in Louisiana prior to 2018, it could have ended after five minutes with someone who was not guilty being sentenced to death.

While the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled the practice was unconstitutional in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), Louisiana was one of only two states that allowed juries to enter a verdict without consensus from the jurors until voters banned the practice in 2018. These split jury rulings were also called "Jim Crow Jury" decisions, as they allowed up to two dissenting jury votes to be ignored. What would have been a hung jury and a mistrial in the rest of the country often became lengthy sentences for mostly minority defendants.

The SCOTUS decision in Ramos v. Louisiana was not applied retroactively. Oregon, the other former split jury state, addressed the injustices of its past by invalidating the nearly 500 convictions involving non-unanimous jury decisions in 2023. Louisiana chose to go in the opposite direction. This leaves over 1,000 people convicted by a split jury languishing in prison with no path to having their cases reevaluated. Why?

Gotta Get the Whole Dozen To Agree

In criminal cases that include a jury trial, a conviction can only be secured with unanimity in the verdict from the jurors. This is one of the reasons over 95% of criminal cases never make it to trial, instead settling with a plea agreement. It is one of the few points of leverage a criminal defendant has when securing a plea agreement.

In the Ramos decision, SCOTUS ruled that split jury verdicts showed a historical bias against minority defendants. These "Jim Crow Jury" outcomes typically promoted white supremacy by allowing one or two votes cast for minority defendants to be passed over by the rest of the jury.

While Oregon responded by reconsidering the decisions of those convicted by split juries, Louisiana's lawmakers had something else in mind.

Louisiana Aggressive in Defending Split Jury Convictions

Denying reevaluation of split jury verdicts that led to convictions and prison sentences proved to be a team effort in Louisiana. The people of Louisiana voted to ban the use of split jury verdicts in 2018, but the wording of the ballot initiative, written by the Republican-led legislature, only affected new cases and didn't offer an option to be applied retroactively.

The new law put an end to that, strenuously limiting the power of the prosecutors in those instances. The Louisiana legislature continues to block attempts to address the plight of those convicted by Jim Crow Jury decisions, but the fight doesn't appear to be over yet.

Related Resources

• What Happens When a Jury Is Deadlocked? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• The Right to a Jury Trial (FindLaw's Criminal Rights)
• Jim Crow Laws (FindLaw's Voting Rights)

The post Louisiana Stands Alone in Refusing To Address 'Jim Crow Jury' Split-Jury Verdicts appeared first on .

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has thrown down the gauntlet against LA Fitness, accusing the gym giant of trapping millions of members in a web of red tape and roadblocks when they try to cancel their memberships. The lawsuit marks the latest salvo in the FTC’s crackdown on companies that bury consumers in unwanted recurring charges.

Who’s Suing Who?

The Federal Trade Commission Act empowers the FTC to police unfair or deceptive acts in commerce. The law gives the FTC broad authority to investigate, bring civil actions, and seek remedies against businesses that violate the law.

The two defendants here — Fitness International, LLC and Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC — are not small players in the fitness industry. Both operate under various brands, including the smaller gym chains of Esporta Fitness, City Sports Club, and Club Studio. It also operates the gym giant LA Fitness. With more than 600 gym locations and over 3.7 million members across the United States (and some in Canada), their reach is national. But for ease of reading, we’ll pretend that there’s one collective defendant and refer to it as “LA Fitness.”

Joining Is Easy…

LA Fitness offers health and fitness services through base memberships, which have monthly dues ranging from about $30 to $299, depending on the brand. Annual fees are also tacked on top — usually between $40 and $60.

The way people enroll for memberships is streamlined, at least when it comes to signing up. If you don’t want to interact with a human, online enrollment is available through each brand’s website via a big “Join Now” button. You pick your plan, enter payment details, and confirm your membership. There’s an option to preview your membership agreement before you commit, but it’s easy to miss since it’s tucked behind a gray button that doesn’t stand out. New members are then encouraged to download the company’s mobile app, which lets you book classes or training sessions and check in at the gym. Notably, the app does not allow cancellations.

Beyond basic access to gym facilities, the company pushes a range of add-on services: personal training memberships (with monthly charges from $180 up to $660), towel service for a few bucks a month, childcare options, cryotherapy subscriptions costing hundreds per month — the list goes on. Most of these extras are sold as negative option programs: unless you actively opt out or cancel, you keep getting charged.

Once you’re signed up, these add-ons are often pitched immediately or during your first fitness assessment appointment. The Pro Results personal training program is a prime example, sold as an upgrade with recurring fees and strict cancellation terms. If you try to cancel before your contract ends (usually six to twelve months), you’ll owe half of what remains on your agreement.

…But Cancelling Isn’t

These add-ons might be annoying, depending on what you're looking for, but they might not be so bad if it weren’t so hard to cancel. For as easy as LA Fitness makes it to join, they make you jump through a lot of hoops to get out. If you thought it was convenient that they let you sign up online, well, there’s no parallel process when you decide you want to leave. There are only two main ways to cancel, in person at a gym or by mail, and both involve complicated steps that seem designed to frustrate customers into giving up.

If you choose the in-person route, first you have to log into their website (not the app) and print out a cancellation form. If this sounds simple, keep in mind that many members don’t know their login credentials because they use the app for everything else and were never shown how to access the website during signup. Resetting credentials requires your original email address, your “key tag number,” and part of your bank account or card number—a process that can be confusing or impossible if you’ve lost track of those details.

Once you have your printed form (assuming you even own a printer), you must bring it to your local gym during very limited hours, typically 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, even though most gyms are open much longer each day and on weekends too. But there’s another catch: only one specific employee (the Operations Manager) can process cancellations. If that person isn’t available when you arrive (which happens often), no other staff member can help you; you’ll have to come back another day.

Mail cancellation isn’t much better. You still need to log into the website and print out the form, but then you’re instructed to send it by certified or registered mail at your own expense (meaning an extra trip to the post office). Even after jumping through all these hoops, many consumers report that their mailed forms were ignored or “not received.” Some sent multiple certified letters only to keep getting billed month after month.

More Traps Ahead

On top of all this, there’s confusion about cancelling add-on services like towel service or childcare. These extras are actually separate negative option programs with their own cancellation rules, but that fact isn’t really made clear during signup or in membership agreements. Sometimes these add-ons can be cancelled easily at the front desk by speaking with any employee, but other times, they require separate forms just like base memberships.

For those who try escalating their complaints, the frustration continues. According to the FTC, when consumers call or email corporate headquarters to escalate cancellation requests, those communications are assigned to management staff at individual club locations. The FTC claims that these managers use prepared scripts to direct consumers back into the prescribed cancellation process, even though they have the technical ability to cancel memberships directly.

Some desperate consumers claim they’ve tried blocking payments through their banks or credit card companies once all else fails. But they say that LA Fitness responds by aggressively rebilling (sometimes charging new account numbers they shouldn’t have access to) and continuing automatic withdrawals even after cards are replaced.

Interestingly enough, when complaints come from agencies like the Better Business Bureau or state attorneys general rather than individual customers, LA Fitness allegedly turns over a new leaf. The FTC claims that when approached by the government, defendants suddenly become much more flexible, quickly cancelling memberships and offering refunds without requiring all those steps.

FTC Brings the Hammer

After finding all of these allegations through its investigation and consumer reports, the FTC decided it was high time to act. The agency recently filed a complaint against LA Fitness in federal court, asking for an injunction to stop the gym from continuing these practices.

Legally speaking, the complaint lays out three major violations. First is unfair cancellation practices under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, a classic case where consumers face harm they cannot reasonably avoid themselves and where there’s no benefit offsetting that harm.

Second, the FTC also invokes ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act. That statute is designed to protect consumers from hidden traps in online transactions, especially those involving recurring charges and negative option features. Under ROSCA, companies must disclose all material terms up front and provide a simple way to cancel. If they don’t, the FTC can sue and ask for injunctions, monetary relief, or whatever else the court thinks is appropriate. The FTC claims that LA Fitness violated ROSCA for failing to disclose material terms about how cancellations work and how add-ons differ from base memberships. Third is another ROSCA violation for not offering simple mechanisms for stopping recurring charges.

It's important to remember that the FTC has only made allegations, which have not yet been proven in court. Until a judge rules on the merits or the companies admit to these practices, we can’t say for sure if it’s as bad as the government claims.

But if even some of them are true, they’ve caused a lot of real harm: potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in unwanted charges for gym-goers.

Related Resources:

• Buying Plans and Product Subscriptions (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
• Can I Sue My Gym? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
• "Click To Cancel" Gets Canceled as Eighth Circuit Strikes Down FTC Rule (FindLaw's Federal Courts)

The post FTC Flexes Against LA Fitness for Membership Maze appeared first on .

It's not likely that many attorneys would consider a plea deal that included the permanent surrender of their law license as getting off easy. Then again, none of them were Gary Guymon or facing the charges he was.

On August 26, 2025, Guymon's long legal career came to an ignominious close with a no-contest plea to a pair of felony charges in a courtroom in Las Vegas, Nevada. As part of the plea deal, Guymon agreed to permanently surrender his law license.

How did a respected Clark County prosecutor end up decades later accused of charges that included solicitation to commit murder, sex trafficking, and bribing a witness? It was a long fall for the criminal defense attorney who described himself as a "gorilla pimp" and allegedly coerced a former client into prostitution.

In his defense, Guymon claimed he was suffering from addiction and mental health issues. He declined to make statements beyond a brief apology at the hearing due to an expected lawsuit filing from one of his victims.

Which Law School Class Covers Lap Dances and Forcing Former Clients Into Prostitution?

Guymon had begun to make a name for himself as a prosecutor for Clark County before being caught up in an FBI undercover operation. Beginning in 2003, the investigation focused on bribes and illegal campaign contributions given to Clark County Commissioners by a lobbyist representing strip clubs seeking to get local laws changed.

During court proceedings after the delightfully-named "Operation G-Sting" concluded, a strip club owner testified that he gave Guymon, a frequent patron, free lap dances and set up sexual encounters for him with his strippers. In exchange, Guymon allegedly took care of the assault charges, speeding tickets, and DUIs of the club's employees.

Despite denying the quid pro quo allegations, Guymon left the district attorney's office and eventually became a criminal defense attorney. In 2009, he faced a misdemeanor theft charge from an incident at a resort in Utah. The issue was settled by a no-contest plea to trespassing, but that wouldn't be the end of Guymon's criminal troubles.

Are There "Orangutan Pimps" Too?

As a criminal defense attorney in Las Vegas, some of Guymon's clients included women facing prostitution charges. According to court records, Guymon became involved with a former client in that field in the middle of 2024. While dating, Guymon helped her get a car and an apartment, which she alleged he did to try to control her.

As the relationship soured, he began sending her texts that threatened to "break her teeth" if she didn't do what he wanted her to. Guymon also referred to himself as a "gorilla pimp," slang for someone willing to physically abuse his prostitutes. He allegedly offered a woman $1,000 a month for rent if she'd agree not to report him to the Nevada State Bar Association or cooperate with the police in the investigation against him that began in November 2024.

Guymon was arrested by the Las Vegas Metro Police in February 2025. During the ensuing legal odyssey, Guymon faced a plethora of charges that included the following:

• Bribing or intimidating a witness
• Conspiracy to commit murder
• Coercion with threat of force
• Pandering
• Perjury
• Sex trafficking of an adult
• Solicitation to commit murder

While defiant in proclaiming his innocence early on, Guymon began to change his tune as the legal proceedings progressed. Blaming his alleged transgressions on mental health and addiction issues, he requested that the Nevada Supreme Court apply disability status to his law license. The justices chose to suspend it instead.

As part of his no-contest plea to charges of felony bribery or intimidation of a witness and felony coercion, Guymon agreed to permanent disbarment, two years of probation, and mental health treatment. Despite the potential of several years in prison for each felony, the prosecution chose not to recommend sentencing.

While losing his law license forever will sting, avoiding any jail time despite the hefty number of serious charges he was facing is a deal the former criminal defense attorney has to appreciate. There's no word on whether Guymon's choice of celebration was a walk down the Strip or a lap dance.

Related Resources

• Plea Bargain Advantages and Disadvantages (FindLaw's Criminal Procedure)
• What Does It Really Take To Get Disbarred? (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
• Researching Attorney Discipline (FindLaw's Choosing the Right Lawyer)

The post It's Probation and Disbarment for Former Vegas Prosecutor Turned "Gorilla Pimp" appeared first on .

Hope springs eternal on the day of a wedding. Whether it's a full-blown formal affair with a billowing white dress and a four-piece string quartet playing Canon in D, or tipsy hugging and giggling before an officiant in a Las Vegas wedding chapel, the sharing of vows offers two people the promise of a long and happy life together.

Alas, enduring nuptial bliss is not in the cards for everyone. Even with declines over the past few years, the divorce rate for first-time marriages is still above 40%. While almost all divorces are difficult to live through, being in the public eye can ratchet up the misery. Ignoring court orders doesn't help, either.

The divorce between actor Scott Wolf and reality TV star Kelley Wolf has taken an ugly turn with the arrest of Kelley in Utah on August 26, 2025, on charges of electronic disclosure of personal identifying information and electronic communication harassment. Her violation of a court order threatens to make a bad situation even worse.

This Is Not a Party (of Five)

The marriage between Scott Wolf, an actor best known for his role in the TV series "Party of Five," and Kelley Wolf (nee Limp), a reality TV participant and life and development coach, lasted for 21 years. The couple, who met in 2002 and pledged their troth in 2004, has three children who are part of the contentious divorce proceedings initiated by Scott on June 10, 2025.

While both Wolfs accompanied the divorce announcement with promises to make the process as civil and painless as possible, things turned ugly quickly. On June 13, Kelley was placed under a 5150 involuntary psychiatric hold for emergency mental health evaluation after she tried to leave the country with their children.

As a result, Scott filed for and received a temporary restraining order against Kelley on June 25. It gave him temporary sole physical custody of the children, while Kelley was given supervised visitation rights mainly conducted at the Park Slope residence they formerly shared. The children are aged 16, 12, and 11.

On July 6, Kelley was placed on a second involuntary psychiatric hold after an incident that allegedly involved a knife. She spent a week in a treatment center before being released. The restraining order was dissolved on July 19 after a court date between the two on July 15 set up new parameters for the ongoing divorce proceedings.

Updated in later hearings, it contained a press and social media gag order for both of them. Neither was permitted to post about the other, their marriage, their children, or the divorce. They were also ordered not to disparage one another in front of their children. Kelley found out the hard way what would happen if she broke that rule.

New Technology, New Punishments

Upset with the way the proceedings were going, Kelley vented her frustration on her Instagram account. Unfortunately for her, she may have gone a bit too far.

In direct violation of the recent court-issued gag order, Kelley made a series of posts that disparaged, insulted, and levied allegations against Scott and his family. She also posted Scott's phone number online, and he started receiving calls and texts from unknown numbers in the presence of a police officer there to discuss her threatening texts. Soon after, the officer drove to Kelley's current residence and placed her under arrest.

Electronic harassment and electronic disclosure of personal identifying information, also known as "doxxing," involves the unauthorized sharing of private or confidential materials in public forums. While she was charged with two misdemeanors, Kelley's actions, along with disobeying the court order, could see the charges elevated to felonies. She's being held until she can see both a judge and a mental health professional for a psychological assessment.

Related Resources

• Involuntary Commitment: Patient and Public Rights (FindLaw's Patient Rights Law)
• How To Navigate the Divorce Process (FindLaw's Divorce Law)
• 5 Tips for Law Students on Social Media (FindLaw's Surviving Law School)

The post Kelley Wolf's Arrest During Divorce Shows the Cost of Disobeying Court Orders appeared first on .

Zelle is one of the most used payment platforms in the United States, due in large part to the speed and ease of sending money through the app. But that same speed also opened the door to scammers. Although the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) dismissed a similar lawsuit a few months ago, New York Attorney General Letitia James has decided to take legal action against Early Warning Services, LLC (EWS), the company behind Zelle, for "failing to protect its users from massive fraud for years."

What is the lawsuit about, and what repercussions could it have? What are your options if you've been scammed?

The Allegations

The New York Attorney General's office alleges EWS, which owns Zelle, violated New York law by creating a payment platform highly susceptible to fraud and doing "virtually" nothing to protect users.

The complaint specifies:

• More than $1 billion in losses between 2017 and 2023. “Zelle’s emphasis on immediate and irreversible transfers means that by the time consumers realize they’ve been victimized by scammers, their money is often gone,” according to a statement by the New York Attorney General’s Office.
• EWS knew about the vulnerabilities from the start. “In its rush to launch its platform, EWS prioritized attracting new customers through a simple, easy sign-up process and rapid transfers, while leaving consumers vulnerable to scammers,” who could sign up through “a process that lacked important verification steps and used deceptive email addresses.”
• Zelle was slow to respond to vulnerabilities. “EWS knew, from the outset, that several features of the Zelle network made it especially susceptible to fraud; yet for years it failed to take basic security measures to address these glaring flaws or impose meaningful anti-fraud regulations on its partner banks.” EWS, the lawsuit notes, developed basic safeguards to address these issues as early as 2019, but failed to adopt them.

Will Victims Get Compensation?

This will depend on the decision of a New York state court in Manhattan. If the attorney general's office is successful, restitution and damages would be awarded to the affected New Yorkers. Since the CFPB dropped the case, the decision will only affect residents of New York. However, the lawsuit could result in a court order requiring EWS to maintain necessary anti-fraud measures to protect its customers.

What Does Zelle Say?

Zelle argues that 99.95% of transactions are completed without fraud and calls the lawsuit a political maneuver. In a brief statement, Zelle asserted that it is “a leader in the fight to stop fraud and scams in the United States.” They claim that this lawsuit seeks “to generate publicity, not progress,” and “give criminals a plan for guaranteed payments without consequences, opening the door to more scams.”

How Do the Most Common Zelle Scams Work?

Most fraud scams conducted online, including through Zelle, have similar characteristics. One big red flag to watch out for is urgency. Most fraud schemes request immediate payment either to avoid a catastrophe or to get huge returns — but only if you act immediately.

These are the most common types of scams:

• Business or authority impersonation: Fake calls, letters, or emails from supposed utility company employees or government agencies demanding immediate payments.
• Phantom sales: Offers for nonexistent goods that are available for a limited time. One example is a going-out-of-business sale for a fake company.
• Unauthorized access: Scammers hack into user accounts and send funds to third parties.

What to Do If You Were the Victim of Online Fraud

Time is of the essence. The sooner you act, the more legal options you have. Report the theft to your bank immediately and save all responses you receive. Gather evidence: screenshots, emails, usernames, receipts. Report to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov and to your state attorney general's office.

The New York Attorney General urges all consumers who have been victims of Zelle scammers to report it to the OAG's Bureau of Consumer Fraud.

A qualified attorney can help you file a claim under federal and state consumer laws. Depending on the circumstances, you may also be able to join a class action.

How to Protect Yourself

Fraud crimes are quite common and take many forms: consumer, insurance, telemedicine, identity theft, immigration, credit card, tax, and catfishing. Protecting yourself against all forms of fraud requires a certain amount of care. Here are some things you can do to protect yourself:

• Be wary of urgent requests for online payments. The same goes for too-good-to-be-true job offers that require you to invest money.
• Verify directly with your bank or the company that supposedly contacted you. If a company or official entity is asking you to pay for an outstanding service or bill, they will be able to explain it directly when you call or contact them and provide you with an itemized bill.
• Don't send money to strangers or unknown companies. It seems obvious, but some scammers have gotten good. Watch out for newly created profiles with zero references on online sales platforms like Marketplace, eBay, or OfferUp.
• Set up alerts and use multi-factor authentication. Use it for all of your bank accounts and online payment platforms.
• Get a second opinion: Many scammers take advantage of people's fear or hardship when impersonating banks, companies, or official entities. You can always search to see if it's a growing scam. When in doubt, ask a friend or relative for their take. This also gives you some time to think about it and not react out of fear.

Digital fraud doesn't discriminate between ages or educational levels: anyone can be a victim. If you've been scammed, act quickly and document everything. Getting informed is your best defense.

Related Resources

• Executive Order Encourages Alternative 401(k) Investing, but Will Fund Managers Take the Risk? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• CFPB Drops Another Lawsuit Against Payment App and Banks (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• Multiple Child Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits Have Roblox "Powering Litigation" (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)

The post New York Takes Up Zelle Fraud Case appeared first on .