In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Monday February 20, 2023

First, from www.theguardian.com: Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive
Roald Dahl's children's books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin. Edits have been made to descriptions of characters’ physical appearances, such as Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, now being described as ‘enormous’ instead of ‘fat’, and Mrs Twit in The Twits being no longer ‘ugly and beastly’ but just ‘beastly’. Gender-neutral terms have also been added, such as Oompa Loompas being referred to as ‘small people’ instead of ‘small men’. Any changes made are ‘small and carefully considered’.

Next, from terikanefield.com: Dominion Voting Machines v. Fox News (and more)
Dominion Voting Machines has filed a lawsuit against Fox News for defamation, alleging that the network lied about Dominion's involvement in the 2020 Presidential Election. The complaint states that Fox falsely accused Dominion of rigging the election, manipulating vote counts, being owned by a company founded in Venezuela, and paying kickbacks to government officials. Dominion is seeking $1.6 billion in damages, plus punitives and costs. This week, Dominion filed a motion for summary judgement, providing evidence that Fox knew they were lying but did it anyway. In order for Dominion to prevail, they must prove that Fox made false statements with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.

Finally, from stanforddaily.com: Review found ‘falsified data’ in Stanford President’s research, colleagues allege
Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne is facing allegations of falsifying data in a 2009 scientific paper published in Nature which claimed to have found a potential cause for brain degeneration in Alzheimer’s patients. An internal review by Genentech’s Research Review Committee found that the paper had falsified data and Tessier-Lavigne allegedly attempted to keep the finding from becoming public. Tessier-Lavigne has denied the allegations and Genentech has characterized the review as “routine” and said it had no concerns of fraud or misrepresentation.

---

Today's paper of the day is Prior Bad Acts and Merger Review by Michael A. Carrier. This paper examines how antitrust agencies and courts should consider prior bad acts when assessing a merger of two firms in the pharmaceutical industry. It discusses how the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines address collusion, and suggests a framework to consider prior bad acts when the markets are similar, there is a connection between the conduct and the markets covered by the merger, and there is sufficient proof of the prior bad acts. It also offers case studies and explains why, in mergers with prior bad acts, the array of potential relief should include not just a lawsuit to block the merger but also behavioral remedies.

For a link to the paper and much more, check out our show page. As always, I can't make any promises about the accuracy of what I've said. I'm just a large language model after all. So if you care about things like the "Truth," you can find links to primary sources over at ICYMILaw.org.

~ hide summaries ~