Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'lawsuit'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Site Related
    • News & Updates
    • Site / Forum Feedback
    • Member Introduction
  • News
    • General News
    • FileSharing News
    • Mobile News
    • Software News
    • Security & Privacy News
    • Technology News
  • Downloads
    • nsane.down
  • General Discussions & Support
    • Filesharing Chat
    • Security & Privacy Center
    • Software Chat
    • Mobile Mania
    • Technology Talk
    • Entertainment Exchange
    • Guides & Tutorials
  • Off-Topic Chat
    • The Chat Bar
    • Jokes & Funny Stuff
    • Polling Station

Categories

  • Drivers
  • Filesharing
    • BitTorrent
    • eDonkey & Direct Connect (DC)
    • NewsReaders (Usenet)
    • Other P2P Clients & Tools
  • Internet
    • Download Managers & FTP Clients
    • Messengers
    • Web Browsers
    • Other Internet Tools
  • Multimedia
    • Codecs & Converters
    • Image Viewers & Editors
    • Media Players
    • Other Multimedia Software
  • Security
    • Anti-Malware
    • Firewalls
    • Other Security Tools
  • System
    • Benchmarking & System Info
    • Customization
    • Defrag Tools
    • Disc & Registry Cleaners
    • Management Suites
    • Other System Tools
  • Other Apps
    • Burning & Imaging
    • Document Viewers & Editors
    • File Managers & Archivers
    • Miscellaneous Applications
  • Linux Distributions

Categories

  • General News
  • File Sharing News
  • Mobile News
  • Software News
  • Security & Privacy News
  • Technology News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

  1. The chip makers claims TSMC violates its patents. The competition between semiconductor giants is getting ugly, and it could have an unfortunate impact on many of the devices you buy. GlobalFoundries has sued the Taiwanese firm TSMC for allegedly violating 16 patents tied to its chip production business, including ones for semiconductor interconnects and the common FinFET design used in newer processors. The multiple lawsuits (plus complaints at the US International Trade Commission) claim 20 tech companies are infringing on its concepts, and they're definitely names you'll recognize. Apple, ASUS, Google, Lenovo, NVIDIA, OnePlus and Qualcomm are all accused of treading on GlobalFoundries' technology, although Moor Insights' Patrick Moorhead believed their inclusion was mainly meant as leverage against TSMC. The consequences could still be serious. In one of the ITC complaints, GlobalFoundries called for import bans on many of Apple's devices with mobile chips, including the iPhone XS, AirPods, Apple Watch Series 4 and Apple TV 4K. It would still be highly damaging for others. NVIDIA's GPU business revolves heavily around assembly at TSMC, for instance, such as the 12-nanometer chips at the heart of the GeForce RTX line. If GlobalFoundries prevailed, these companies might have no choice but to halt sales, at least until they find alternative production channels. In explaining the lawsuit, GlobalFoundries played heavily on the nationalism fueling the current trade war between the US and China. It characterized the lawsuits as "protecting" investments in US and European chip production while portraying TSMC as part of manufacturing's "shift to Asia." It also claimed that the suits would ensure a "competitive industry" for its customers. The reality may be more complicated. While it's true that TSMC is a dominant force in chipmaking with responsibilities for nearly half of all outsourced chip production, GlobalFoundries also bowed out of developing chips at 7nm and smaller processes. It effectively ceded competition in that space to rivals like TSMC with claims that it couldn't afford to spend the billions of dollars needed to keep up. It's not clear if a successful fight with TSMC would be enough to restart those efforts. As with some similarly broad legal battles, this may be as much about using patents as another source of income as it is a dispute over intellectual property. Source
  2. Vimeo is under fire for allegedly collecting and storing users’ facial biometrics in videos and photos without their consent or knowledge. Vimeo, the popular ad-free video platform, is facing a lawsuit that alleges it stored people’s facial biometrics without their consent or knowledge. The lawsuit, which was filed on Sept. 20, claims Vimeo violated the Illinois Biometrics Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This is a law that imposes requirements on businesses that collect or otherwise obtain biometric information, including fingerprints, retina scans and facial recognition scans. “In direct violation of the BIPA, Vimeo is actively collecting, storing and using—without providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies—the biometrics of thousands of unwitting individuals throughout the country whose faces appear in photographs and/or videos uploaded to the Magisto ‘smart video editor’ application in Illinois,” according to the lawsuit. Vimeo did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Threatpost. Vimeo’s Magisto application is a short-form video editing platform that was acquired by Vimeo in April 2019, boasting more than 100 million users when acquired. Users can upload videos and pictures to the Magisto platform, and it will then use artificial intelligence-based technology to analyze the footage in order to edit the video. However, in order to perform this visual analysis, the platform has been collecting and storing thousands of “face templates” from users, the lawsuit alleges. These facial templates are “geometric data” of the face taken using facial recognition technology – such as the distance between eyes, nose and ears – which can then be used to store photos and videos for organizational purposes. “Each face template that Vimeo extracts is unique to a particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person,” according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the lead plaintiff, Illinois resident Bradley Acaley, who in December 2017 downloaded the Magisto app and purchased a one-year subscription to use the app’s Professional Service ($120). He then used the service to upload photos and videos of himself and his family (including his minor children) until December 2018, when his subscription expired and he did not renew it. However, Acaley said he can now access the uploaded content and claimed that Vimeo is collecting and storing his and his family’s facial biometrics data – which he claimed was used to recognize his gender, race, age and location. Acaley argued that Vimeo did not ask for his permission to collect unique biometric identifiers, and also did not give him an opportunity to prohibit the storage of such data. The lawsuit seeks to prevent Vimeo from further violating the privacy rights of Magisto users, and to “recover statutory damages for Vimeo’s unauthorized collection, storage and use of these individuals’ biometrics in violation of the BIPA.” The Illinois Biometrics Information Privacy Act Vimeo is only the latest company to be dinged as part of the Illinois BIPA. Facebook is also wrapped up in an ongoing U.S. lawsuit, which alleges that the social-media giant illegally collected biometric data for millions of users without their consent, utilizing facial recognition technology. Facial recognition is already actively used by police forces and even at the White House. And it’s not just the U.S; biometrics are spreading worldwide. The EU in April approved a massive biometrics database that combines data from law enforcement, border patrol and more for both EU and non-EU citizens. The lawsuit also comes as concern around biometrics privacy continues to make the news, with biometrics security company Suprema and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection both recently suffering data-leak incidents. Source
  3. MOSCOW (Reuters) - A Russian court has blocked access to English Premier League game broadcasts by Amazon’s Twitch after Russia’s Rambler media group said it would sue the video streaming service over pirate broadcasts, the TASS news agency reported. Rambler plans to sue Twitch for 180 billion roubles ($2.82 billion) in a Russian court for what it said were 36,000 cases in which Twitch had violated its rights to broadcast the soccer games, the Kommersant newspaper reported earlier on Monday. The Moscow District Court said it planned to hear the case on Dec. 20. It said it had taken “interim measures” ahead of the hearing, but gave no further details. Amazon did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Rambler confirmed its plans to sue Twitch for damages and said it was holding talks with the service over a possible settlement deal. “Our suit against Twitch is to defend our exclusive rights to broadcast English Premier League matches and we will continue to actively combat pirate broadcasts,” said Mikhail Gershkovich, head of Rambler Group’s sports projects. “We’re currently holding talks with Twitch to sign a settlement agreement. The service has given us tools to combat pirate broadcasts and we are now only talking about compensation for damages between August and November,” he said. The court said it was unable to comment on the size of the lawsuit. “As regards the sum of the (suit), it was proposed by external lawyers who are running this case. The sum is technical and the maximum possible. It will be altered,” Gershkovich said. Source
  4. Ubisoft takes Rainbow Six Siege's top DDoS attackers to court. What you need to know Ubisoft has targeted individuals behind third-party Rainbow Six Siege distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) services in a new lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the subscription services "are continuing to cause, serious and irreparable harm to Ubisoft," amid ongoing efforts to tackle cheaters in the tactical shooter. It follows a prior initiative from Ubisoft, outlining gameplay, technical, and legal action, resulting in a 93 percent drop in DDoS attacks. Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege witnessed an uptick in network attacks throughout 2019, infamously marring the release of the Operation Ember Rise expansion with denial-of-service (DoS) and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. Flooding servers with requests with the aim of overload, it set to manipulate the game's skill-based ranking system, with a significant upset to the game's tactical multiplayer. The prevalence of attacks saw fast action from Ubisoft, outlining planned gameplay, technical, and legal crackdowns to combat the attacks. Those efforts eventually aided the 93 percent drop in DDoS activity, hugely reducing the presence across Rainbow Six Siege. And with a new lawsuit filed by Ubisoft, we're seeing legal action targeting individuals allegedly tied to third-party DDoS services. Court documents obtained by Polygon target several individuals behind "SNG.ONE," a website that sells DDoS subscriptions. With tiered memberships, their website reportedly allows individuals to easily target Rainbow Six Siege services, alongside other top titles like Fortnite, Call of Duty, and FIFA. Ubisoft reportedly looks to see the services shut down while granting damages and fees. "The DDoS Services represent an enormous threat to R6S and Ubisoft. The DDoS Services have caused, and are continuing to cause, serious and irreparable harm to Ubisoft, its valuable player community, and its business interests," the document claims. "Defendants are well aware of the harm that the DDoS Services and DDoS Attacks cause to Ubisoft. Indeed, Defendants have gone out of their way to taunt and attempt to embarrass Ubisoft for the damage its services have caused to R6S. For example, a Twitter account operated by one or more of Defendants has repeatedly mocked Ubisoft's security efforts, including Ubisoft's efforts to ban individuals utilizing Defendants' DDoS Services." The lawsuit also claims that defendants published a fictional seizure noticed on a website, in an effort to "hastily sought to conceal evidence." The lawsuit follows various efforts to combat player frustration in Rainbow Six Siege, tackling hacking, boosting, exploits, and more throughout 2019. Legal action marks the latest step in this initiative, as Rainbow Six Siege prepares for the Year 5 kick-off in February. Source
  5. Twenty-two women have won $12.75 million in a years-long lawsuit alleging a predatory scheme by GirlsDoPorn, a site that hosts purportedly one-time pornographic videos featuring “amateur” college-age women and teen girls. The women provided evidence that the company lured them into shoots under false pretenses, intimidated and coerced them into performing, and shared the images online without their consent. They sued a total of 13 affiliated businesses and individuals, including owner Michael Pratt, actor Andre Garcia, and videographer Matthew Wolfe. Screenshot: Michael Pratt, owner of GirlsDoPorn In a four-month trial, anonymous women testified that GirlsDoPorn flew them to San Diego hotels for “modeling” gigs. After they arrived, they said, the group gave them drugs and alcohol and hurried them to sign opaquely-worded contracts without telling them the name of their site, promising them that their videos would only be distributed on DVDs to private clients in New Zealand and Australia. Within weeks, clips appeared on the GirlsDoPorn homepage and sites like PornHub, and they were doxxed. The plaintiffs believe, in part, that the site itself helped disseminate their identities to acquaintances, employers, friends, and family in order to help the video go viral; GirlsDoPorn owner Michael J. Pratt briefly owned PornWikiLeaks, where their information was posted. Several testified that they’d asked to stop mid-shoot and were refused. One defendant alleged that she’d asked not to go through with the shoot at all, but the company threatened to withhold her hotel reservation and plane ticket home, knowing she couldn’t afford to pay for them herself. In October of last year, the Daily Beast reported on a motion in which their attorney claimed to have interviewed 100 women with similar stories of fraud and coercion by GirlsDoPorn, and over a dozen accused actor Andre Garcia of sexual assault. The parties stipulated that the company made over $1 million on the performers’ collective work. The company concealed their assets, and Pratt, who collects 100% of the profits from GirlsDoPorn, filed for bankruptcy; in a profile, the Daily Beast quoted texts submitted in evidence, saying: “As soon as I bankrupt the business...they [the plaintiffs] are f###d.” As Courthouse News reported in October of last year, at least one woman testified that she was paid half of the promised $5,000 because she “looked old.” She was 22 at the time of filming. In the verdict, San Diego Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright wrote that the contracts were “invalid and unenforceable–part and parcel of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme.” Enright found clear and convincing evidence that the syndicate acted in malice, oppression or fraud, writing: “Collectively, they have experienced severe harassment, emotional and psychological trauma, and reputational harm; lost jobs, academic and professional opportunities, and family and personal relationships; and had their lives derailed and uprooted. They have become pariahs in their communities. Several Plaintiffs have become suicidal.” GirlsDoPorn continued to show total indifference throughout the trial, even uploading a new video involving one Jane Doe who claimed that she was not made aware of the lawsuit when she shot the video in August. The women won a total of $9.45 million in compensatory damages, $3.3 million in punitive damages, and copyrights to their videos. GirlsDoPorn has been ordered to remove their videos from the internet. Pratt has fled the country and has been charged with additional counts of producing child pornography and child sex trafficking for coercing a 16-year-old into producing a video despite full knowledge of her age. The site is, unfortunately, still live. Source
  6. Court documents from a civil complaint brought by disgraced former Google executive Andy Rubin’s estranged spouse, Rie Hirabaru Rubin, and obtained by BuzzFeed News, claim that Rubin left Google after an “inappropriate relationship” with a subordinate, hid his fortune from his ex-wife, and engaged in disturbing extramarital behavior including running a “sex ring.” Photo: Android co-creator Andy Rubin Rubin, who has been dubbed the “father of Android,” left Google in 2014—but it wasn’t until an October 2018 report in the New York Times that knowledge of how and why became public. The Times wrote that a female employee, with whom Rubin had “been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode.” Google human resources personnel found the account credible, but the search giant and its parent company Alphabet let Rubin walk with a shocking $90 million exit package on top of $150 million in 2014 stock awards. It later emerged that another executive accused of groping an employee at a “boozy” holiday party, former senior vice president Amit Singhal, had a $45 million exit package approved by Google (though the amount was later reduced to $15 million). The revelations sparked furor from both shareholders and employees, the latter of whom staged a massive walkout later in 2018 demanding change. The matter still hasn’t been resolved, with Google recently denying claims by staffers involved in organizing the walkout that were later retaliated against. According to BuzzFeed News, a lawsuit filed last October by Rie Hirabaru Rubin claims that Rubin and his ex-attorney were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud her by “convincing her to sign a prenuptial agreement that later barred her from sharing any part of her husband’s financial gains.” The lawsuit also alleges that Rubin misled her about his finances, including by opening a separate bank account shortly before his 2014 departure that he used to pay off women. Rie Rubin is seeking to have the prenuptial declared invalid, BuzzFeed News wrote: Rie Rubin, who is also seeking a divorce in a separate family court, is suing to invalidate that prenuptial agreement and to potentially lay claim to a portion of Andy Rubin’s net worth, which court documents estimate to be around $350 million. While the lawsuit never explicitly states that Google paid $90 million as part of an exit package following an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct in 2014, it does state that “Rubin concealed his income” and that his wife “even now does not understand the full scope of his finances.” Rie Rubin also alleged that her husband opened a separate bank account a few months before he left Google in October 2014 to receive his earnings and make “hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to other women.” As the Verge noted, one of the key claims in the suit is that Rubin recommended his ex-lawyer to Rie Rubin during the handling of the prenuptial agreement, failing to disclose that attorney represented him in a prior divorce. The suit claims the resulting prenuptial appeared designed to exclude massive parts of Rubin’s wealth, the Verge wrote, including holdings “that appear to result from Microsoft’s acquisition of Sidekick manufacturer Danger,” of which Rubin was a co-founder. However, one of the most concerning allegations in the documents is that Rubin had “affairs with multiple women” and that some of these were “‘ownership’ relationships with other women, whereby Rubin would pay for their expenses in exchange for offering them to other men.” It accuses Rubin of running what was more or less a sex ring. That dovetails with the original Times report, which mentioned that Rie Rubin had accused him of such conduct and included a screenshot of an August 2015 email to one of the alleged mistresses: The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.” San Mateo Superior Court Judge Susan Greenberg unsealed documents related to the case on Tuesday, but did tell Rie Rubin’s attorneys to file an amended complaint removing some of the most outrageous accusations, BuzzFeed wrote. “This is a garden variety family law dispute involving a wife who regrets her decision to execute a prenuptial agreement,” Rubin’s legal team told the Verge and BuzzFeed News in a statement. “It should be litigated in family law court in its entirety.” In a further statement to the Verge, Rubin’s attorneys added, “This is a family law dispute involving a wife who regrets her decision to execute a prenuptial agreement. It is full of false claims and we look forward to telling our side of the story.” More At: [BuzzFeed News/The Verge] Source
  7. Capital One and GitHub have been hit with a class-action lawsuit over the recent data breach that resulted in the data of over 100 million Capital One customers being exposed. The law firm Tycko & Zavareei LLP filed the lawsuit on Thursday, arguing that GitHub and Capital One demonstrated negligence in their response to the breach. The firm filed the class-action complaint on behalf of those impacted by the breach, alleging that both companies failed to protect customer data. Personal information for tens of millions of customers was exposed after a firewall misconfiguration in an Amazon cloud storage service used by Capital One was exploited. The breach exposed around 140,000 Social Security numbers and 80,000 bank account numbers, along with the credit card applications of millions in both the U.S. and Canada. The individual who allegedly perpetrated the data breach, Seattle-based software engineer Paige Thompson, was arrested earlier this week. Thompson, a former Amazon employee, allegedly accessed the data in March and posted about her theft of the information on GitHub in April, according to the complaint. Another GitHub user notified Capital One, which subsequently notified the FBI. “As a result of GitHub’s failure to monitor, remove, or otherwise recognize and act upon obviously-hacked data that was displayed, disclosed, and used on or by GitHub and its website, the Personal Information sat on GitHub.com for nearly three months,” the law firm alleged in its complaint against GitHub and Capital One. The firm also alleged that computer logs “demonstrate that Capital One knew or should have known” about the data breach when it occurred in March, and criticized Capital One for not taking action to respond to the breach until last month. The lawsuit comes days after New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that her office is opening an investigation into the breach, and on the heels of another lawsuit being filed by a Connecticut resident in connection to the breach on behalf of all those impacted. Republican leaders of the House Oversight and Reform Committee are also demanding answers from Capital One and Amazon about the breach, and the Senate Banking Committee is likely to look into the incident once Congress returns from the August recess. Source
  8. U.S. states sue EPA for stricter asbestos rules (Reuters) - Ten U.S. states and Washington, D.C. sued the Environmental Protection Agency to begin working on rules to tighten oversight of asbestos, and reduce the health risks that the substance poses to the public. FILE PHOTO: A "Danger Asbestos" sign is seen as a demolition crew removes the remains of a demolished home, next to an occupied one, in a neighborhood filled with blight in Detroit, Michigan, November 24, 2015. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook/File Photo The attorneys general from California and Massachusetts, Xavier Becerra and Maura Healey, said on Monday they are leading the case, after the EPA denied the states’ petition that it collect more data on asbestos. A spokesman for the EPA and its administrator, Andrew Wheeler, said the agency does not discuss pending litigation. Asbestos is a carcinogen once used widely in fireproofing and insulation. Many companies stopped using it by the mid-1970s after it was linked to mesothelioma and other types of cancer. Federal law still allows limited uses of asbestos, and Congress in 2016 amended the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to create a process for regulating the substance. Symptoms from asbestos exposure can take decades to surface. “Asbestos is a known carcinogen that kills tens of thousands of people every year, yet the Trump administration is choosing to ignore the very serious health risks it poses,” Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. “There’s too much at stake to let the EPA ignore the danger that deadly asbestos poses to our communities, including to workers and children,” added Becerra, also a Democrat. Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington state joined the lawsuit. The EPA has said protecting people from asbestos exposure is a priority, including through an April rule giving it power to review asbestos products that were no longer on the market before they could be sold again in the United States. In denying the states’ petition, the EPA determined that it was already aware of all current uses of asbestos, and had the essential information needed to assess the risks, according to the Federal Register. But the states believe this denial was arbitrary and capricious, and violated the EPA’s obligations under the TSCA. The lawsuit was filed late on Friday in the federal court in Oakland, California. It is one of many lawsuits by Democratic-controlled or Democratic-leaning states challenging policies by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican, including the rolling back of some environmental protections. The case is California et al v Environmental Protection Agency et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 19-03807. Source: U.S. states sue EPA for stricter asbestos rules
  9. Suit is set to enter discovery Google will have to face a California lawsuit accusing the company of bias against conservative job candidates as part of a legal challenge first brought against the company by James Damore, author of the infamous 2017 “Google memo.” Damore exited the lawsuit last year and entered arbitration with the company. But the suit, which argues Google’s hiring practices are biased against white and Asian people, conservatives, and men, will move ahead after surviving a dismissal motion from the company. In a statement, the law firm representing the plaintiffs said the suit will now move into the discovery phase. The plaintiffs in the case are seeking class certification to represent others they believe have been discriminated against, a decision the court will make at a later date. In legal filings, Google has disputed that conservatives are an identifiable class under the law. In a decision, the judge on the case said the court “indeed has doubts” about the viability of the idea, but it is, for the time being, letting the case move ahead. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. In 2017, Damore published a memo questioning Google’s diversity practices and attributing gaps in engineering placements to biological differences between men and women. The memo was widely shared and criticized inside Google, and then the world, and Damore was eventually fired by the company. His attempt to fight back against the termination included bringing a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, which decided Google was within its right to fire Damore. Source
  10. Health groups sue over Trump rollback of Obama-era emissions rule © iStock Two major health organizations on Monday sued the Trump administration over its rollback of an Obama-era rule on power plant emissions. The American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association are challenging President Trump’s newly unveiled American Clean Energy (ACE) rule, the administration’s replacement for the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. Critics have widely panned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Trump for introducing a rule opponents say will do little to reduce pollution from power plants. “In repealing the Clean Power Plan and adopting the ACE rule, EPA abdicates its legal duties and obligations to protect public health under the Clean Air Act, which is why we are challenging these actions,” the two groups said in a statement Monday. “EPA has legal authority and obligation under the Clean Air Act to protect and preserve public health and welfare, including by regulating carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants," they added. "However, it is simply not lawful for EPA to use its legal authority in ways that will increase dangerous air pollutants and harm the health of Americans.” The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration's replacement rule is designed to give states more time and authority to decide how to implement new technology to lower net emissions from coal-fired plants. The administration argues that the Obama rule was too extreme, and that the replacement rule focuses more narrowly on technology power plants can use to reduce their pollution. "This regulation does not cap emissions, does not set a state-wide cap or a facility cap - we don't cap emissions, we limit emissions rates," a top EPA official told reporters on a call when the ACE rule was announced. A number of state attorneys general and environmental groups have vowed to sue over the new rule. "The statute requires maximum feasible emissions reduction," said Andres Restrepo, a lawyer with the Sierra Club, which is planning to file a lawsuit. "This comes nowhere near doing that." The eventual outcome of a potential lawsuit challenging certain aspects of the EPA's new rule could have a lasting impact. "What they want is a court ruling that says the best system of emission reduction is limited to these tiny minor tweaks that do nothing, and then the EPA can do nothing going forward to address pollution," said Lisa Lynch, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which also plans to sue. "That's what the EPA wants." Source: Health groups sue over Trump rollback of Obama-era emissions rule
×
×
  • Create New...