2021 Consumer Product Lawsuits and Safety Alerts

Uber’s policies that cover passengers with disabilities has landed the company in hot water with federal officials. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the rideshare company for charging disabled passengers “wait time” fees because they need more than the two minutes that Uber uses as a default to get into a vehicle. 

The lawsuit claims that the policy dates back to April 2016, when the company began charging riders wait times in a number of cities. The DOJ says the extra fee violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires companies to make reasonable modifications in policies and procedures that might deny equal access to individuals with disabilities. 

The department’s lawsuit alleges that Uber starts charging a wait time fee at the two-minute mark even when it’s plain and clear that a passenger’s need for extra time is disability-based.

“Passengers with disabilities may need additional time to enter a car for various reasons. A passenger may, for example, use a wheelchair or walker that needs to be broken down and stored in the car,” the DOJ stated. “Or a passenger who is blind may need additional time to safely walk from the pickup location to the car itself.”

While Uber has yet to comment on the wait time fee allegation directly, it may try to fight back against the DOJ’s accusations. On its website, the company claims that its technology and the transportation provided by drivers “has transformed mobility for many people with disabilities, and we’re committed to continuing to develop technologies that support everyone’s ability to easily move around their communities.”

DOJ demands that Uber change its practices

The DOJ is asking the court to order Uber to stop putting individuals with disabilities at a disadvantage by modifying its wait time fee policy to abide by the ADA. It’s also asking that Uber be required to educate both its staff and its drivers on the ADA, pay money damages to people subjected to the illegal wait time fees, and pay a civil penalty.

The agency left the door open for the suit to apply to “other companies that provide transportation services, but fail to ensure equal access for all people, including those with disabilities.” According to NPR, both Lyft and Uber have been part of similar lawsuits in New York City, Chicago, and other cities. The companies previously claimed that they are exempt from the ADA because they are technology companies and not transportation companies.

The DOJ is asking consumers who believe they have been discriminated against by Uber because of a disability to contact it by phone at 833-591-0425. Consumers can also send an email to Uber.Fee@usdoj.gov to provide information. 

It looks like the U.S.’ largest ongoing lawsuit could be finally drawing to a close, as 14 states have announced an agreement in the fight against opioids. The settlement collectively resolves nearly 4,000 lawsuits against Oxycontin maker Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson. It also strikes a deal with medication distributors Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen Drug, as well as pharmacy chains like CVS.

The settlement is composed of two agreements. One is among the states, political subdivisions, and the three major pharmaceutical distributors (AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson). The other is among the states, political subdivisions, and Johnson & Johnson.

Under the agreement, Cardinal, McKesson, and Amerisource will pay out $21 million over the next 18 years. Johnson & Johnson will pay up to $5 million over a nine-year period.

And Purdue Pharma? In addition to filing for bankruptcy, the company has already agreed to cut a $4.5 billion deal with 15 states and plead guilty to three felony charges under a settlement agreement with the U.S. Justice Department.

North Carolina leads the way in settlement funds

The entire payout is contingent on 48 states agreeing to the deal. CourthouseNews reports that at least 44 states and 95% of cities must sign on to the agreement to get some of the money. So far, 15 states are on board, including New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

Of those, North Carolina will get the lion’s share of the settlement money -- $750 million. That money has already been earmarked to go toward mitigating opioid misuse in the state.

“The opioid epidemic has torn families apart and killed thousands of North Carolinians,” North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein said in a press release. “Families across our state have shared with me their heart-wrenching stories about their loved ones who are struggling with the horrible disease of addiction or who overdosed and died. It has been my genuine honor on their behalf to lead these negotiations to hold accountable the companies that helped to create and fuel this crisis.”

Earlier this week, New York regulators reached a settlement with Amerisource, Cardinal, and McKesson for $1.1 billion. That money will be added to the $230 million it gained under a settlement agreement with Johnson & Johnson last month.

“The numerous companies that manufactured and distributed opioids across the nation did so without regard to life or even the national crisis they were helping to fuel,” said James in a press release. “Johnson & Johnson, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and Amerisource Bergen not only helped light the match, but continued to fuel the fire of opioid addiction for more than two decades.”

And the pharmacies? While several pharmacies haven’t admitted to any wrongdoing, a report from Reuters confirms that Walgreens, CVS, RiteAid, and Walmart have already agreed to pay a combined $26 million to settle claims with two New York counties. 

As for the others, CourthouseNews says the settlement terms would require those companies to hire an independent clearinghouse to monitor exactly where the drugs are going and how often. If the companies detect that pharmacies are showing signs of drug rerouting, they will have to stop shipping the medications and report the suspected offenders to state regulators. 

Saying it was the company’s “last resort,” Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCLH) has filed a lawsuit against Florida after the state banned vaccine passports. The company said it can’t promote its cruises as safe if it can’t make sure its crew and passengers are vaccinated against COVID-19 in “a way that [NCLH] has determined will be best for all concerned.”

Florida's law puts cruise lines in a no-win position, threatening to fine them $5,000 each time they ask a passenger for proof of vaccination. Gov. Ron DeSantis' press secretary Christina Pushaw told ConsumerAffairs that NCLH made a “disappointing and unlawful choice to join the CDC in discriminating against children and other individuals who cannot be vaccinated or who have opted not to be vaccinated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience"

"At present, approximately 60% of eligible Floridians have been vaccinated against COVID-19, which means Norwegian is purposefully excluding 40% of Florida’s residents from the people it is willing to serve.”

Enough is enough

In what has all the signs of a showdown, Norwegian feels that it and other companies in the travel industry have suffered long enough at the hands of the pandemic. 

“Since March 2020, concerns about COVID-19 have led to a debilitating, total shutdown for the cruise industry generally and for NCLH specifically,” the company said in the lawsuit. “That shutdown has inflicted incalculable, irrecoverable losses not only upon NCLH but upon all those whose interests ride with it—including NCLH’s many crew and passengers as well as a surrounding ecosystem (contractors, vendors, manufacturers, wholesalers, hotels, restaurants, airlines, travel agents, etc.”

If push comes to shove, Norwegian just may pull up every anchor it has in Florida and move somewhere else if it’s not allowed to mandate vaccines.

"At the end of the day, cruise ships have motors, propellers and rudders, and God forbid we can't operate in the state of Florida for whatever reason, then there are other states that we do operate from, and we can operate from the Caribbean for a ship that otherwise would have gone to Florida," CEO Frank Del Rio said during an earnings call in May.

Freedom of choice?

On the other side of the stand-off, Pushaw said that Florida has already fought and won its case so that Norwegian and every other cruise line can invite and serve all Americans on its ships. “But apparently Norwegian prefers the shackles of the CDC to the freedom offered by Florida,” she said.

One ConsumerAffairs reviewer is already standing with Florida on this issue. “Shame on NCL for requiring a covid shot that is not scientifically proven and the FDA didn't even approve it,” wrote Ellen from New York. “Nothing but bullying. We are free Americans and should have the right to choose the shot.”

The 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that social media company Snap can face a lawsuit by parents who claim the popular app contributed to the deaths of their teenage sons.

The justices were unanimous in their ruling, finding that Snap was not shielded from litigation by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). That provision has generally protected media companies from litigation over content posted on their sites by third parties.

"We appreciate the careful attention that the 9th Circuit paid to this case, and the well-written, unanimous opinion reflects such thoughtful work by the panel," attorney Naveen Ramachandrappa, representing the plaintiffs, said in an email to Reuters.

The parents of Jason Davis, Hunter Morby, and Landen Brown brought the case after their sons died in a 2017 fatal car accident in Wisconsin. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that Snap bears some responsibility because the teenagers were using a feature called Speed Filter.

Speed Filter

According to the complaint, the feature lets users share images that are superimposed with images of the speedometer showing how fast the vehicle is traveling. The car carrying the three boys was reportedly going in excess of 100 miles an hour when it left the road and hit a tree.

The parents filed the lawsuit in 2019, claiming that Snap was negligent in designing a feature that encouraged reckless and dangerous behavior. In the first hearing, Snap was absolved of blame.

But in making its decision, the 9th Circuit reversed that lower court ruling. U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald originally granted Snap's motion to dismiss the case citing the protections under the CDA. The appeals court, however, said the suit was not attempting to portray Snap as a publisher but rather as a “products manufacturer.”

The appellate court has sent the case back to district court and ordered Snap to face the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

Baby food manufacturer Beech-Nut Nutrition Company has been slapped with a lawsuit by Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine over claims that it misled customers about the health and safety of its products.

In the lawsuit, Racine alleges that Beech-Nut’s slogan “real food for babies” is anything but. “It reassures parents of the safety of its products through the use of words and phrases in its marketing and advertising such as ‘natural,’ ‘naturals,’ ‘100% natural,’ ‘organics,’ ‘just sweet potatoes’ (as an example), ‘non-GMO project verified,’ and ‘nothing artificial added.’” 

However, the suit contends that Beech-Nut foods contain high levels of toxic heavy metals, contradicting Beech-Nut’s vow that it “conduct[s] over 20 rigorous tests on our purees, testing for up to 255 pesticides and heavy metals (like lead, cadmium, arsenic and other nasty stuff).” 

Racine went on to accuse Beech-Nut of speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it signaled to consumers that it is “aware of no higher standards in the industry than the ones we employ,” and that “Just like you would, we send the produce back if it’s not good enough.”

“Parents across the District and the country trusted Beech-Nut when it advertised its baby food products as organic and safe. But the reality is much different, as parents unknowingly fed their babies food containing high levels of toxic metals which can lead to lifelong health complications,” Racine stated. 

“No company should profit by illegally deceiving parents about products that actually jeopardize the health and safety of their children. We are seeking to put a stop to it and put other baby food companies on notice that they must provide truthful and complete information about their products. Additionally, federal regulators and Congress need to take action to help ensure baby food is safe.”

Baby food lawsuits and congressional concerns are rolling in

Adding to Beech-Nut’s woes is its inclusion in a class action lawsuit filed in February that claimed the company (and others) misrepresented the heavy metals in their baby food. 

In fact, baby foods in general have had a rough year so far. AboutLawsuits reports that at least 38 proposed baby food class action lawsuits have been filed throughout the federal court system since February. All of the lawsuits involved allegations that popular baby food products contained high levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury.

The Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy in the U.S. House of Representatives also released a report in February called “Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury.” In that report, the Committee requested internal documents and test results from seven of the U.S.’ largest manufacturers of baby food, including:

• Nurture, Inc., which sells Happy Family Organics, including baby food products under the brand name HappyBABY

• Beech-Nut Nutrition Company 

• Hain Celestial Group, Inc., which sells baby food products under the brand name Earth’s Best Organic

• Gerber

• Campbell Soup Company, which sells baby food products under the brand name Plum Organics

• Walmart Inc., which sells baby food products through its private brand Parent’s Choice

• Sprout Foods, Inc. 

Plaintiffs in 43 lawsuits over toxic metal contamination in baby foods filed a motion in March asking for the cases to be consolidated in New York federal court.

Consumers weigh in

When ConsumerAffairs took a look at past consumer sentiment regarding Beech-Nut baby food products, the company mustered slightly more than a one-star rating, coupled with a significant number of negative comments by reviewers.

One reviewer -- Heidi of Buckley, West Virginia -- said her “mommy intuition” kicked in when she noticed that no “pop” occurred when she opened a jar of Beech-Nut pineapple pear avocado. “To check the taste I took the lid and licked the remaining product from it. While the flavor itself was suspicious, I was immediately aware that I had something crunchy in my mouth. I spit into my hand and found a small but very obvious shard of glass.”

M. of Albuquerque, New Mexico, claimed that she found yellow fat floating on top of a new jar of Beech-Nut chicken. “Consistency also was lumpy, like fine fibrous oatmeal. Can see coarse chicken fibers in it, that shouldn't be there in a first food,” they said.

“M” said they called Beech-Nut’s consumer relations but that a representative “refused to apologize or offer to make it right.”

--- 

Update

The Beech-Nut Nutrition Company has released the following statement to the media regarding its pending litigation:

"We want to assure parents and caregivers that Beech-Nut products are, and have always been, safe and nutritious. That said, we do not comment on specific, pending litigation. Beech-Nut Nutrition looks forward to continuing to work with the FDA, in partnership with the Baby Food Council, on science-based standards that food suppliers can implement across our industry. Beech-Nut is committed to continually refining its internal standards and testing processes as technology and knowledge develops. Beech-Nut has been, and will continue to be, a leader in providing high-quality baby food products.”

Wages became a hot topic this week. In addition to the U.S. House passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, the parent company of Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse found itself as the defendant in a wage-based lawsuit.

Nonprofit organization One Fair Wage (OFW) filed a lawsuit against Darden Restaurants over claims that the company pays subminimum wages. The suit contends that this forces employees to depend on tips to help bring wages up to federal minimum wage levels.

This isn’t the first time Darden has come face-to-face with a lawsuit over wages. It was hit with another in 2012 that accused it of failing to pay federally mandated minimum wages and forcing its waiters and waitresses to work “off-the-clock” before or after their shifts.

Racial inequity and sexual harassment

One Fair Wage claimed two grievances in its lawsuit. First, it said Darden’s tipping policy resulted in racial inequity because tipped employees of color are paid less than tipped white employees; secondly, it says the company "maintains a national, corporate-level policy or practice that local managers must pay the lowest possible cash wage to all tipped employees." It says this forces tipped workers to take a "subminimum wage” that results in “increased sexual harassment of workers." 

The claim of sexual harassment stems from over 20 narratives that OFW collected from workers. Some of the scenarios included cooks making suggestive comments and new female hires being “fought over” by male trainers who later made sexual advances to them off-site.

In a survey presented by OFW, it claims that the federal subminimum wage remains “trapped at only $2.13 an hour for tipped workers” -- a provision that 43 states allow. The organization blames the National Restaurant Association for perpetuating that low wage with “decades of continued lobbying.”

Darden responds

When ConsumerAffairs reached out to Darden to hear its side of the lawsuit, the company said the suit “makes clear that their objections are with federal and state wage laws – not with our practices.”  

“We have zero tolerance for any form of harassment or discrimination in our restaurants, and we have strong policies in place to ensure our team members are treated with respect and feel safe and valued at work,” said Rich Jeffers, Darden’s Senior Director of Communications.

As to OFW’s claim of sub-par wages, Jeffers said Darden’s tipped team members earn more than $20 per hour on average. He added that the company plans to make that wage even higher in the future.

“We also recently announced that every hourly restaurant team member, regardless of role, now earns at least $10 per hour, including tip income, and we committed to raising the amount to $11 per hour in January 2022 and $12 per hour in January 2023,” Jeffers said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided in favor of Facebook in a lawsuit over unwanted text notifications the social platform sent. The ruling refutes a claim by the plaintiff, Noah Duguid, that the messages violated the federal ban on robocalls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

Duguid tried to convince the Court that what Facebook was doing was similar to robocalls. He stated that Facebook essentially had the “capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.” Furthering his argument, he said that accepting Facebook’s interpretation would “unleash” a “torrent of robocalls.” However, SCOTUS judges weren’t buying what Duguid was pitching.

“To begin with, Duguid greatly overstates the effects of accepting Facebook’s interpretation. The statute separately prohibits calls using ‘an artificial or prerecorded voice’ to various types of phone lines, including home phones and cell phones, unless an exception applies,” the Court stated in its opinion.

The Court said its decision does not affect that prohibition and that Duguid’s quarrel is with Congress because legislators didn’t define an autodialer as “malleably” as he would have liked. 

Facebook is happy, but lawmakers aren’t

Facebook was happy about the ruling and what it means for its ability to continue sending notifications to users going forward. 

“As the Court recognized, the law’s provisions were never intended to prohibit companies from sending targeted security notifications, and the court’s decision will allow companies to continue working to keep the accounts of their users safe,” Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said in an emailed statement.

However, lawmakers were less than pleased by the decision. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MASS) and Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) called out the Supreme Court for misinterpreting the TCPA. 

They -- and 19 other lawmakers -- sensed that the Court might lean this way months ago and tried to convince officials to be as consumer-sensitive as possible. When their fears came true on Thursday, Markey and Eshoo castigated the Court for abandoning consumers and making it possible for a limitless number of new robocalls to enter people’s lives.

“Today, the Supreme Court tossed aside years of precedent, clear legislative history, and essential consumer protection to issue a ruling that is disastrous for everyone who has a mobile phone in the United States,” said the lawmakers in a joint statement. 

“It was clear when the TCPA was introduced that Congress wanted to ban dialing from a database. By narrowing the scope of the TCPA, the Court is allowing companies the ability to assault the public with a non-stop wave of unwanted calls and texts, around the clock.”

Legislation may be coming

Markey and Eshoo are not giving up on this issue. They say they’ll “act to make right what the Supreme Court got wrong” by introducing legislation to “amend the TCPA, fix the Court’s error, and protect consumers.”

“If the Justices find their private mobile phones ringing non-stop from now until our legislation becomes law, they’ll only have themselves to blame,” Markey and Eshoo added.

A Southwest Airlines customer has been given the green light to continue his lawsuit against the carrier. Adrian Bombin leads a class action lawsuit asking for a refund instead of the airline credit that Southwest offered when his flight was cancelled due to the pandemic.

Bombin filed his lawsuit on February 27, 2020 – 12 days before the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic. Bombin had scheduled a flight from Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI) to Havana (Cuba) Airport (HAV) using Southwest’s mobile app. When he checked in on his flight on March 23 -- post-WHO’s declaration -- he was surprised to find that his “travel itinerary had been interrupted” due to cancellations caused by the spread of COVID-19.

In the lawsuit, Bombin says the Southwest customer service representative he spoke to did not offer “any comparable accommodations on another flight.” Bombin said that when he asked for a refund, he was denied and “only offered a credit for use on a future flight.”

Southwest asks for a dismissal of the suit

Southwest asked the U.S. District Court to dismiss the lawsuit, but a judge denied the airline’s petition and allowed it to move forward. Bombin appears to have the Department of Transportation (DOT) in his corner. The agency’s rule in situations like this is that “a passenger is entitled to a refund if the airline cancelled a flight, regardless of the reason, and the passenger chooses not to travel.”

The airline’s counterattack is based on its “Conditions of Carriage,” which the airline claims “does not provide for a right of a refund for a non-refundable ticket.” 

Companies can also fall back on the dreaded “terms and conditions” in situations like these. In this case, Southwest argued that anyone who books a flight on its website or its mobile app is required to click and accept its terms. However, Judge Gallagher said "there is no factual support for [Southwest’s] assertion that plaintiffs actually agreed to the terms and conditions when they purchased their tickets."

"In short, there is no proof (beyond the unsworn allegations of defense counsel) that users of the Southwest website and mobile application must click on an icon to accept the terms and conditions before purchasing airline tickets.”

This question has been raised before with Southwest

When questions arose regarding Southwest’s policy on ticket refunds early on in the pandemic, Brian Parrish of the Southwest Communications Team told ConsumerAffairs that the carrier fully complies with the directive from the DOT.

Parrish said travelers may change their travel plans up to 60 days from the original flight date if they want to rebook. Consumers looking to take that route can visit Southwest.com/rebook and view flights that have seats available. He noted that rebooking online is generally a traveler’s best option because call volumes are likely to be very high to reach a Southwest Representative. On the other hand, he said travelers do not need to take any action if they are unsure of their future travel plans.

When ConsumerAffairs asked Parrish what the airline would do if one of its options doesn’t make the consumer happy, he said travelers “may request a full refund to the original form of payment.”

Subway has been slapped with a lawsuit alleging that its tuna salad doesn’t really contain any actual tuna. The class action suit -- filed by two California residents -- goes after the sandwich chain with a myriad of claims: fraud, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, false advertising, and unfair competition. In short, the suit claims Subway’s subs and wraps for "completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient."

The suit maintains that Subway "packaged, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold the Products to consumers" based on the "misrepresentation that the products were manufactured with tuna." The plaintiffs go on to claim that independent testing revealed that "the filling in the Products has no scintilla of tuna at all, (but) are made from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together ... to imitate the appearance of tuna.”

The plaintiffs also claim that if “consumers (knew) the Products actually lacked tuna, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less (than Subway’s $6.99 for a footlong tuna sub) for them.” 

Subway pushes back

As you might expect, Subway considers the lawsuit flimsy. 

“There simply is no truth to the allegations in the complaint that was filed in California. Subway delivers 100 percent cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps, and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests,” spokesperson Maggie Truax told USA Today.

The company called the lawsuit's accusations "baseless" and said they "threaten to damage our franchisees, small business owners who work tirelessly to uphold the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including its tuna."  

Is “flaked tuna” really tuna?

When is “tuna” really “tuna”? The lawsuit doesn’t get into the minutiae of what is and what isn’t tuna, only saying that Subway’s tuna is not. The plaintiffs say the product is an "entirely non-tuna-based mixture that Defendants blended to resemble tuna and imitate its texture." However, Truax defended Subway in her statement, saying the company uses “wild-caught tuna.”

When ConsumerAffairs dug a little deeper, we found that Subway’s ingredients list defines its tuna salad as “Flaked Tuna in Brine (tuna, water, salt), mayonnaise (soybean oil, eggs, water, distilled vinegar, contains less than 2 percent of salt, sugar, spice, lemon juice concentrate, calcium disodium EDTA added to protect flavor). Contains eggs and fish. May contain Mustard.” 

“Flaked tuna” is not chunk tuna or solid tuna, but rather the leftover pieces that tend to be very small fragments of the loin, according to Precision Nutrition’s Encyclopedia of Foods. Flaked tuna is also a common ingredient in cat food.

The plaintiffs are requesting class-action status for their lawsuit and want to tell their story in front of a jury. They’re also asking for "proper equitable and injunctive relief, the proper amount of restitution or disgorgement; and the proper amount of reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees."

Here we go again. Lyft and Uber drivers in California have filed a lawsuit to try to overturn Prop 22, a ballot measure passed in November that allowed ride-hailing companies to avoid classifying drivers as employees. 

Under the new law, benefits given to drivers for ride-sharing companies would be less than those afforded to real “employees.” Opponents say it also strips the state legislature’s ability to empower workers to organize a union and “illegally” cuts ride-hailing drivers from California’s state workers’ compensation program.

“Every day, rideshare drivers like me struggle to make ends meet because companies like Uber and Lyft prioritize corporate profits over our wellbeing,” plaintiff Saori Okawa said in a statement. “With Prop 22, they’re not just ignoring our health and safety — they’re discarding our state’s constitution.”

Uphill battle

As it is with many ballot initiatives, getting the word out can produce yays or nays at the polls. Companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash poured over $200 million into the “Yes on 22” campaign, claiming that Prop 22 would strip the flexibility of gig drivers, increase consumer prices, and extend wait times. 

Unfortunately for Prop 22 opponents, they simply didn’t have the campaign funds to compete and sell their side of the story to the public.

Overturning Prop 22 is an uphill battle. In reviewing the lawsuit, The Verge’s Andrew J. Hawkins says the measure was written in such a way that it could withstand challenges down the road -- one of the more problematic ones being a provision that requires a seven-eighths majority of the state legislature for any modification.

Hawkins says that gig drivers are trying to argue that Prop 22 was illegal from its get-go. And while other groups have been lucky enough to get certain California ballot measures repealed in the past, they’ve achieved that through additional ballot measures -- a step that drivers and supportive unions are going to have to take if the lawsuit fails.