If things in America weren’t stupid enough, Texas is suing Tylenol maker

**Texas Sues Tylenol Maker Over Unproven Claim That Pain Medicine Causes Autism**

The state of Texas has filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Tylenol, alleging that the company made unsubstantiated claims linking the pain relief medication to autism.

According to the lawsuit, the company promoted the idea that using Tylenol could increase the risk of autism spectrum disorders, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting this assertion.

Authorities argue that these unfounded claims not only mislead consumers but also contribute to public misinformation about the safety of the widely used painkiller.

The case highlights ongoing concerns over false health claims in the pharmaceutical industry and emphasizes the importance of evidence-based information for consumers.

The Tylenol maker has yet to release an official response to the lawsuit. Further updates are expected as the case progresses.
https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/10/if-things-in-america-werent-stupid-enough-texas-is-suing-tylenol-maker/

Kansas SNAP funding accusations examined

**Kansas SNAP Funding Controversy: Attorney General Kris Kobach’s Claims Debunked by Gov. Laura Kelly’s Administration**

Kansas SNAP funding was reportedly at risk of losing $10.4 million, according to claims made by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in a lawsuit filed against Governor Laura Kelly’s administration on September 8. However, these assertions were officially refuted by the Kelly administration on September 30 through a series of press releases, which addressed the most significant claim regarding the potential loss of funding for families depending on the SNAP program.

The Kelly administration stated, “After the USDA rejected the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) Corrective Action Proposal, DCF filed an appeal with the USDA. The filing of that appeal immediately prevented the USDA from withholding the $10.4 million. The State of Kansas has not lost any SNAP administrative funding, and the program continues to operate as usual.”

Moreover, the administration revealed that Kobach made these allegations without conducting prior research or consulting with the Governor’s office. These unsubstantiated claims caused unwarranted panic among Kansas SNAP recipients and raised questions about the continued availability of their benefits. Gov. Kelly was quickly and repeatedly blamed despite no substantial evidence supporting Kobach’s accusations.

In response, Governor Kelly remarked, “Had the Attorney General met with my office prior to filing his lawsuit, as my office had requested, we could have explained the issue without having to go through the time and expense of the court.”

The Kelly administration also clarified that its decision to withhold certain SNAP recipients’ information went beyond Kobach’s claim that Gov. Kelly was “making a show of resistance to the Trump administration,” a statement never issued by anyone in Kelly’s office. Both DCF Secretary Laura Howard and Governor Kelly have expressed distrust of President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring states to share more detailed information about SNAP recipients to prevent fraud.

Secretary Howard explained in an interview with the *Kansas Reflector*, “The release of information isn’t about detecting fraud because those procedures are already in place.” Since effective fraud detection measures were established, Governor Kelly concluded that complying with the federal request to provide additional personal information could potentially violate recipients’ privacy.

Despite this, Kobach characterized the refusal as a “political demonstration,” without providing impartial evidence to support his claim.

Concerns about the Trump administration’s intentions were echoed by multiple parties. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney of California ruled against the federal agency’s effort to enforce this new policy after states raised worries that revealing such data could compromise sensitive applicant information—including income, family details, and immigration status—potentially facilitating mass deportations.

Although the Kelly administration did not participate in this lawsuit, its reasoning aligned with that of 21 states involved in the legal challenge.

Governor Kelly addressed the situation on social media, criticizing the “attacks” against her as “childish” and “idiotic.” She stated on X:

> “As public officials, we should be bigger than that and better than that. Kansans face serious challenges; many are just trying to make ends meet, and they expect us to be focused on their problems, not wasting time on idiotic memes. I’d like to invite the Republican officials who I know also disdain these types of silly attacks to join me in trying to restore a basic sense of civility to our politics.”

At the time of publication, Governor Laura Kelly could not be reached for further comment.
https://kstatecollegian.com/2025/10/16/kansas-snap-funding-accusations-examined/

Why world’s top diesel carmakers are facing a UK trial

**Why the World’s Top Diesel Carmakers Are Facing a UK Trial**

*By Dwaipayan Roy | October 13, 2025, 01:32 PM*

### What’s the Story?

In a landmark case unfolding at London’s High Court, some of the world’s leading automakers are being tried over allegations of using illegal “defeat devices” to cheat on diesel emissions tests. Representing 1.6 million claimants, lawyers accuse companies including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, and Stellantis-owned brands Peugeot and Citroën of deliberately manipulating emissions systems.

This major lawsuit, considered one of the largest in English legal history, comes nearly a decade after the infamous Volkswagen “dieselgate” scandal that dramatically shook the automotive industry.

### Accusations Against the Manufacturers

Claimants allege that these automakers equipped their diesel vehicles with unlawful “defeat devices.” These devices are said to detect when a vehicle is undergoing official emissions testing and adjust performance to meet legal limits. However, under normal driving conditions, emissions would purportedly exceed regulatory standards.

### Defendants Reject the Allegations

The accused manufacturers have strongly denied the claims, describing them as fundamentally flawed. They also reject any comparison to the 2015 Volkswagen scandal, which led to billions in fines and compensation.

Mercedes-Benz, in particular, has defended its emission control systems, stating that their technology was both legally compliant and technically justified.

The trial will focus on examining a representative sample of diesel vehicles from the five manufacturers to determine whether prohibited defeat devices were indeed used.

### Wider Implications of the Case

The outcome of this trial could have significant consequences for many similar claims pending against other automakers, including Stellantis-owned Vauxhall/Opel and BMW.

Martyn Day, a lawyer representing the claimants from the Leigh Day firm, commented that if the allegations are proven, it would reveal one of the most egregious breaches of corporate trust in modern times.

### Previous Legal Precedents

This is not the first time London’s High Court has addressed the issue of defeat devices. In 2020, the court ruled against Volkswagen in a related case.

However, the current group of claims dwarfs the previous Volkswagen case in scale, with claimants’ lawyers estimating its total value at around £6 billion.

Additionally, these automakers are facing similar global lawsuits related to diesel vehicle emissions testing.

**Stay tuned for updates as this pivotal case unfolds, potentially reshaping accountability within the diesel vehicle industry.**
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/auto/london-court-trial-begins-in-diesel-emissions-lawsuit/story

Bombay HC blocks Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra’s international travel amid Rs 60 crores fraud case

**Bombay High Court Blocks Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra’s International Travel Amid Rs 60 Crores Fraud Case**

In a significant development in the ongoing Rs 60 crores fraud case involving Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra, the Bombay High Court has raised serious questions about their request to travel abroad.

The couple had approached the court seeking permission to travel to Colombo and other destinations for a business trip. However, the court, led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, expressed scepticism over the nature of the trip.

Their counsel, Niranjan Mundargi, was directed to submit an affidavit detailing the purpose of the trip. This affidavit must include formal communications and evidence supporting the claim that the travel was indeed for business purposes. The court granted them time until October 14 for the submission of these details.

During the proceedings, when Mundargi reiterated that the trip was for business, Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar remarked with a smile, “You can first deposit Rs 60 crores if you wish to travel abroad.” This comment underscores the court’s serious approach to the case and reflects its scrutiny of the couple’s actions.

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police is investigating allegations that Shetty and Kundra diverted investment funds for personal use. In light of the ongoing investigation, the court has not issued any immediate orders regarding the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against them. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on October 14.

This development adds to the mounting legal challenges faced by the couple, who remain under intense scrutiny over their financial dealings. As the investigation progresses, the court’s forthcoming decisions will be crucial in determining the future course of action.

### Background on the Fraud Allegations

In a related matter, the EOW of the Mumbai Police is investigating a case involving businessman Deepak Kothari. Kothari has accused Shetty and Kundra of diverting Rs 60 crores of his investment for personal use.

The EOW’s findings indicate that Kothari’s funds were misused, leading to the filing of a case against Shilpa Shetty, Raj Kundra, and an unidentified associate. They have been charged under sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

**Also Read:**
– [Shilpa Shetty questioned for 4.5 hours by Mumbai Police in Rs 60 crores fraud case: Reports]

*Stay tuned for live updates on this developing story.*
https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/bollywood/bombay-hc-blocks-shilpa-shetty-raj-kundras-international-travel-amid-rs-60-crores-fraud-case/

Why J&J has been fined $966M in the US

**Why J&J Has Been Fined $966M in the US**
*By Dwaipayan Roy | Oct 08, 2025, 05:15 PM*

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has been ordered by a Los Angeles jury to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died from mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. This ruling follows the jury’s finding that the company’s talc products were linked to cancer.

### Background of the Case
The lawsuit was filed by the family of Mae Moore, an 88-year-old California resident who passed away in 2021. The family initiated the case against J&J in the same year, alleging that the company’s talc products contributed to her illness.

### Verdict Details
The jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and an astounding $950 million in punitive damages against J&J. In response, Erik Haas, J&J’s global vice president of litigation, announced the company’s intention to appeal the decision. He described the verdict as “egregious and unconstitutional” and criticized the plaintiff lawyers for relying on what he called “junk science” that should not have been admitted in court.

### Product Safety and Company Response
Despite the verdict, J&J maintains that its talc-based products are safe, contain no asbestos, and do not cause cancer. The company discontinued sales of talc-based baby powder in the United States in 2020, transitioning to a cornstarch-based alternative. It is important to note that mesothelioma has been medically linked to asbestos exposure.

Trey Branham, attorney for Moore’s family, expressed hope that this ruling will finally hold Johnson & Johnson accountable for what he termed “senseless deaths.”

### Ongoing Litigation
Johnson & Johnson currently faces over 67,000 lawsuits alleging cancer caused by its baby powder and other talc products. While the majority of these claims relate to ovarian cancer, mesothelioma cases form a smaller portion of the litigation.

The company has attempted to resolve the mass litigation by filing for bankruptcy protection, but three such proposals have been rejected by federal courts.

### Settlement and Trial Landscape
Though J&J has settled some mesothelioma claims, it has yet to achieve a nationwide settlement agreement. Consequently, many mesothelioma lawsuits have proceeded to trial in various state courts over recent months.

In the past year alone, J&J has faced several significant verdicts related to mesothelioma, with Monday’s ruling representing one of the largest monetary penalties to date. The company has, however, successfully reduced some awards on appeal, including a $260 million verdict overturned by a state judge in Oregon.

This recent verdict underscores the ongoing legal challenges Johnson & Johnson faces concerning its talc products and the serious claims raised by affected consumers and their families. The company’s appeal process will be closely watched as these cases continue to unfold.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/j-j-hit-with-966m-verdict-in-talc-cancer-trial/story

Federal judge temporarily blocks the Trump administration from deploying troops in Portland

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

The Defense Department had announced it was placing 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard under federal control for 60 days to protect federal property at locations where protests are occurring or likely to occur, following President Trump’s description of the city as “war-ravaged.”

Oregon officials called that description ludicrous.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Portland has recently been the site of nightly protests, which typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.
https://wsvn.com/uncategorized/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-the-trump-administration-from-deploying-troops-in-portland/

Clemson Professor Sues University After Being Fired for ‘Play Certain Games, Win Certain Prizes’ Post About Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

A former Clemson University professor is suing the school, claiming his firing over a Facebook post about the assassination of conservative icon Charlie Kirk violated his First Amendment rights.

Joshua Bregy, an assistant professor in environmental engineering, was one of several Clemson employees dismissed last month after their social media comments sparked outrage from conservatives. The group demanded accountability for professionals who appeared to be gloating over Kirk’s tragic murder.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in federal court, seeks Bregy’s reinstatement, back pay, and damages. It argues that the university bowed to pressure from bullying legislators and an online mob, rather than addressing any internal disruption.

“External pressure, not internal disruption, caused Clemson to fire Bregy,” the lawsuit, obtained by the South Carolina Daily Gazette, states. It continues, “But however challenging it must have been for Clemson to confront bullying legislators or the online mob and its 280-character pitchforks, the First Amendment does not credit Clemson’s impulse to capitulate as a legitimate interest. The Constitution requires a stronger spine than that.”

This is especially ironic given that the “woke left” has spent years pushing for conservatives to be fired and censored online for speech they disagreed with.

Bregy’s post, shared shortly after the shooting, reposted someone else’s comment criticizing Kirk’s past statements on gun rights. Kirk had argued that some gun deaths were a necessary cost for Second Amendment freedoms. The former professor added his own commentary:

“I’ll never advocate for violence in any form, but it sounds to me like karma is sometimes swift and ironic. As Kirk said, play certain games, win certain prizes.”

He further questioned why conservatives weren’t equally outraged over the June 2025 assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman. While expressing superficial sympathy for Kirk’s family, Bregy refused to allow Kirk to be portrayed as a martyr, calling him “a flawed human being whose rhetoric caused notable damage.”

According to the South Carolina Daily Gazette, Bregy’s Facebook settings usually allowed only friends to see his posts. However, because the original post he shared was public, his repost was also publicly viewable, per the lawsuit. After a few hours, Bregy made the post private and then deleted it entirely the next morning at the request of university officials.

Allen Chaney, Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, said in a statement: “The First Amendment protects the rights of public employees to speak in their personal capacity on important public topics. When it comes to free speech, Clemson isn’t allowed to cave to the whims of a political mob. Fortunately for us all, the Constitution is made of sterner stuff than that.”

Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA and a leading voice in conservative activism, was fatally shot on September 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University. The brazen act of political violence shocked the world.

In the immediate aftermath, conservatives mobilized and secured the firing or disciplining of dozens of educators across the country for posts that mocked or downplayed the assassination.

The South Carolina Daily Gazette reports that Clemson released a statement on September 12 expressing disagreement with the statements made by the professors but recognized their First Amendment rights to free speech.

However, the next day, GOP leaders in both state legislature chambers—including the lead budget writers in each—sent a letter to Clemson’s Board of Trustees calling for immediate and appropriate action.

While the letter did not specify what action should be taken, the lawsuit alleges the message was clear. The choice of signatories, combined with their authority over Clemson’s budget, conveyed this warning: fire Joshua Bregy and fellow professor Melvin Villaver, or face potential funding cuts.

An hour before an emergency board meeting on September 15, Clemson announced it had suspended Bregy and another professor from teaching duties and fired a third employee.

In his termination letter, Bregy was informed that he had engaged in “blatantly unprofessional conduct” and conduct “seriously prejudicial to the University.” The letter stated, “You did not show due restraint or respect, and you made no effort when you reposted to state that your views did not represent the views of Clemson University.”

To date, Clemson University has not publicly commented on the lawsuit.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/clemson-professor-sues-university-after-being-fired-play/