In a new lawsuit, the Texas Attorney General accuses Netflix of tracking and selling users’ data and behavior patterns to other large tech companies.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit Monday accusing Netflix of misleading users about how it collects and shares personal data, while portraying itself as a privacy-focused alternative to other tech platforms, as CBS News reports.

The complaint, filed under Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleges the streaming company tracks users’ viewing activity, searches, location data, pauses, rewinds, and other behavior to build advertising profiles that are allegedly shared across the broader ad-tech ecosystem, including data tied to children’s accounts.

The lawsuit highlights past comments from Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings claiming the company had “zero interest” in advertising and was not involved in the kind of data controversies surrounding other major tech firms. Paxton alleges Netflix later reversed course after collecting years of subscriber data under those promises.

The suit also accuses Netflix of designing parts of its platform to encourage compulsive use, including autoplay features on kids’ profiles, according to Politico.

“For years, Netflix’s leadership told the world it had ‘zero interest’ in advertising…and styled itself as the anti–Big Ad Tech refuge,” says the complaint. “But once Netflix had stockpiled user data under those promises, it flipped the script and built an ads business that mirrors everything it once attacked.”

A spokesperson for Netflix said the lawsuit is based on “inaccurate and distorted information” and defended the company’s parental controls and privacy practices.

“Netflix takes our members' privacy seriously and complies with privacy and data‑protection laws everywhere we operate,” said the company in a statement, per CBS. “We look forward to addressing the Texas Attorney General's allegations in court and further explaining our industry-leading, kid‑friendly parental controls and transparent privacy practices."

Texas is seeking court orders requiring Netflix to stop the alleged practices, including disabling autoplay on children’s profiles, and purging Texans’ user data.

“I will continue to work to protect Texas families from deceptive practices by Big Tech companies and ensure that corporations are held accountable under Texas law," said Paxton.

Related: Netflix Strikes $83B Deal to Acquire Warner Bros. (and HBO) to Create Content Juggernaut

Image: wellesenterprises/Getty Images

Elderly driver Mary Lau will have to explain what happened in the 2024 West Portal crash that killed a family of four in two civil lawsuits filed by relatives of the family last year, and jurors will determine monetary damages, following Lau’s sentence in criminal court last Friday.

As SFist reported last week, following Mary Fong Lau's sentencing in San Francisco Superior Court last Friday, relatives of the victims may now proceed with two civil lawsuits filed last year, as KGO reports.

During the civil cases, which were intitiated by the families in 2025, Lau will be required to take the stand and explain the circumstances leading up to the collision that killed Diego Cardoso de Oliveira, Matilde Pinto, and their two sons, Joaquin and Caue — unlike during the criminal case where Lau avoided trial.

In February, Lau changed her plea of “not guilty” to “no contest,” allowing the court to treat her as guilty, without admitting guilt, and waiving her right to a criminal trial, which enabled her to skip taking the stand.

“She will not be able to invoke her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination because the criminal case is over,” David Levine, Professor at the University of California College of the Law in San Francisco, told KGO. “There’s no risk that she will be charged criminally for that, so she can’t hide behind that anymore.”

Levine told KGO that Lau’s “no contest” plea in the criminal case will drag the civil cases out longer because the plaintiff’s attorneys will need to go through all of the evidence with the jury before a determination is made since Lau was never found guilty.

Following the judge's decision in the criminal case last Friday, community members and relatives of the victims said Lau’s sentence was too lenient for someone who recklessly plowed into a family of four at 70 miles per hour after veering in-and-out of oncoming traffic. As previously reported, the sentence consisted of two years of probation, 200 hours of mandatory community service, and having her license revoked for three years.

“We believe it’s a slap on the wrist for somebody who took four lives, but in the civil case, we’re going to try to hold her accountable based on civil liability, which measures to figure out what is a fair resolution,” Jim Quadra, attorney for the victims’ families, told KGO (in the above segment).

Lau has been accused of hiding wealth by transferring millions of dollars of real estate assets and cash out of her name during the criminal proceedings. Quadra told KGO his team is still investigating the total amount of funds that were moved out of her account and how to track it all down.

The jurors in the civil suits will now determine the damages based on arguments from the attorneys, but the family is currently focused on accountability.

Previously: Elderly Driver Who Killed Family of Four in 2024 West Portal Crash Avoids Jail Time

Image: Livable City

A former dishwasher at the French Laundry in Yountville has filed a lawsuit on behalf of 50 other employees alleging that the restaurant routinely violates state law around mandatory break times and resting facilities, and that it also failed to pay the minimum wage or overtime.

The lawsuit was filed last week, on March 19, by the Glendale-based Koul Law Firm, as the Press Democrat was first to report. The named plaintiff is Elena Flores Beteta, who the suit says worked as a dishwasher at the French Laundry from 2022 to 2025. The suit names the French Laundry Restaurant Corporation and Thomas Keller Restaurant Group as defendants, but Keller himself is not personally named.

Beteta alleges that that the restaurant failed to pay overtime wages that were owed to her, and she was "required to work off the clock, [and] work through meal and rest periods" without compensation. The suit also contends that the restaurant does not provide breakroom facilities as required by law, and that bathroom facilities for employees are a 10-minute walk away in a storage facility that was consistently filthy.

The Chronicle also reports on the details of the suit, which include claims that employees were required to perform tasks, such as mopping floors, after they had clocked out for the night. And it suggests that meal times were consistently abbreviated by required tasks like taking out trash, or standing in line at the time clock.

The French Laundry issued a statement saying, "We value our employees and maintain a respectful, professional, and inclusive workplace. We are committed to complying with all applicable employment laws and regulations, and we maintain policies and practices designed to promote fairness and compliance across our organization."

This is not the first time that Keller's restaurant group has been sued over alleged labor violations. In 2016, they were sued for pregnancy discrimination when an employee at Keller's New York restaurant Per Se — which serves nearly the same menu as the French Laundry — claimed she was denied a transfer to the Napa restaurant after it had initially been offered to her, after managers discovered she was pregnant. While the restaurant was cleared of wrongdoing in court, the suit was later settled in 2019, per the Chronicle.

Keller's Las Vegas restaurant Bouchon Las Vegas was also hit with a sexual harassment claim three years ago, involving managers there.

A spokesperson for his restaurant group responded to his suit with a statement:

French Laundry is fully compliant with all California employment laws and this is the first person in 48 years to pursue legal action against The French Laundry about time and attendance or meal breaks. This frivolous, attention seeking filing is based on inaccurate, baseless information, including falsely claiming to represent other staff in a desperate effort to feed this false narrative. We are confident that we will prevail on the merits.

This latest class-action suit is reminiscent of two lawsuits in recent years involving alleged labor violations at San Francisco's House of Prime Rib. Those suits contended, among other things, that employees there were denied breaks of any kind, forced to perform tasks while off the clock, and forced to sign waivers forgoing meal breaks.

Over a decade ago, SF dim sum destination Yank Sing agreed to pay $4 million in back wages to employees over similar violations. In 2020, current and former employees of Burma Superstar won a $1.3 million class-action settlement, also over similar labor violations.

In recent weeks, Keller has been in local headlines over a planned affordable housing development in Yountville — with the tone of the headlines suggesting that he is among those fighting against affordable housing in the town, full stop. But Keller and others are arguing that the developer failed to do enough community outreach on the unit mix for the project, which is primarily studios and one-bedrooms — and he says his employees primarily want family housing with more bedrooms.

As of last week, per SFGate, the town of Yountville has put a pause on the development, after receiving enough signatures to put a referendum on an upcoming ballot that will put the zoning issue to voters.

This post has been updated with a statement from the Thomas Keller Restaurant Group.

The jury in a lawsuit over Elon Musk’s 2022 takeover of Twitter found he misled investors by claiming he might walk away over the platform’s bot estimates, prompting some to sell during a downturn before he ultimately went through with the original deal — but fraud claims were dropped.

Nine jurors spent almost four days deliberating the arguments laid out as part of a class-action lawsuit during the nearly three-week trial at San Francisco Superior Court, as KQED reports, filed just before Elon Musk completed his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in 2022, as SFist reported at the time.

The jurors found Musk misled investors by publicly questioning the platform’s bot estimates and suggesting the deal could be paused, which attorneys argued drove down the company’s stock price in the weeks after he signed a binding agreement, but they rejected claims that he engaged in a broader scheme to defraud investors.

The Associated Press reports that Musk could owe about $2.1 billion in damages to shareholders who sold stock during that period, but per KQED, that figure could be closer to $2.6 billion when both shares and stock options are calculated. According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, damages will likely take six months to reach the plaintiffs. Per the AP, Musk is currently worth an estimated $814 billion, much of it through Tesla shares.

On the stand, as KQED reports, Musk said his tweets reflected his personal views and were not intended to manipulate the market, while reiterating his belief that Twitter had understated the number of bots, at times claiming most replies to his posts were spam.

He tweeted that the deal was “temporarily on hold” over bot concerns, per SFist, then hours later said he remained committed, before again suggesting days later that bots could make up as much as 20% of users, as KQED reports. During that stretch, Twitter’s stock fell nearly 18%.

After attempting to withdraw, Twitter sued in Delaware to enforce the agreement, per the AP. Just before trial, Musk reversed course and agreed to complete the purchase at the original price, per SFist.

The AP reports that shares had fallen to about $33 — roughly 40% below the agreed purchase price — during the uncertainty, losses the lawsuit ties to investors who sold amid the volatility. Musk argued that completing the deal at the original price ultimately benefited most shareholders.

"I can't control whether people sell their stock, but everyone who held the stock fared extremely well," Musk said.

Plaintiffs argued Musk’s statements came as Tesla’s stock declined and the deal became more costly, alleging he sought to drive down Twitter’s share price to renegotiate or exit the agreement, as the AP reports. Their attorney said the tweets were deliberate, not impulsive, and urged jurors to compensate investors who sold at a loss after Musk said the deal was “on hold.”

“He was basically saying the company was a sham,” said Mark Molumphy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

“Twitter was an important institution in San Francisco,” before Musk took it over, Molumphy said, per KQED. “It was not a sham; it was a real company, and the way he dragged it through the mud in order to basically get a better deal was atrocious.”

Musk’s legal team repeatedly sought a mistrial, arguing he could not receive a fair trial in San Francisco due to public bias.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs called the verdict a precedent, signaling that executives must carefully consider public statements in high-stakes deals.

“Going forward, this will have a real chilling effect,” said Monte Mann, a Chicago-based business litigation partner told KQED. “Executives and dealmakers will need to think carefully about how public statements can be interpreted — not just as disclosure, but as part of the negotiation itself.”

The case reportedly marks the first time a jury held Musk liable for his social media posts, though he had previously been acquitted in a 2018 Tesla-related investor case, as SFist reported in 2023.

“It's an important victory, not just for investors of Twitter, but for the public markets,” said Joseph Cotchett, an attorney for the plaintiffs, per the AP. “I think the jury's verdict sends a strong message that just because you're a rich and powerful person, you still have to obey the law, and no man is above the law.”

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - MARCH 04: Elon Musk arrives at federal court  on March 4, 2026 in San Francisco, California. Musk is on trial in a  civil case for allegedly manipulating Twitter's stock price prior to his  purchase of the company in 2022. (Photo by Josh Edelson/Getty Images)

Previously: Twitter Shareholder Hits Elon Musk with Class Action Suit for Market Manipulation, False Statements

Jordan Miller, the sole survivor of the horrific Cybertrack crash that occurred in Piedmont during Thanksgiving week in 2024, filed a lawsuit against Tesla Tuesday, claiming that Tesla’s faulty door locks trapped him in the vehicle and contributed to significant injuries from which he’s still recovering.

The crash happened on a night in November 2024, when the driver, Soren Dixon, lost control of the Tesla Cybeertruck on a residential street in the East Bay City of Piedmont, crashing into a cement wall, and then bursting into flames. Three passengers were killed — 19 year-old Piedmont high school grads Dixon, Jack Nelson, and Krysta Tsukahara, as SFist reported at the time. Toxicology reports later showed Dixon had alcohol, cocaine, and meth in his system and was traveling at high speed.

As the Chronicle reports, the fourth passenger, Jordan Miller, filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court Tuesday, alleging that faulty door locks trapped him inside the vehicle and contributed to severe injuries. Prior to Miller’s lawsuit, the parents of Tsukahara and Nelson, who died in the crash, aso filed a lawsuit against Tesla last October, as SFist previously reported.

Tsukahara’s parents claimed in the lawsuit that she died from smoke inhalation and burns due to being trapped in the burning car, as opposed to any injuries sustained in the crash.

As the Chronicle reports, Miller, who was riding in the front passenger seat, was rescued by a friend Matt Riordan, who was driving behind them. As SFist reported last March, Riordan couldn’t get any of the doors to open, and none of the unlock buttons would activate. Per the Chronicle, Riordan eventually broke the window by repeatedly ramming a tree branch into the glass.

“He just sat there in flames with a rescuer pounding on the window, trying to get him out,” Miller’s attorney, Anthony Label, a partner at the Veen Firm, said regarding Miller, per the Chronicle.  

The lawsuit accuses Tesla of selling the Cybertruck with a dangerous design that can trap occupants during emergencies. As KTVU reports, the complaint alleges Tesla was aware of these risks for years and ignored safer alternatives, calling it a “conscious disregard for safety.”

"When you design a vehicle with no mechanical way to open the doors from the outside, you are betting the electronics will work in every scenario, including a high-speed crash followed by a fire," said Miller’s attorney Anthony L. Label, speaking to KTVU. "Someone was there to help immediately. He couldn’t get in. This lawsuit is about what Tesla knew and what Tesla designed."

Miller suffered extensive injuries, including burns to his airways and lungs that left him on a ventilator for days, third-degree burns requiring skin grafts, multiple spinal fractures, and the loss of a portion of his intestines, with lasting impacts expected.

The lawsuit also names Dixon’s estate and the vehicle’s owner, alleging negligent driving and liability for the crash.

As SFist noted in September, Tesla said it planned to redesign its vehicles’ door handles following a report from Bloomberg that revealed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had received more than 140 reports of doors malfunctioning on different Tesla models since 2018.

Most Tesla vehicles currently rely on an electronic button to open doors, with a separate manual release that varies by model and can be difficult to locate, as Fast Company reported. In some cases, the manual latch is hidden in places like beneath the rear-seat carpeting. Reports also note that exterior door handles can fail during power loss, and it’s unclear whether the redesign would address that issue.

Image: @TheRealDriiZZy via Twitter

Previously: Parents of College Students Killed in Piedmont Cybertruck Crash Sue Tesla, Say Kids Were Trapped in Burning Car

In a new video compilation presented in court in a wrongful death case, two former Oakland police officers can be heard laughing after witnessing — and arguably causing — a high-speed crash on June 26, 2022 that killed 28-year-old Lolomanaia "Lolo" Soakai.

As KTVU reports, lawyers for the family of Lolomanaia Soakai presented a 25-minute compilation video in court this week in support of the family's civil wrongful death lawsuit against the officers and the city of Oakland. The officers involved, Walid Abdelaziz and Jimmy Marin-Coronel, were rookies at the time, and they were removed from duty before ultimately tendering their resignations last March.

The incident began after 1 am on June 26, 2022 when Abdelaziz and Marin-Coronel spotted 19-year-old Arnold Linaldi doing donuts in an intersection on International Boulevard in his Nissan 350Z. The new video compilation, portions of which you can see below and all of which can be seen here, shows Linaldi's car in surveillance video, and side-by-side images then show bodycam footage from inside the OPD squad car being driven by Abdelaziz as he and his partner begin chasing Linaldi at high speed, without their lights or siren on.

This is the first time this bodycam footage has been shown publicly, and the compilation also shows the crash itself — when Linaldi slammed into a parked vehicle by a taco stand at International and 54th Avenue — in surveillance video, as well as the bodycam footage of the aftermath, including Soakai wailing over the body of her son, lying on the sidewalk.

In the footage, we hear Abdelaziz ask, "Did he 901?" referring to the crash. His partner responds, "Can't tell."

Abdelaziz says, "Well then let’s go back," and then, apparently able to see the scene, Marin-Coronel says, "Oh he did, huh? He smacked the fuck out of that truck."

We then hear Abdelaziz say, "Man, listen. I wouldn't mind going over there. Hopefully he's fucking dead." And the two officers can be heard laughing.

"The two officers not only engaged in a ghost chase and took a person's life," says Soakai's civil rights attorney, Adante Pointer, speaking to KTVU.  "But they also engaged in a conspiracy to cover it up. And then went to many lengths to avoid accountability. My heart broke for this family. But I also have a rage in me, that people sworn to protect us could be so callous."

The two former officers have been fighting this civil prosecution, trying multiple times to get the case dismissed and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court in January, over the issue of whether a police officer can be held civilly liable for a death that occurs while they are conducting their official duties. But Pointer and co-counsel Patrick Buelna argue that this case presents some unique issues, including the fact that the officers were acting against department policy, conducting a "ghost chase" without their lights on, and attempting to skulk away from the crash scene to avoid appearing liable.

The officers are accused of trying to erase or manipulate footage to cover their tracks, though the department and police commission quickly figured this out and moved to fire them. And the new video shows them returning to the crash scene as if they were just responding to a regular call.

The case has also contributed to an ongoing public debate about police departments' use of high-speed chases, which frequently result in the deaths of innocent bystanders, as this one did — especially when the suspect being chased was not involved in a violent crime.

The attorneys, Pointer and Buelna, have filed a 510-page opposition motion to the defense's motion to dismiss. And US Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim is scheduled to hear summary judgment arguments on April 6, per KTVU.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, declined earlier this month to hear the appeal from the two officers.

Previously: Former Oakland Cops Appeal 'Ghost Chase' Liability Case to Supreme Court

• 85-year-old Rogelio Barajas Martinez was  arrested in connection with the double-stabbing of a couple in Bay Point and is being held in lieu of $1 million bail at the Martinez Detention Facility. [KRON4]
• The family of 4-year-old Ayden Fang, who was fatally struck by a 19-year-old driver in Burlingame in August, are filing a civil lawsuit against the city as well as the driver after the city declined to press charges. [KGO]
• A sea otter and sea lion were found dead from avian influenza at San Mateo’s Año Nuevo State Park, and 14 elephant seals also died from the virus on the California coast. [Bay Area News Group]

National:

• NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission successfully disrupted the orbit of a pair of asteroids, Didymos and Dimorphos, around the sun. Researchers say this confirms the ability of NASA to intercept hazardous objects that could hypothetically be a threat to Earth in the future. [Mashable]
• A red fox from Southampton, England made its way all the way to New York after slipping onto a cargo ship, and it’s now living at the Bronx Zoo. [NBC News]
• BuzzFeed is on the verge of calling it quits after switching much of its workforce over to AI three years ago. [Boing Boing]

Video of the Day:

Enjoy this thrilling scene from Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine featuring Vincent Price driving a cable car across the Golden Gate Bridge.

Image: Leanne Maxwell/SFist

There is now a lawsuit in San Mateo County seeking to stop the county from taking down a controversial fence surrounding some long-vacant property, and the man who put up the fence remains defiant.

The 26-year-old girlfriend of 62-year-old Luke Brugnara — the man who has been causing a stir in Daly City over a hastily erected fence surrounding some long-vacant property, part of which was used for public access to a beach — has filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the fence. Yitong Emily Wen made the filing in state Superior Court on Monday, claiming ownership of the property, and saying that the six-foot-high chainlink fence was code compliant" as the Chronicle reports.

The fence appeared last month around the property that sits next to Thornton State Beach, with a handwritten note attached near a popular beach trail threatening violence against trespassers.

It appears that Brugnara and Wen may be living in an RV on the property — which consists of four parcels — and Brugnara apparently struck an agreement last fall with one of the property's seven owners to purchase that owner's share of the land. The ownership structure is fairly complicated, involving multiple parties, some of whom are siblings, and all of whom are elderly, as the Chronicle has reported.

Brugnara now asserts full ownership, however, telling ABC 7 this week, "Dude, it doesn't matter whether I own 1% or 20%. I have a right to protect my interests, and I have a right to protect the property."

It's unclear why Wen's name is on the lawsuit and not Brugnara's, but Brugnara claims to have made his purchase under an LLC called Olympic Way, and perhaps the girlfriend is also linked to that.

The Chronicle's reporting suggested that this property has been in a sort of limbo, with the seven owners previously seeking to sell it — though a previous development deal ran into complications and fell through. They also suggested that any sale of the land would require the approval of the largest shareholder of the property, Utah resident Bruce Norton. Norton reportedly owns 10/24ths of three of the parcels, and an attorney for Norton has told the Chronicle that whatever deed appeared to have granted Brugnara ownership of a small share of the land would be null and void without Norton's express approval.

Meanwhile, Brugnara was arrested last month by Daly City police for allegedly making criminal threats against a couple walking their dog near the fence. Brugnara and Wen insist that they have not threatened anyone, and Wen further told the Chronicle that the man who filed the police report actually assaulted her.

Brugnara was previously known to SFist as the owner of a Sea Cliff mansion where he was accused of receiving $11 million worth of artwork from a gallery, for which he then refused to pay, claiming the works were gifts and he was intending to open a museum. He ended up being convicted of mail fraud and sentenced to seven years in prison in 2015, and he was let out on supervised release in November 2020.

The Chronicle notes that Brugnara had another run-in in federal court in July 2023, after a firearm that was registered to his girlfriend was found to have his DNA on it — which got him a revocation of his supervised release, and another 456 days in jail.

The entire fence controversy is strange on its face, and it's baffling why Brugnara would want to court so much drama and law enforcement attention, given his other legal troubles.

As ABC 7 reports, there is now a bench warrant for Brugnara's arrest, and legal action pending in a separate federal case against him. Brugnara is accused of defrauding a pandemic-era relief program, getting a PPP loan for $422,000 by lying about the size of his company its number of employees. Federal prosecutors say that his recent arrest in Daly City, for allegedly threatening someone, show that he is a potential danger to the public.

Brugnara claimed this week to be ignorant of the bench warrant, saying, "That's the surprise, I guess, of the day."

Last weekend, some members of the public knocked down several sections of the fence near the beach trail, and this has now reportedly happened three times. Daly City officials told ABC 7 that they would removing the fence as of Thursday (today), though it's not clear if that is still going forward.

Previously: Legal Drama Likely to Heat Up Over Fence Installed on Coastal Property in Daly City

Top image via David Canepa

The descendants of Sidney and Irene Dearing have now filed a lawsuit in Alameda County seeking damages from the City of Piedmont over an egregious, century-old act of racial injustice.

The story of Sidney and Irene Dearing, who were harassed and intimidated — including by an angry mob led by a Ku Klux Klan-affiliated police chief — after purchasing a house in the all-white town of Piedmont, was brought to greater public attention six years ago. And since then, the City of Piedmont has sought to recognize this dark chapter, funding the design and installation of a small sculpture garden on the property the Dearings were ultimately forced to sell, under duress from the city, in 1924.

That commemorative project was still in the concept phase last June, and the city suggested it would be completed by the middle of this year.

But that gesture doesn't go far enough to repair the wrong that was done, and the generational wealth that was lost because of it, according the Dearings' descendants. As KTVU reports, with the help of the Legal Defense Fund, the nation's first civil rights law firm, they have filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court.

The suit seeks damages to compensate for the long-term value of the lost property, as well as an official apology from the city, and "other remedies tied to the loss of generational wealth, educational access and other benefits associated with homeownership in Piedmont."

Piedmont has always been an affluent city surrounded on all sides by Oakland, and it was incorporated as a redlined, whites-only city in 1907, with most of its development occurring in the 1920s and 30s.

Sidney Dearing, the owner of a successful Oakland restaurant, the Creole Cafe, decided in 1924 to purchase a new home that sat at 67 Wildwood Avenue in Piedmont. He would not have been able to execute the transaction himself, as a Black man originally from Texas, descended from Native Seminoles. But he and his mixed-race wife Irene were able to buy the home with the help of Irene's white mother, serving as proxy buyer.

The home was purchased in January 1924 for $10,000. And on May 6, 1924, after catching wind of a Black family moving in, a mob of around 500 Piedmont residents — including open Ku Klux Klan member Burton Becker, Piedmont's police chief at the time — showed up outside the home, demanding the Dearings give up the house and leave.

The city then, allegedly, concocted a workaround to push the Dearings out, telling a court that the land the house sat on was needed to build a new road, and that it had to be taken by eminent domain. In the meantime, the lawsuit says, the family was harassed with cross burnings, threats of lynching, and even attempted bombings.

"The city never intended to build the road," says Leah Aden, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, in a statement to KTVU. "We know based upon the factual record that they put the home up for sale and sold it to a white person a mere few months after the condemnation action was settled, which to us is an indication that they were not intending to build or complete a road, but that the city lied to the Dearings because they did not want a Black family to live in the city of Piedmont."

This historic website, set up by Piedmont native and librarian Meghan Bennett in 2020, documents the significant local news coverage of Dearings' case, and of the incident with the angry mob.

Sidney Dearing tried to get the City of Piedmont to compensate him with $25,000 for the house, but records show they ultimately settled for $10,000, the exact price he had paid. A Chronicle article from the time reported that the city had offered him $8,000, and Dearing had said, "I paid more than that for the house. I wIll sell the place, if they demand it, but they will pay the price that pleases me."

100 years later, Piedmont remains a city that is only 0.8% Black. The city has not yet responded to the lawsuit.

A group of Sunset District businesses are filing a lawsuit against PG&E seeking compensation for lost business during the December 20 power outage, which for some lasted multiple days.

Not satisfied with being given a claim form to fill out and letting PG&E decide if they'll be compensated for lost business and lost product during last month's power outage, several Sunset District business owners are now taking the utility to court.

As KRON4 reports, led by attorney and former SF supervisor Quentin Kopp, some Sunset business owners are filing a lawsuit seeking unspecified damages from the outage, and they held a press conference on Tuesday.

"The longer that PG&E delays appropriate reimbursement for those business losses it caused, the higher the cost to the utility company," Kopp said, per KRON4.

And speaking for the merchants, Sunset District homeowner David Lee explained that adequately compensating some of these mom-and-pop businesses is more complicated than PG&E is making it out to be. And Lee points to subsequent outages that have only impacted the west side.

"Their margins are very, very tight, so the losses they suffered a month ago and subsequent blackouts since — remember, we’ve had now seven blackouts in the Sunset District — have really caused a financial hardship going into the new year," Lee said.

He added, "Many of the merchants are immigrants. They have to download this form, print it out, fill it out by hand, and send in receipts... and there are not enough spaces on the form to list all their items. So there’s some confusion. Oftentimes, the merchants just give up."

PG&E initially announced that all residential customers impacted by the outage would be given a $200 bill credit, and businesses would get a $2,500 bill credit. The company quickly amended that, saying it was willing to pay out more than $2,500The  to businesses, but required filling out the claim form.

PG&E now claims that they have already processed 2,439 such claims, and "approximately 70 percent have been resolved within 13 days." PG&E adds, in a statement, "We’re actively meeting with and supporting our customers, and we continue to process claims related to this outage as quickly as possible."

The blackout, which PG&E has blamed on a fire at a substation in SoMa, occurred on the last Saturday before Christmas, a major shopping day for many. It also coincided with winter solstice celebrations in the Chinese community — for which restaurants and fishmongers had stocked up on highly perishable seafood, much of which went to waste due to the outage.

Tina Zheng, the owner of Irving Seafood Market, was one of those business owners who had to toss thousands of dollars worth of product. As she tells NBC Bay Area, her claim still hasn't been processed by PG&E, and she says, "A couple days ago, maybe three or four days ago, they just replied to my email saying, 'Oh, can you give me more detailed information?'"

PG&E has not commented on the planned lawsuit.

Previously: SF Businesses Still Fuming Over PG&E Outages, PG&E Vaguely Indicates They Might Reimburse Businesses More

Nima Momeni, the man who was convicted one year ago in the stabbing death of Cash App founder Bob Lee, has now filed a lawsuit against multiple media organizations claiming defamation, among other claims.

Momeni, who remains behind bars awaiting sentencing, has reportedly decided to represent himself in a lawsuit against media entities including the SF Standard, Los Angeles Times, and New York Post, seeking $17 million in compensatory damages over the coverage of his arrest and trial.

As the Standard reports, the suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court on Monday, includes claims of defamation, breach of contract, professional negligence, civil rights violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and invasion of privacy.

The suit also names photographer Paul Kuroda as a defendant — Kuroda shot some images of Momeni in his jail cell that the Standard published in late 2023, which Momeni's lawyers argued were grounds to have the trial moved out of the city. A judge disagreed. Kuroda also shot some courtroom images of Momeni early in the legal process, like the one above.

The case, which drew national attention and has since been covered by Dateline, stemmed from an altercation between Momeni and Lee that occurred in April 2023 in which Lee was fatally stabbed, using a kitchen knife taken from Momeni's sister's apartment shortly beforehand. Momeni's defense team argued that he had acted in self-defense, but he was ultimately convicted last December of second-degree murder.

Initial media coverage of the murder — and social media knee-jerk reactions from the likes of Elon Musk and others — attempted to use this to bolster the narrative of a city "out of control" with crime. But within days, fellow tech entrepreneur Momeni was arrested, and the story emerged about how the two men came to be in each others' company the night of Lee's death.

The day before the stabbing, Lee had been hanging out with Momeni's sister, with whom Momeni is reportedly very close. And testimony suggested that Momeni blamed Lee for leaving his sister alone with another man, Jeremy Boivin, who gave her drugs and may or may not have taken advantage of her. The sister, Khazar Momeni, testified in Momeni's defense at the trial, and she and her husband reportedly funded his defense. (And Boivin later told Dateline that he and Khazar Momeni had an ongoing, consensual relationship that continued to the time of the trial.)

This past April, the family of Bob Lee filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Momeni and his family, alleging that they helped to cover up the crime and destroy evidence.

And in June, we learned that Momeni had hired new lawyers, the San Francisco-based team of Daniel Shriro and Boris Bindman, to handle his appeal.

Momeni is scheduled to be sentenced at a hearing on December 12.

Top image: Momeni appearing in court in May 2023. Photo by Paul Kuroda-Pool/Getty Images

The Nanny State is coming after the Coca-Cola Company and other ‘Big Food’ brands right here in SF, as City Attorney David Chiu has sued the manufacturers of ultraprocessed foods, saying they’re behind spikes in cancer and diabetes.

It is very unusual that the San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, who spends a lot of time suing the Trump administration, would make his latest crusade a common goal he shares with the Trump administration’s whackadoodle HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy, Jr. And that new common goal is an aggressive opposition to ultraprocessed foods. Though of course, the Trump administration also lavishing subsidies on the corn and soy industries that make these ultraprocessed foods, and Trump eats about a half-dozen Big Macs every day, so it is difficult to take the administration seriously on this one.  

City Attorney Chiu, however, is far more credible in his opposition. The New York Times reports that Chiu is suing the nations' ten largest manufacturers of ultraprocessed foods, in a lawsuit just filed in SF Superior Court, though it was filed on behalf of the State of California. The Times says Chiu is suing because "cities and counties have been burdened with the costs of treating diseases that stem from the companies’ products," and the lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.

“These companies created a public health crisis with the engineering and marketing of ultra-processed foods,” Chiu said in a Tuesday morning press release. “They took food and made it unrecognizable and harmful to the human body. We must be clear that this is not about consumers making better choices. Recent surveys show Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but we are inundated by them. These companies engineered a public health crisis, they profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused.”

The companies Chiu is suing are the Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International (who make Oreo and Chips Ahoy), Post Holdings (Honeycomb and Peter Pan peanut butter), the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated, and ConAgra Brands (Slim Jim and Chef Boyardee).

The Times estimates that 70% of the US food supply is now ultraprocessed foods. Chiu’s office describes these food products not as food, but as “former whole foods that have been broken down, chemically modified, combined with additives, and then reassembled using industrial techniques such as molding, extrusion, and pressurization.”

In fact, the Times went shopping with Chiu at the Excelsior Safeway to scope out some of these products.

“He picked up a box of Lunchables, a ‘lunch combination’ as the box put it,” the Times explains. “Mr. Chiu struggled to pronounce the ingredients, listed in tiny type measuring a few inches long, which included diglycerides, xanthan gum, calcium propionate and cellulose powder ‘added to prevent caking.’”

“Modified food starch. Potassium sorbate,” Chiu said aloud, reading the ingredients. “It makes me sick that generations of kids and parents are being deceived and buying food that’s not food.

Ultraprocessed foods were popularized during World Wars I and II, as shelf-stable foods for soldiers. Though they were widely unleashed on consumers starting in the 1980s when the food industry consolidated into a small number of major companies. These companies found ultraprocessed foods to be cheaper and more profitable than, you know, real food.

The lawsuit accuses the food manufacturers of “unfair and deceptive acts in connection with the sale and marketing of ultra-processed foods,” and blames these foods for outbreaks in obesity, diabetes, cancer, and liver disease.

So will Chiu win, or will this be another embarrassment like SF’s widely mocked Happy Meal ban attempt of 2011?

The Times cites SF’s victories over cigarette-maker Philip Morris and lead paint manufacturers, though both of those wins came under previous City Attorney Dennis Herrera. For his part, though, Chiu did successfully win a $230 settlement from Walgreens for overprescribing opioids two years ago. So maybe there’s a chance he could pop the Coca-Cola Company and other conglomerates for selling wildly unhealthy food too.  

Related: Judge Rules Walgreens Can Be Held Liable For Overprescribing Opioids in SF, In Landmark Decision [SFist]

Image: MIAMI, FLORIDA - APRIL 16: Boxes of sugary cereal, including those from General Mills, fill a store's shelves on April 16, 2025, in Miami, Florida. As the federal government looks to cut the U.S. budget, companies such as General Mills may lose sales if the cuts include funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since many people on the program buy breakfast cereals. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A legal battle that's been ongoing for about 18 months between upscale membership club CORE and SHVO, the developer behind the revamp of the Transamerica Building, appeared to escalate this week.

We first learned about this dispute in June 2024, involving the New York-based CORE club and SHVO, the real estate firm led by developer Michael Shvo, which purchased the Transamerica Pyramid in early 2020 for $700 million — with the help of German pension fund Bayerische Versorgungskammer, which was a primary investor. CORE, which charges annual membership fees in the range of $100,000, was supposed to be a marquee tenant at the renovated building, occupying its first four floors, and featuring a private restaurant for members.

CORE, which has a location in New York and one either opened or planned in Milan, was supposed to debut in San Francisco in 2023, but the opening was later postponed until 2025, and then indefinitely.

CORE and Shvo had inked a deal in which, as previously reported, Shvo would take a 50% stake in CORE's business, and CORE was accusing Shvo of fraud and "self-dealings," and failing to follow through on some obligations. Meanwhile, Shvo's attorneys said the lawsuit was a "desperate attempt to bail out the owners of the CORE Club from fulfilling the very clear obligations they committed to in a series of binding written agreements."

This week, CORE escalated things with a legal complaint that accuses Shvo and the German investor of engaging in "a massive illegal enterprise in violation of, among other things, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ('RICO')."

The complaint continues from the earlier complaint, and accuses Shvo of failing to meet various obligations with regard to both the New York and SF locations of CORE, and reneging on the buildout of the SF club after cost estimates for an approved design came in at $35 million, and he allegedly wanted that cut to $15 million. "As these problems escalated, Shvo’s team effectively walked away from the project, bringing it to a halt," the complaint says.

It further accuses Shvo of billing design work for his personal yacht to accounts relating to CORE's New York location and a building at 685 Fifth Avenue, and, along with his wife and lawyer, treating the NY club "like his personal playground," racking up charges and mistreating staff.

A spokesperson for SHVO has responded to the complaint, saying, "This is a desperate attempt to distract from the real story here: Core Club is failing, frantically trying to avoid paying more than $3.5 million in owed rent. The very same judge already rejected their assertions of fraud and this is an illegitimate effort to put lipstick on a pig."

The statement adds, "Regarding Core’s newest strategy of rehashing false, unrelated claims about expenses — a third-party audit concluded long ago that those claims have zero merit. Begging the media to write articles doesn’t change the facts and these claims, like the two earlier attempts, will also fail."

The SF Business Times notes that the amended suit, which is still awaiting court approval, is attempting to "paint a broader picture of what it alleges is illegal and fraudulent behavior" by Shvo and his partners. The suit is seeking $250 million in compensatory damages, and other unspecified damages — up from a previous $100 million.

And, as the Business Times reports, this amended complaint follows on a suit brought by SHVO against CORE in San Francisco Superior Court in August, seeking to recoup the entire $178.8 million value of CORE's 20-year lease at the Transamerica Building.

Suffice it to say, it doesn't sound like there will be a fancy membership club at the Transamerica Building, at least not one called CORE.

Previously: Legal Dispute Could Impact Opening of Ultra-Luxe Private Club at Transamerica Pyramid

Top image: Photo by Joseph Barrientos

A woman who was protesting the November 2023 APEC summit in San Francisco was left with devastating injuries from being sucker-punched by a man who had just shown up to volunteer at the event. She's now suing the organizers and the man himself.

The incident happened on November 15, 2023, amid a series of scattered protests focused on a range of issues, as international delegates and President Biden came to town for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit. This was just a month after Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, and Israel's subsequent mass bombing campaign in Gaza, and protest energy was high all over the Bay Area.

Protester Sarah White, now 41, was seen in a video (see below) shouting "Shame!" and "People over profits!" at a man identified later as Michael Davies, 42, who had just shown up at the APEC summit to work as a volunteer. Davies found himself outside the gates of the heavily guarded Moscone Center event and unable to easily get back inside after he'd been told he needed to dress more appropriately to volunteer — Davies's wife reportedly dropped off a sport jacket and change of clothes for him nearby.

Just prior to the assault on White, Davies, who was wearing a conference lanyard, was seen being hassled by a large group of protesters, and he then went to a Secret Service agent who was standing behind a fence, apparently to ask advice about how to get back into the event.

The video above, posted to Xitter, did not include the punch being thrown. But a different video shot from another angle, obtained by the Chronicle, appears to show Davies throwing the punch at White without warning, and then walking away up the sidewalk, where he was pulled aside and detained by SFPD officers.

White was knocked to the ground, hitting her head on a metal plate there, and can be seen lying on the ground reeling. A Chronicle photographer later captured an image of her friend and a police officer helping her walk away from the incident, with paper towel or gauze in her mouth, while Davies sits on a curb, handcuffed.

As White tells the Chronicle, her injuries were not minor. She sustained a broken jaw — broken in two places on opposite sides of her face — a skull fracture, a brain bleed, teeth knocked in, and fractures to the part of her skull that connects to the spine. She spent four nights in the ICU at Zuckerberg SF General, and had her jaw wired shut for two months as her jaw healed.

As she puts it, "He completely rearranged my bones in my body forever," and she tells the paper that doctors told her if she sustains another concussion, it could be fatal. She also continues to suffer from the effects of a traumatic brain injury, including short-term memory loss.

White now has a lawsuit, filed Monday, that alleges assault, battery, and other charges, seeking unspecified damages for her injuries — naming Davies, the National Center for APEC and the APEC Secretariat as defendants. While APEC was supposed to be doing background checks on volunteers, the suit alleges that Davies obtained a volunteer lanyard without any such check — he has a criminal history that includes a vandalism incident in San Francisco, and a Florida conviction for being drunk and disorderly and resisting arrest.

The suit contends that the summit organizers hired Davies, even though "unlike other volunteers available for hire, had not received security credentials from the US Secret Service."

As one of White's attorneys, Adam Shearer, tells SFist, "Michael Davies clearly assaulted Sarah White — that's not in dispute.  But others share responsibility.  The entities that hired and placed him at APEC's CEO Summit failed to screen and train him for protests they knew were coming.  Their negligence contributed directly to what happened."

Separately, Davies faces a criminal proceeding in San Francisco, where he's charged with felony assault. In that case, Davies and attorney Tony Brass are seeking mental health diversion in lieu of jail time — something that Davies received for the earlier vandalism case.

White tells the Chronicle that she sees bad faith in the effort to avoid punishment for the assault, saying, "From my perspective, it’s really hard not to feel like the system is being used in a deeply inappropriate way to benefit people that it was not meant to be there for."

A judge is expected to rule on the diversion request in the coming weeks.

Previously: Man Identified as APEC Volunteer Allegedly Punches Protester as Demonstrations Get More Hostile

Photos via Sarah White

The family of a Marine Corps veteran who had traveled to San Jose to see his granddaughter graduate from college in May is suing the hotel where he was staying after he was found dead and severely scalded in the shower of his hotel room.

77-year-old Terril Johnson had just come to town after driving from Los Angeles on May 22, and was planning to see his granddaughter graduate from San Jose State University the following day. As Bay Area News Group reports, Johnson never made it to the graduation, and was found unresponsive and partially submerged in scalding hot water in the bathtub of his hotel room at the Fairfield Inn & Suites near the San Jose airport, with the water still running.

The family says in a wrongful death claim against the hotel that Johnson was "effectively boiled alive" by the superheated shower water, which far exceeded state regulations for hot-water levels.

Johnson was reportedly found by his grandson, Deshun Johnson, and other family members were present at the hotel as well, including the granddaughter who was set to graduate, Trinity Johnson.

The lawsuit against Marriott International offers a grisly description of events, saying, "When family members rushed to assist, the water was so dangerously hot they could not initially lift him from the tub. As they struggled desperately to save him, they were forced to watch in horror as his skin peeled away from his body."

A coroner's report lists Johnson's cause of death as "severe scalding burns” to his neck, torso, and extremities, in addition to the underlying condition of high blood pressure. It remains unclear why Johnson was unable to exit the shower, but the water temperature, which was reportedly documented at 135 degrees, is capable of causing third-degree burns in a matter of seconds.

"This was not a freak accident; it was the direct result of Defendants’ gross negligence and failure to meet even basic safety obligations," the lawsuit says, per KRON4. The suit was filed on behalf of Johnson’s widow of more than fifty years, his son, his daughter-in law, and his grandchildren.

Johnson served in the Vietnam War and later worked for 23 years as lead technician with the Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority, before his retirement last year.

As his son tells Bay Area News Group, "He was just a fun-loving person. He enjoyed life."

The lawsuit, filed October 15, is seeking unspecified damages, and seeks a jury trial.

Top image via Google Street View