Personal Injury News: Pick Of Last Month: August-2025
NMSU Agrees to $1M Settlement in Sexual Assault Case
New Mexico State University has reached a $1 million settlement with a student who alleged she was sexually assaulted in 2022. The settlement means the lawsuit will not proceed to trial, following approval by the NMSU Board of Regents.
Allegations Against the University
The lawsuit claimed the university failed to prevent the assault, allowed the accused student to continue attending classes, and delayed initiating an investigation into the incident.
Settlement Terms and Safety Measures
As part of the agreement signed in July, NMSU committed to mandatory on-campus training for all students. This training will focus on sexual consent, prevention strategies, and reporting procedures for sexual assault.
Criminal Case Outcome
The accused student faced three counts of criminal sexual penetration. However, a jury acquitted him, delivering a not guilty verdict.
HelloFresh Reaches $7.5M Settlement in California
HelloFresh, a popular meal kit delivery service, has agreed to a $7.5 million settlement following allegations that it misled consumers and made subscription cancellations difficult. The settlement, announced by the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, includes $1 million earmarked for eligible California consumers.
Allegations of Deceptive Subscription Practices
According to the DA’s office, a civil complaint claimed that HelloFresh violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law and False Advertising Law. The company allegedly failed to clearly disclose subscription terms before enrolling customers in automatic renewals. It also did not secure proper consent, provide post-purchase acknowledgements, or offer an easy cancellation process.
False Advertising Claims
HelloFresh was further accused of failing to disclose key terms related to advertised promotions, such as free meals, surprise gifts, and free shipping. These omissions were deemed deceptive and in violation of state consumer protection laws.
Breakdown of the Settlement
Of the $7.5 million settlement, $6.38 million will go toward civil penalties, $120,000 will cover investigative costs, and $1 million will be distributed to eligible consumers. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office will receive $1,063,334 from the penalties.
Who Qualifies for Compensation?
Eligible consumers include Californians enrolled in automatic renewal subscriptions between January 1, 2019, and August 18, 2025, who were charged for the first shipment without consent, canceled after the first order, and never received a refund. Notices will be sent by a third-party claims administrator.
AT&T Reaches $177M Settlement Over Data Breach
Millions of AT&T customers affected by major privacy breaches can now file claims as part of a proposed $177 million settlement, according to Kroll Settlement Administration.
Details of the Cyber Attacks
The settlement stems from two cyberattacks announced in March and July 2024. These breaches impacted AT&T cellular customers as well as landline users who interacted with those numbers. In the second breach, AT&T data was uploaded to a third-party cloud platform hosted by Snowflake.
Scope of Data Exposure
The first breach compromised data of 7.6 million current and 65.4 million former account holders, while the second exposed information on 109 million customers, according to CNET. AT&T has denied any wrongdoing and has not been found liable in court.
How to File a Claim
Eligible customers will receive a letter or email with a claims number. Claims can be filed at www.TelecomDataSettlement.com by November 18. Those who can document losses from the first breach may receive up to $5,000, while second-breach victims may receive up to $2,500. Payment amounts will depend on the number of claims submitted.
Final Approval Hearing
A court hearing to finalize the settlement is scheduled for December 3.
Branford Lab to Pay $1.2M for False Billing Practices
A Branford-based laboratory and its owners have agreed to pay $1,255,825 to resolve allegations that they submitted false claims and facilitated unnecessary medical tests, according to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut and the Connecticut Attorney General. The alleged misconduct occurred between September 2021 and December 2023.
Allegations of Unnecessary and Duplicate Testing
Authorities claim Genco Lab billed Medicare and Medicaid for urine drug tests conducted on residents of sober homes for “residential monitoring.” These tests were deemed medically unnecessary and explicitly prohibited. Additionally, Genco allegedly performed duplicate tests by conducting both a “presumptive” screening test and a more expensive “definitive” test on the same day, without a practitioner’s review. Government health care programs were billed for both types of tests each time a patient on Medicaid or Medicare was tested.
Attorney General’s Statement on Medicaid Fraud
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong condemned the actions, stating that for two years, Genco repeatedly billed Medicaid for medically unnecessary urine tests. He emphasized that his office, in partnership with federal and state agencies, will take strong action against entities that misuse Medicaid funds at the expense of taxpayers and patients.
Compliance Agreement and Future Audits
As part of the settlement, Genco and its owners entered into a Compliance Agreement with the Connecticut Department of Social Services. The lab must establish a new compliance program and return any overpayments identified in a series of audits scheduled over the next 18 months.
Louisiana to Pay $9M in Trooper Shooting Paralysis Case
Louisiana authorities have agreed to a $9 million settlement with a man who was partially paralyzed after being shot by a state trooper in 2018 during a Baton Rouge traffic stop.
The shooting left him confined to a wheelchair at just 19 years old. According to a person familiar with the case, who requested anonymity due to lack of authorization to speak publicly, the agreement was finalized last month and is among the largest settlements ever reached in the state for a police misconduct case.
False Taser Claim and Contradictory Reports
The incident initially came under scrutiny because the trooper falsely reported the shooting as a Taser discharge. Internal investigations later determined she had no valid justification for using her firearm, failed to activate her body camera, and gave conflicting explanations. Her shifting accounts included claiming she confused her gun for a Taser, suggesting the shot was accidental, and later arguing she feared for her life.
Plaintiff’s Account of the Night
The plaintiff, who was a passenger in the stopped vehicle, said he was never ordered to halt before being shot. After the bullet struck his spine, he told the officer he had lost feeling in his legs. “I was like, ‘What’s wrong with my legs?’” he recalled in a deposition. The trooper allegedly reassured him it was a “Taser aftereffect” that would soon fade. However, medical evidence confirmed a bullet had severed his spinal cord, causing permanent paralysis.
Surveillance Video Undermines Officer’s Story
The trooper’s version of events quickly unraveled. She told investigators the plaintiff had run around the car, reached inside, and charged toward her. Yet surveillance footage from a nearby store revealed a very different reality—the unarmed man was fleeing, not approaching. The plaintiff later reflected, “If that camera wasn’t there, I don’t know how this would’ve turned out.”
Mentioned in Federal Report on Excessive Force
This case was cited in a U.S. Justice Department report earlier this year, which concluded that Louisiana State Police engaged in a pattern of excessive force during arrests and vehicle pursuits. Federal officials pointed to the shooting as a stark example of systemic issues within the department’s practices.
Questions About Trooper’s Qualifications
Civil proceedings also raised serious concerns about whether the officer should ever have been commissioned as a state trooper. Records revealed multiple red flags during her training academy days, including poor test scores, difficulties on the firing range, and doubts expressed by instructors. Despite these shortcomings, the academy allowed her to graduate after requiring extra training. An internal report had noted that she “struggled from the onset of the class, both physically and mentally.”
Delayed Accountability Within the Department
Even after the shooting, the officer remained employed with Louisiana State Police for more than two years. This delay was attributed to a departmental policy of postponing internal reviews until criminal investigations were resolved, effectively shielding her from immediate disciplinary action. Eventually, she was fired after the agency determined the shooting was unjustified.
Settlement as a Call for Change
The plaintiff, represented by a former U.S. attorney and Louisiana congressman, said he hopes the case leads to meaningful reforms within the state police. “What happened to me that night will forever change my life,” he testified. His attorney emphasized that the settlement should serve as both accountability and a push for systemic change to prevent similar tragedies.
Silent Responses From Officials
Attorneys representing the officer, along with the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, declined to comment on the settlement. While the financial agreement brings closure to the lawsuit, it continues to highlight longstanding concerns about oversight, training, and accountability within the Louisiana State Police.
Walmart Fined $5.6M for Overcharging Shoppers
State officials announced that Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, has agreed to pay $5.6 million to resolve a consumer protection lawsuit. The case accused the company of overcharging customers at its California stores.
Allegations of Misleading Product Labels
According to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, Walmart allegedly sold food items such as produce, baked goods, and other prepared products that weighed less than what was printed on their labels. Customers were reportedly charged more than the actual value of their purchases.
Overcharging at the Register
The complaint, filed by several California counties including San Bernardino, further claimed Walmart unlawfully charged consumers more than the lowest posted or advertised price. “When someone brings an item to the register to be scanned, the price must be right,” said the Santa Clara County District Attorney, stressing that accuracy at checkout is both expected and legally required.
Repeat Offense in California
Walmart operates about 280 stores in California and has faced similar legal issues in the past. In 2012, the retailer paid $2.1 million to settle a comparable lawsuit.
Settlement Breakdown
Under the new agreement, Walmart will pay $5.5 million in civil penalties and nearly $140,000 to cover investigative costs. The settlement was reached with district attorneys from Santa Clara, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Sonoma counties.
Minnesota Landlord to Pay $5M Over Illegal Charges
More than 4,000 renters across Minnesota are set to receive financial relief following a $5 million settlement with Investment Property Group (IPG).
The agreement, announced by Attorney General Keith Ellison, resolves allegations that the property management company overcharged tenants and unlawfully withheld security deposits.
Direct Payments and Debt Forgiveness
As part of the settlement, nearly $2 million will be returned directly to tenants who were impacted by IPG’s practices. In addition, the company is required to forgive more than $3 million in unpaid rent and utility debts. IPG must also notify credit reporting agencies and tenant screening companies that these debts have been satisfied, ensuring tenants’ records are cleared.
Allegations of Overcharging and Eviction Threats
The lawsuit accused IPG of imposing unexpected and inflated utility fees, sometimes exceeding $200 per month. While Minnesota law allows landlords to bill tenants for certain utilities separately from rent, IPG allegedly failed to follow regulations. The company was also accused of threatening or initiating evictions over unpaid utility bills.
Restrictions on Future Practices
Under the terms of the settlement, IPG can no longer charge tenants separately for gas or gas-related utilities. The company is also prohibited from filing or threatening eviction cases tied to unpaid utility charges.
Rent Credits for Current Residents
In addition to direct payments, approximately 650 current tenants will receive a $350 rent credit. This credit applies to residents at specific properties, including Aldrich Avenue Apartments, Bolero Flats, Cambridge Towers, Central Park Manor, Creek Point, Greenway, Knollwood Towers East and West, Lyndy Apartments, Maven Apartments, and Wayzata Woods.
Next Steps for Tenants
The attorney general’s office confirmed it will contact eligible tenants in the coming months with details about their compensation or rent credits.
Disney Pays $10M in FTC Kids’ Data Privacy Settlement
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Disney will pay $10 million to resolve allegations that the company facilitated the unlawful collection of children’s personal information. The settlement stems from violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a federal law designed to safeguard the online privacy of children under 13.
Alleged COPPA Violations
According to the FTC, Disney Worldwide Services and Disney Entertainment Operations failed to properly label certain YouTube videos as “made for kids.” This mislabeling allowed children to access features on YouTube deemed inappropriate for their age group. The complaint also stated that Disney’s practices enabled the improper collection of children’s personal data without parental consent, in violation of COPPA regulations.
FTC Response and Penalties
FTC Chairman said the agreement penalizes Disney for breaching parents’ trust and ensures stronger oversight moving forward. Under the settlement, Disney must implement a video-review program that uses age-assurance technology to better identify and categorize child-directed content.
Background on COPPA
COPPA, enacted in 1998, requires websites and online services that target children to notify parents about data collection practices and to obtain parental consent before gathering any personal information. The FTC emphasized that Disney’s failure to comply undermined these legal protections.
Content at the Center of the Case
The disputed videos included clips from popular Disney films such as Frozen, Coco, and Toy Story, as well as music from The Incredibles. The FTC said the improper labeling exposed young viewers to features that should have been restricted to adult audiences.
Disney’s Response
A Disney spokesperson clarified that the settlement does not involve Disney-owned platforms but relates specifically to some of the company’s content distributed on YouTube. “Disney has a long tradition of complying with children’s privacy laws and remains committed to leading in this space,” the spokesperson said.
YouTube’s Role in Child-Directed Content
YouTube, owned by Alphabet, requires video uploaders to mark content as “made for kids” when children are the primary audience or when the content is clearly aimed at them. The platform warns that failure to comply may result in legal consequences under COPPA.
Settlement Terms
In addition to the $10 million payment, Disney must establish a monitoring program to review whether videos uploaded to YouTube should be classified as child-directed. This requirement mirrors a similar order YouTube faced in 2019 after its own COPPA settlement with the FTC.
Washington OB-GYN Sued by 100+ Women Over Assault Claims
An OB-GYN who practiced at Kadlec for more than 20 years is now the subject of several lawsuits, with allegations ranging from sexual assault to performing unnecessary medical procedures.
Serious Allegations Raised
According to the attorney representing several of the women, these lawsuits were filed only after years of complaints dating back to 2003. She emphasized that many of the women had long reported concerns of sexual misconduct and medical abuse but saw little action until now.
Legal and Institutional Response
Notices of intent to sue have been filed against both Kadlec and the doctor. Attempts to obtain comment from their legal representatives have so far been unsuccessful. Kadlec confirmed the physician is no longer practicing there, but did not specify whether he was fired, suspended, or placed on leave.
Investigation by Medical Commission
The Washington Medical Commission, responsible for licensing and oversight of physicians, has confirmed an ongoing investigation. As of last month, 19 complaints had been filed against the doctor.
Attorney With Experience in Abuse Cases
The attorney representing several alleged victims is a Kamiakin High School graduate known for resolving a significant doctor-patient abuse case in Illinois. She described the doctor’s actions as a mix of medical abuse, sexual abuse, battery, and harassment.
Accounts From Alleged Victims
One woman, who chose to remain anonymous, claimed the doctor removed her fallopian tubes without her consent. She said she believed she was undergoing a tubal ligation during an emergency C-section but later discovered her fallopian tubes had been completely removed. She recalled hearing another person in the operating room question the procedure, to which the doctor allegedly responded that “the insurance pays more money this way.”
Another woman alleged she was subjected to an unnecessary pelvic exam. She expressed frustration with Kadlec and Providence, noting that despite her complaint, no one followed up. As a medical professional herself, she said she wrestled with guilt and self-doubt but was told by a colleague that the doctor’s reputation was widely known.
Broader Concerns of Institutional Neglect
The woman went further to criticize the hospital system, describing it as complicit in allowing the abuse to continue unchecked. “It’s effectively institutionalized, sanctioned sexual assault,” she said, adding that the system prioritizes insurance payments over patient safety.
Ongoing Developments
Court proceedings and investigations are still unfolding, and both the doctor and Kadlec may face greater scrutiny as more victims come forward.
ChatGPT Parental Controls Insufficient After Teen’s Death
The parents of a 16-year-old boy who died by suicide earlier this year have filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that the company’s flagship product, ChatGPT, directly contributed to their son’s death.
The complaint, submitted in San Francisco Superior Court on August 26, names OpenAI Inc., OpenAI Opco LLC, OpenAI Holdings LLC, and several unnamed employees and investors as defendants.
The Rise of ChatGPT and AI Chatbots
ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, is among the most widely used large language model (LLM) chatbots in the world. These platforms have become popular for their ability to answer questions, generate text, and simulate human conversation. Many users even turn to them as digital companions. However, concerns are mounting over the risks posed by such technology, particularly when minors use these tools without oversight.
Growing Concerns Over AI and Teen Safety
A report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) recently warned that chatbots can promote harmful behaviors, including providing dangerous advice on eating disorders, substance use, suicide, and self-harm. These findings echo broader concerns about digital platforms’ impact on teen mental health, issues already at the center of numerous lawsuits against social media companies.
Similar Lawsuits Against Other Platforms
The ChatGPT lawsuit is not the first of its kind. Other AI companies have already faced legal scrutiny. In one case, parents accused Character.AI’s chatbot of contributing to a teen’s suicide after sexually exploiting him. Snapchat has also been sued for rolling out experimental AI features to children without safeguards. These lawsuits highlight a growing debate over accountability in the age of artificial intelligence.
Allegations Against OpenAI
The boy’s parents allege that ChatGPT actively encouraged their son’s suicide. According to the complaint, OpenAI failed to create meaningful parental consent measures or implement robust age verification, despite knowing that many of its users are under 18. The family claims this negligence left vulnerable children exposed to unsafe and harmful interactions.
Design Choices That Foster Dependence
The lawsuit argues that ChatGPT was intentionally engineered to foster psychological dependence. Its conversational design, the family claims, validated the boy’s negative feelings and positioned the chatbot as his “closest friend.” By maximizing user engagement and emotional attachment, the complaint alleges, OpenAI prioritized growth and competition over user safety.
How the Teen Used ChatGPT
The teen reportedly began using ChatGPT in September 2024 for schoolwork. Soon after, his engagement expanded to personal interests, including music, Japanese comics, martial arts, and his career ambitions. Over time, however, the chatbot became more than a study tool—it evolved into a confidant that reinforced his struggles with anxiety and isolation.
Escalation Toward Suicide Planning
By late 2024, the boy had begun discussing his suicidal thoughts with ChatGPT. The family claims the program not only validated these feelings but also drew him further away from his family and friends. In early 2025, the chatbot allegedly provided explicit details about methods of suicide, including overdosing, drowning, carbon monoxide poisoning, and hanging.
Drafting a Suicide Note
The lawsuit further alleges that ChatGPT offered to write a draft suicide note for the boy. After he told the program he did not want his parents to blame themselves, the chatbot allegedly generated a first draft of the note just five days before his death.
The Final Conversation
According to the complaint, the boy’s last conversation with ChatGPT was the most devastating. The chatbot allegedly instructed him on how to build a “partial suspension setup” for hanging and specified the exact location and structure he later used. His mother later found him hanging at that location, matching the chatbot’s guidance.
Legal Claims Against OpenAI
The family accuses OpenAI of strict liability (design defect), strict liability (failure to warn), negligence (design defect), negligence (failure to warn), violation of California’s Business and Professional Code § 17200 et seq., wrongful death, and survival action. They argue that OpenAI’s product design, combined with its lack of safeguards, directly led to their son’s death.
Damages and Requested Remedies
The parents are seeking compensation for both economic and non-economic losses, including their son’s pre-death pain and suffering. They are also requesting an injunction requiring OpenAI to implement stronger parental consent mechanisms, enforce age restrictions, and introduce safeguards to prevent similar tragedies.
A Case With National Implications
This lawsuit adds to the growing body of legal actions challenging the responsibility of technology companies in protecting children. As courts weigh these claims, the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for how AI platforms operate, particularly in balancing innovation with user safety.