1) Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, sued Snapchat for misleading investors by inaccurately reporting daily active users, which provided false information that could cause major financial losses.
2) Snapchat rejected the claims, saying there was insufficient evidence and that Pompliano was just angry about being fired.
3) The court ultimately ruled that Pompliano's claims were covered by his employment contract, which he was deemed sophisticated enough to understand, so his case was dismissed.
Original Description:
Original Title
madison williams -- business lawsuit case study - google docs
1) Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, sued Snapchat for misleading investors by inaccurately reporting daily active users, which provided false information that could cause major financial losses.
2) Snapchat rejected the claims, saying there was insufficient evidence and that Pompliano was just angry about being fired.
3) The court ultimately ruled that Pompliano's claims were covered by his employment contract, which he was deemed sophisticated enough to understand, so his case was dismissed.
1) Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, sued Snapchat for misleading investors by inaccurately reporting daily active users, which provided false information that could cause major financial losses.
2) Snapchat rejected the claims, saying there was insufficient evidence and that Pompliano was just angry about being fired.
3) The court ultimately ruled that Pompliano's claims were covered by his employment contract, which he was deemed sophisticated enough to understand, so his case was dismissed.
Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, brings Snapchat to court claiming they are misleading investors through inaccurate reporting. Their usage of reporting programs called Flurry and Blizzard inaccurately count the amount of daily active users. This provides investors with false information which could lead to people investing money and having incredible loss. Pompliano claims he was previously fired for bringing this issue to light. Snapchat rejected the claim stating that there is not enough information to back it up and that Anthony Pompliano was simply angry at the company for the loss of his job. He had said that Snapchat lied to him about important financial information, breach Facebook's confidential information, and misled investors. He also claims that Snapchat is covering up the reason they chose to fire him. Still, Snapchat states these claims are irrational. Anthony Pompliano was fired in 2015, only three weeks after starting as head of growth at Snapchat. He filed the case at hand in January of 2017. The time of the lawsuit was incredibly inconvenient for the company as they were working towards their IPO so having investors questioning whether the information they were reporting was accurate or not would be a great damper on the company. They continued to claim the case was insane, bringing up the fact that the ex-employee had done a similar thing to another business before. In the end, the court ruled that the claims made by Pompliano were covered under his contract. He tried to make the argument that the contract is void due to the fact that he did not have an attorney and was made to sign it the same day he received it. It was decided that he was sophisticated and aware enough to read, understand, and sign the contract. The case was dismissed.
American Eagle : Non-consensual Promotional Communications
In 2015 American Eagle violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending customers a promotional text message without their permission. Many people came forward with complaints about receiving messages without giving the company their consent. Some claimed that American Eagle had been violating the TCPA from 2010-2017. The TCDA prohibits any business from contacting customers without their consent. The only exceptions to this are nonprofit organizations, political campaigns, and those trying to establish business relations. The act bans automated calls/texts and pre-recorded messages without previous consent. It also prohibits any company from violating federal or internal do-not-call lists. In some cases even dialing the wrong number can get a business into trouble. As more people came forward and submitted claim forms the problem became very clear. Over 600,000 people filed a claim. Each person who brought a valid claim would receive $142-$285 taken from the $14.5 million settlement paid by American Eagle. While they were willing to pay the settlement, they were not required to plead guilty and admit to sending these messages. While they were forced to pay the settlement, nothing else came from this case. After a few years of back and forth in this case the court dismissed all appeals and affirmed American Eagles settlement. In 2019 consumers who were affected finally received their checks in the mail.
Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group - Pennsylvania Attorney General Consumer Affairs Complaint Form Re Computer Hacking and Pacer - Gov February 2, 2016
Class Action Lawsuit Dioquino V Sempris Complaint - Value Plus - Budget Savers - Cooking in Style, Essentials For Home - Explore USA - FunSource - Homeplay - Vacation Passport