0 comments

---

So were back to this? And we thought worker intimidation was soooooooo last year.

In 2007, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing Wal-Mart’s unionbusting policies and practices in the United States. According to the report, “while many American companies use weak U.S. laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus.”

That aggressiveness is back in the news, courtesy of a unionizing push in St. Paul, Minnesota:

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789 filed unfair labor practices complaints this week with the National Labor Relations Board. The union contends that during meetings with employees at its Midway store in St. Paul, Wal-Mart managers said people who sign union authorization cards would be fired. The union also charges that store managers interrogated employees regarding their union support and whether they had signed cards in favor of the union.

Of course this shouldn’t be very surprising, though it does seem pretty interesting that management staff came right out and told people that they’d no longer be a Wal-Mart employee if they supported unionization. You’d think they would hew closer to the Godfather-esque, vague threat route - we can’t be held responsible if, say, a supporter “had an accident” type thing. They should know that threatening workers’ employment status is illegal, right? Or do they just not care? One thing we do know is that they’ve certainly had problems with labor issues in Minnesota before.

Anyway, we’re attempting to get a copy of the NLRB complaint. In the meantime, feel free to check out video of the Local 789 worker rally after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

According to the Courthouse News Service, Wal-Mart has been using a sales tax loophole to swindle customers out of a full refund on returned merchandise. Basically, the lawsuit claims that when customers have purchased items at a store that charges a particular sales tax, and have returned the item at a store in an area with a lower sales tax, Wal-Mart has refused to return the difference in paid tax if the rate at the point of sale is higher than that at the store where the merchandise is being returned.

(Plaintiff John) Whitewall says he bought a Blue Ray disc player from Wal-Mart’s store in Collinsville, Ill. for $214.04, at an 8.1 percent sales tax rate. But when he returned the player to Wal-Mart’s store in Glen Carbon, Ill., he received only $211.56, because that store has a 6.85 percent sales tax.

This seems like such a small issue - $3.50 or $4 dollars on a sale - but multiplied over thousands of transactions it has the potential to add up. Wal-Mart has had similar issues with returns before - late last year the Connecticut Attorney General began looking into Wal-Mart after charges began surfacing that major retailers (most notably Wal-Mart) were violating state law by charging a second sales tax when merchandise paid for with cash was exchanged. You can refresh your memory on that story here and here.

The lawsuit was filed as a national class action, and we’ll continue checking for updates. You can read the complaint here. The lawsuit is seeking actual damages, plus any additional damages the court would deem appropriate - read: punitive damages in an amount high enough to make Wal-Mart consider changing its practices.

It’s unclear if the plaintiff has examples beyond his own - the complaint mentions only the Blu-ray player purchase - but I have to believe they have additional plaintiffs. A class action based on one case is, after all, not really in much danger of moving forward as a class action.

Class Sues Wal-Mart Over Returns Policy [Courthouse News Service]

0 comments

---

According to Bloomberg, Wal-Mart has won preliminary court approval to pay as much as $85 million to settle 30 wage/hour lawsuits. The lawsuits claimed the company didn’t pay employees for all hours worked, forcing them to miss breaks and forgo overtime pay.

Late last year, Wal-Mart announced that it would settle 63 wage and hour class action lawsuits that have been pending against the company for several years. There were just under 80 such suits pending against Wal-Mart at the time, so it represented a pretty large legal housecleaning. This $85 million settlement covers just under half those cases as part of the larger agreement made back in December, which could cost the company up to $640 million before all is said and done.

Following the initial settlement, we noted that what these cases revealed through evidence and employee testimony was a “corporate culture” and systematic approach geared towards cutting labor costs, by dictating managers hire below the “preferred” staffing levels and rewarding managers for keeping labor costs down. Steven Greenhouse on TPM has pointed out that while store management is ultimately responsible for setting schedules, pressure often comes from the top:

Robert Eckert, a former assistant store manager at several Wal-Marts in California, said: “They tell you that working off the clock is against the law, is not allowed by Wal-Mart, and then they tell you to get the job done. But they didn’t give you the budget to get the job done. It is clearly understood that if you don’t make payroll, it’s a serious issue and you can lose your job over it.”

For more information on wage theft in general, you should check out Kim Bobo’s “Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid - And What We Can Do About It.”

As for the $85 settlement, a Federal Judge in granting temporary approval called the wage theft agreement “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Merely adequate for the workers, perhaps, but no doubt a “steal” for Wal-Mart.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

The Nassau County courts may not have found Wal-Mart guilty in the Black Friday stampede, but at least part of the federal government has.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) today announced it was citing Wal-Mart for its role in the death, by not planning adequate crowd management. The company has 15 days to respond to the citation, which “could” lead to a $7,000 fine.

Clearly, the news is a mixed bag. It’s reassuring to see the federal government place some blame on Wal-Mart for its obvious role in the unnecessary death of a worker—especially when the Nassau County DA recklessly allowed Wal-Mart to escape all criminal charges. It’s saddening, however, that OSHA placed a shockingly small dollar value on the life of a Wal-Mart worker.

In a contrast that reminds us of far darker times in American labor history, Wal-Mart—the world’s dominant retailer—stands to pay a tiny .00000175 percent of its $400 billion yearly revenue for the death of a worker. It would be shocking even if $7,000 was a typical OSHA fine in the circumstances. But it seems like it isn’t typical.

A quick look at the OSHA Newsroom finds that $7,000 does indeed seem low. Just today OSHA announced a $60,000 fine on a Texas construction company for the death of a worker, and 5 days ago proposed a $105,000 fine against a Connecticut contractor for a serious accident. 

Why so little for the life of Jdimytai Damour?

0 comments

---

MAJOR MEETING IN VIRGINIA TONIGHT TO DEBATE FATE OF THE WILDERNESS WAL-MART

• Public gets say on Wal-Mart near Va battlefield [Daily Press (Va.)]
  Hundreds of historians have had their say on Wal-Mart's plans to build a Supercenter near a Civil War battlefield in Virginia.

• Tonight! Orange County will hear your thoughts on Wal-Mart [Free Lance-Star (Va.)]
  Tonight, the Orange County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed Wilderness Wal-Mart.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

A consumer fraud lawsuit was filed by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard back in 2006 after his office found that from 2001 to 2006, Wal-Mart consistently rang up the wrong prices on items scanned in at the cash registers. It also failed frequently to put prices on items on the shelves, leaving consumers in the dark about overcharges. Now, nearly three years after it was first filed, Wal-Mart’s pricing case in Arizona has concluded.

Wal-Mart Stores has agreed to pay $1 million and hire independent monitors to ensure price accuracy at its Arizona stores under terms of a settlement with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office…

Wal-Mart, which trumpets its low prices, racked up nearly a half-million dollars in fines for problems including discrepancies between posted prices and checkout prices and the lack of posted shelf prices on many products. Attorney General Terry Goddard said Wal-Mart never fixed the underlying problems, instead paying the fines as if they were the cost of doing business.

On top of the money Wal-Mart has already paid out, the $1 million fine will be used to pay for the independent monitoring, and a portion of it will go to the AG’s office to pay for consumer education. Goddard’s Office has maintained that while the pricing irregularities were bad, the biggest problem revolved around the consumer’s inability to tell the true cost of a product at the point of sale.

The Yuma Sun has more details on the settlement:

The deal requires Wal-Mart to hire and pay for an independent monitor to conduct random checks of compliance with state pricing laws at each of the company’s 93 stores in the state during the next three years. Any time compliance at any store dips below 98 percent - meaning more than two items out of 100 checked are not priced or improperly priced - the company will pay a $2,500 fine. Repeat failures each would result in $5,000 penalties.

Back in 2006, Wal-Mart entered into a $1.5 million settlement with the Michigan Attorney General for similar pricing errors.

Arizona AG reaches pricing lawsuit settlement with Wal-Mart [Yuma Sun]

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

To sum up: Wal-Mart cheated on its taxes, got caught, appealed its fines, lost the appeal, appealed THAT loss, and now has been told to go home again. Wal-Mart’s tax avoidance case in North Carolina, the breakthrough case that spawned a huge Wall Street Journal series, caused several state governments to re-examine their tax laws, and made REIT a household name, has taken another turn against the retail giant as the North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled against them again:

“The Secretary acted within his lawful authority when he assessed additional taxes against plaintiff as a result of the combination of plaintiff with two related entities,” wrote NC Court of Appeals Judge Donna Stroud in her opinion.

Earlier this year, at the trial court level, Judge Clarence Horton ruled against Wal-Mart in its case filed back in 2006. Wal-Mart was seeking a refund of the over $30 million it was assessed by the North Carolina Department of Revenue for its use of a “captive REIT” tax strategy. In denying Wal-Mart’s claims then, Horton wrote:

“[Wal-Mart does] not deny the facts demonstrating the circular journey taken by the ‘rents’ paid by these plaintiffs, but contend[s] that on each leg of the journey [Wal-Mart was] only taking advantage of a lawful deduction afforded them by then-existing tax law. Such a piecemeal approach exalts form over substance, however …”

That’s twice now - at the trial court level and in the appeals court - that Wal-Mart’s attempt to recoup its tax money has been denied. You can find more background on the REIT strategy on our blog here, or in our tax report here (which also lays out several other tax avoidance schemes used by the company).

Wal-Mart loses appeal to get $30M in North Carolina tax refunds [Triangle Business Journal]

0 comments

---

CALIFORNIA WAL-MART FINED FOR NOT PROTECTING WORKERS FROM HEPATITIS B

• NorCal Wal-Mart workers to be tested for Hepatitis [San Jose Mercury News (Calif.)]
  About 20 employees of Wal-Mart's Yuba City store will be tested for Hepatitis B after one worker was diagnosed with the bloodborne disease in December.

AMERICA'S OLDEST STATE PRESERVATION GROUP JOINS FIGHT TO SAVE WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD

• Preservation group: Civil War battlefield at risk [Associated Press via Forbes]
  Preservation Virginia has joined a growing opposition that says a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter near the Wilderness Battlefield threatens the Civil War site where nearly 29,000 troops were killed or injured 145 years ago.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Wal-Mart has made no secret how badly it wants to sell products to Latin America and Hispanics living in the U.S.

It has opened several Hispanic-themed stores in the U.S. and bragged that it has cornered the Hispanic market more than other racial demographics. It is aggressively expanding in Central and South America. Wal-Mart even sponsored a “Latino Summit” last week.

Unfortunately, the company can’t seem to get its house in order at home. As you read here last week, the EEOC is currently suing Wal-Mart management in California for allowing its Latino employees to be addressed with racial slurs like ‘wetback.’ And this is hardly the first case of racial discrimination that Wal-Mart has seen. A quick sampling of the some of the others from our research files:

Hernandez v. Sam’s East, filed 12/7/2007 (case ended in settlement)
Plaintiff is Hispanic and was constantly belittled and harassed because of it. She was the only Hispanic at the store - worked as Manager of the Optical Department. She complained about the harassment and was fired.

Hernandez v. Wal-Mart Asspciates, filed 10/10/2008 (case was still open as of recently)
Plaintiff is a Hispanic woman who worked in the automotive department - she was told that females should be greeters, and was fired when she complained of harassment.

Marek v. Wal-Mart, filed 2/1/2008 (case was still open as of recently)
Plaintiff’s manager harassed her for being Hispanic. She complained about her treatment, and was fired for moving payroll hours - something her manager told her to do.

Sagastume v. Wal-Mart Stores East, filed 6/4/2008 (case was still open)
Plaintiff’s salary was cut, and she was denied requests for transfer or promotion while non-Hispanic managers received both. She was also ordered not to hire Hispanic employees.

It’s more of the same from Wal-Mart: a glossy new image, but the same old business. Will the Hispanic community buy it?

The following post by Al Norman was originally posted on the Battlemart Blog and at Huffington Post:

Al Norman: Wal-Mart’s ‘Wetback’ Problem [Huffington Post]:

The Wal-Mart corporation has been carefully nurturing its image as a strong supporter of the Latino community in America, opening stores designed for Latino shoppers, and hosting economic summits for Latino businesses. So it was especially embarrassing for the corporation to find itself in the national headlines late last week as the target of a lawsuit filed on behalf of its own Latino workers.

On May 7, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), representing Hispanic employees at a Sam’s Club in Fresno, California, filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, charging that the workers had been subjected to a hostile work environment. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court, alleging that Sam’s Club managers allowed their Latino workers to be verbally harassed repeatedly, including the use of derogatory words against workers of Mexican origin, like ‘wetback.’

Read the rest of this story ...

12 comments

---

The Nassau County District Attorney might think that money is better than criminal charges, but Jdimytai Damour’s Father doesn’t agree. Yesterday he and his lawyer slammed Wal-Mart and the local D.A. for allowing the company to buy its way out of the Black Friday tragedy.

“It’s like if they were driving a car and they hit someone, killed him and then just walked away,” said Ogera Charles, the father of Jdimytai Damour, 34, of Jamaica, Queens, who was killed in the melee in Valley Stream.

Apparently the deal not only allows Wal-Mart to abdicate responsibility, but it prevented Damour’s family from seeing any of the criminal findings against Wal-Mart at all. The family is currently suing Wal-Mart for additional damages.

The Nassau DC has allowed Wal-Mart do here what has done with dozens of other settled lawsuits: cough up money without ever having to admit that it was wrong.

We’re happy that the family is receiving some money from Wal-Mart—but they deserve so much more.

Wal-Mart victim’s father critical of DA’s deal [Newsday]:

The father of a Wal-Mart worker who was trampled to death in a stampede of shoppers during a post- Thanksgiving Day sale expressed his frustration Thursday at a deal between the Nassau district attorney and the megastore.

Read the rest of this story ...

29 comments

---

Wal-Mart has agreed to pay nearly $2 million and improve safety at its 92 New York stores as part of a deal with prosecutors that avoids criminal charges in the trampling death of a temporary worker. Jdimytai Damour, 34, was crushed as he and other employees attempted to unlock the doors of a Long Island, New York, store at 5 a.m. on Friday, November 28th.

The news comes months after Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice began a criminal investigation into the death of Damour, a seasonal worker from Jamaica, Queens, who it is now known died from “positional asphyxiation” that resulted from direct and intense pressure having been applied to his chest - a result to be expected when a human being is trampled by 2,000 on-rushing shoppers.

[Wal-Mart] has agreed to implement an improved crowd-management plan for post-Thanksgiving Day sales, set up a $400,000 victims’ compensation and remuneration fund, and give a $1.5 million grant to Nassau County social services programs and nonprofit groups.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is that Wal-Mart will escape criminal prosecution as a result of the agreement. A telling quote from the Chicago Tribune - “The agreement included no admission of guilt by Wal-Mart.”

This aspect is important, because while Attorney Rice points out that Wal-Mart would have been subject to only a $10,000 fine if convicted, that conviction would have been hanging like a cloud over Wal-Mart during plaintiffs’ civil cases. The $400,000 victims’ compensation fund isn’t nearly as much as Damour’s family would expect to collect in a civil suit if Wal-Mart were to be found at fault, and anyone who accepts money from the compensation fund will automatically waive their right to sue. And as we reported following the tragedy, many media outlets and labor officials from UFCW to the Wall Street Journal have heaped the majority of the blame squarely on Wal-Mart for being woefully unprepared and understaffed (though that hardly would make winning a civil suit a slam dunk). From the Tribune:

Earlier this year, Damour’s family announced plans to sue the county, retailer and others. The family’s attorney did not immediately comment on Wednesday’s announcement. Any victims who accept payment from the Wal-Mart compensation fund will be required to waive their right to a separate civil suit against Wal-Mart, Rice said.

A heartfelt move by Wal-Mart, or part of a strategic plan to gain some positive press and escape further liability? You decide...More on initial reaction to the stampede, and Wal-Mart’s settlement announcement, after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...

2 comments

---

Al Norman looks at Wal-Mart’s decision to lay off 650 workers in Columbus, Ohio, despite receiving $1.8 million “job creation” handout from from the city several years ago. The following article appeared originally on the Huffington Post.

“They shut us down with no warning,” says Wal-Mart worker

Ohio development officials were blind-sided this week when a job subsidy deal involving a Wal-Mart-owned optical lab went dark.

Regulators in the Buckeye state revealed that they had their eye on one of Wal-Mart’s 4 optical labs in the country, and were looking to see if the retailer had violated the terms of its subsidy agreement with the state.

Wal-Mart has a high visibility optical empire, which includes not just 2,500 Vision Centers inside its stores, but a myriad of lens and eyewear products---even a network of its own house optometrists, which it calls “doctor partners.”

Wal-Mart lures new eye doctors into a partnership deal in which the retailer covers a large part of a fledgling optometrist’s business expenses. “When you partner with us,” the retailer explains, “we cover a large part of your start-up costs. That means upon opening, the space, instrumentation, support and staffing resources are all in place at no cost to you. In fact, your overhead might be as minor as prescription pads and office pharmaceuticals.” The “doctor partner” either leases or co-leases their office space from Wal-Mart. The company promises new doctors, “we will never pressure you to sell frames. You’ll operate your practice on your terms and be able give your patients the care they deserve.”

Read the rest of this story ...

17 comments

---

Plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart continue to count on the testimony of former Wal-Mart executive vice president Thomas Coughlin - he who has been convicted of embezzling $411,218 from the company - to help buoy its sex discrimination class action. This according to a rather choppy and meandering article from the Madison County Record in Illinois. Nothing really new here, but the piece does include a time-line of events leading up to the current status of the Dukes case.

Coughlin is currently under house arrest - his defense attorneys successfully argued that prison time could kill him considering his poor health. You can read more on Coughlin here and more on the Dukes case here.

Lawyers in $11 billion Wal-Mart case counting on embezzler’s testimony [Madison County Record]

SAN FRANCISCO - Retailer Wal-Mart stands strong while other businesses fall, but class action lawyers aim to knock it down with an $11 billion lawsuit.

Their star witness, former Wal-Mart executive vice president Thomas Coughlin, earned their respect by embezzling $411,218 from his employers.

Coughlin spent 27 months in home confinement and remains on probation.

Lawyers at the nonprofit Impact Fund in Berkeley and associates around the nation count on Coughlin to swear that Wal-Mart discriminated against female workers.

Read the rest of this story ...

53 comments

---

We’ll continue to update this story as we find out more info. The following press release was sent earlier today by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union:

TYLER, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--“Yesterday, after nearly a decade of legal maneuverings and circumventions of federal law, Wal-Mart was finally forced to the bargaining table in Jacksonville, Texas. More than nine years ago, workers in the meat department in the Jacksonville Wal-Mart voted to be represented by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 540. What Wal-Mart proceeded to put these workers through was both unlawful and unconscionable.

“In one of the company’s most audacious displays of hubris, Wal-Mart first ignored the workers, refusing to bargain with them or provide information to their union. Only after the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against Wal-Mart did the company try to move the goalposts by claiming that workers in the meat department had lost their right to representation because the skilled meatcutting jobs had been replaced by a prepackaged meat program. Eight years and several legal battles later, Wal-Mart ran out of excuses when the United States Court of Appeals forced the company to bargain with these workers.

Read the rest of this story ...

13 comments

---

Wal-Mart is trying to clear out its legal closet by buying off scores of “old” lawsuits brought by its own workers that have been sitting on the racks for years. This week, a judge in Colleton County, South Carolina approved a Wal-Mart settlement in a $49 million class action lawsuit---one of as many as 76 similar wage and hour class action lawsuits filed across America against the nation’s largest private employer.

Wal-Mart has the largest selection of lawsuits of any retailer in American history. The South Carolina case, known as Carter v. Wal-Mart, was originally filed roughly six years ago. In a prepared statement approved by Wal-Mart, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs said, “We are pleased with the preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court. We hope that Wal-Mart’s industry-leading compliance model will set an example for the retail industry.” As part of the settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to continue to maintain electronic systems, surveys, and notices that will protect the rights of workers. “This lawsuit was filed years ago and the allegations are not representative of the company we are today,” a Wal-Mart spokesperson said in a press released dated February 18, 2009. “Our policy is to pay associates for every hour worked and to make rest and meal breaks available. This is a commitment we make to the more than 1.4 million associates who choose to work for Wal-Mart and serve our customers and members every day. We have worked hard to have the right communication, processes, and systems in place to help ensure we live up to this commitment.”

Read the rest of this story ...

1 comments

---

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments this week in the case of Cynthia Haddad, a former pharmacist who filed suit alleging that she was the victim of discrimination by Wal-Mart management. To be more specific, after finding out that she was making less than her male counterparts, Haddad asked for a raise and equal bonus - Wal-Mart gave her the bonus, then fired her two weeks later for an incident that had occurred nearly a year and a half before.

In June 2007, Haddad won a $1 million decision, and then the jury added an additional $1 million in punitive damages. Wal-Mart appealed, and while the initial verdict was upheld, the punitive damages were overturned. The Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in Massachusetts, will hear arguments on the punitive damages Thursday.

Mass. court to weigh Wal-Mart discrimination case [Boston Herald]

BOSTON — The state’s highest court is set to hear arguments this week in the case of a former Wal-Mart pharmacist who claimed she was fired after asking to be paid the same as her male colleagues.

Cynthia Haddad filed the gender discrimination lawsuit after she fired in April 2004 after 10 years at the Pittsfield Wal-Mart.

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

Another lawsuit, just like the first one that was filed. In fact, its so similar, I’m even recycling our blog graphic.

Led by plaintiff Marci Badgerow from Chicago, the suit attacks the 2005 agreement struck between the retailers, in which Wal-Mart agreed to exit the online rental business in exchange for Netflix stopping all DVD sales. In this way, the companies hoped to stop unnecessarily cannibalizing revenue between each other.

The suit believes this agreement is illegal and promotes unfair trade. As proof, the suit particularly cries foul over Netflix raising its monthly subscription price from $14.99 to $17.99, on the heels of calling its truce with Wal-Mart. Prior to aligning with Netflix, Wal-Mart was offering a significantly cheaper $12.97 a month subscription plan.

In fact, this lawsuit is so similar, you can just read our previous blog post, except while reading it imagine you’re in a court in snowy Chicago instead of sunny Los Angeles. In the meantime, we’ll see if we can get our hands on the complaint.

And with that, enjoy your weekend.

Netflix, Wal-Mart face second class-action lawsuit [Video Business, via Variety]

Read the rest of this story ...

44 comments

---

A settlement in a Minnesota wage and hour class action has moved a step closer to reality, gaining court approval that would allow Wal-Mart to pay over $54 million to close the lawsuit Braun v. Wal-Mart. The settlement includes not only back pay to employees, but also a payment to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry believed to be the largest payment of its kind in Minnesota history.

From Bloomberg, via the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

The Minnesota hourly workers said Wal-Mart forced them to work off-the-clock in training and denied full rest or meal breaks in violation of state wage-and-hour laws. In the first phase of the case, Dakota County District Judge Robert King Jr. ruled July 1, following a nonjury trial, that Wal-Mart broke labor laws more than 2 million times and ordered the retailer to give employees $6.5 million in back pay.

Wal-Mart will pay $14 million of the $54 million settlement to the State of Minnesota - the Minn. Dept. of Labor was a plaintiff in the case, and the payment covers Wal-Mart’s violations of Minnesota wage and hour laws.

As for the settlement, this one was reached before a certain other settlement agreement was reached by Wal-Mart. Between the $54 million here, the $33 million payed out to the DOL, $400+ million in previous judgments and settlements, and the $350-$640 million that will be paid out as part of Wal-Mart’s most recent multi-litigation settlement, these wage cases could end up costing the company over $1 billion.

Minnesota to get $14 million from Wal-Mart settlement [Bloomberg, via Minneapolis Star Tribune]

Read the rest of this story ...

4 comments

---

BUSTED!!!

Actually, as a recently joined member of Netflix, I have to admit I might not be impartial on this story. After all, they do deliver movies right to my door, allowing me to overcome my lifelong fear of video stores.

But that aside, the lawsuit appears to be some pretty serious stuff. From the Los Angeles Times:

The two companies agreed in 2005 that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, would close its online rental business and refer customers to Netflix, which would promote Wal-Mart’s DVD movie sales, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Sounds like a case of a couple companies engaging in some “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” behavior. The complaint suggests clandestine meetings, beginning with a dinner shared by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and then-Wal-Mart.com CEO John Fleming in January 2005, in which discussions began as to how the two could reduce competition in the DVD sales and online DVD rental markets. You can check out the whole complaint here. Its like reading The Bourne Identity...if it was written by lawyers. Bland, legalese-loving lawyers. But seriously, it is pretty interesting, and at 24 pages its not tooooo long, so check it out.

Wal-Mart, Netflix sued over online video rentals [Reuters]

Wal-Mart, Netflix conspired to create monopoly, suit alleges [Bloomberg via Los Angeles Times]

Resnick v. Wal-Mart, Netflix (Complaint)

1 comments

---

Something about oil not meeting viscosity levels? The report doesn’t pack a ton of information, however, it appears that Wal-Mart has been selling low-quality gear oil in violation of California law. You can check out the whole article below...In total, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay over $350,000 in civil penalties and attorney fees.

DA settles consumer protection lawsuit [Vacaville Reporter]

The Solano County District Attorney’s Office joined with DA’s in Napa, Monterey, Shasta and Sonoma counties to settle a consumer protection action against Wal-Mart and Warren Oil.

According to District Attorney Dave Paulson, the complaint alleged Wal-Mart and Warren Oil—the manufacturer of Wal-Mart SuperTech Gear Oil—sold gear oil that did not meet advertised viscosity levels, a violation of California law.

“Wal-Mart and Warren cooperated with prosecutors during the investigation and agreed to undertake additional testing procedures in order to comply with law,” Paulson announced Monday.

Some 5,000 bottles of the non-compliant gear oil were sold in California.

Read the rest of this story ...