Instagram

Unfortunately, this is real. Very, very real.

First of all, let’s just get this out of the way: you all remember singer Tweet, right? She had the song “Oops  (Oh My)” from her amazing debut album Southern Hummingbird.  Okay good, we’re all on track now. Back to business.

Well, she recently had a little chat with All Hip Hop about where she’s been since the release of her second album and the new music on her latest EP. They then mentioned to her that Twitter has become insanely popular and asked if she considered changing her name. This was her response:

“No. If anything, Twitter would have to change something up. I was here first, and they took everything that I brought to the table. I brought the bird, the name and I will never change. I’ve been Tweet since I was a little girl. It’s not a phase name, that’s who I am. My father gave me that nickname, so no way am I changing that at all.”

They went on to ask her about the rumor of her possibly suing Twitter:

“No, it’s no rumor. I didn’t go that far, yet. Yes, there is a case, and there is room for that. I haven’t really pursued it fully yet.”

There’s just so much confusion here. First, singer Tweet actively uses Twitter to tweet to her fans.  The only reason anyone knows she has a new EP out is because she uses the site to promote her music (I don’t know about you but I don’t think any of my local radio stations have asked her to come promote it). The excitement over her, so to speak, has dwindled – at least from a record label perspective – so Twitter is the easiest and cheapest route for her to get info out to the masses.

Second, whether or not Twitter decided for themselves that the word “tweet” would be used to define what people are doing on the site, a lot of people just decided that’s the word they would use to describe what they were doing anyway.What other word would there eve be? “Twittering?” That just sounds silly.

Third: With all due respect, ma’am, the vast majority of people on Twitter probably don’t know you. The head honchos at Twitter don’t know you. Personally, I’m a fan; back when Southern Hummingbird came out, my friends and I would sing the entire album and actually, we called it “tweeting.” So, while I think it is funny how the two have that connection in my world (and maybe a few of you too), let’s not get too crazy. It’s not like the use of the word on Twitter has caused her to lose money or for people to become insanely confused.

If she actually decides to pursue this, I’d be really interested to hear what she’d like them to change.  I’d also like to know if she would sue them for money because to move forward on something like this and possibly ask for money, the figure would likely be pretty high. Hilarious.

By the way, Tweet does have an EP out called Simpy Tweet and she says her new album will be out during the summer or in September. Now, that’s something to be [cautiously] excited about.

What do you think about this? Would Tweet have a leg to stand on?

Shutterstock

As we recently reported, hundreds of students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are finding themselves with less financial aid due to changes made on federal student loan applications.

Now the HBCUs are fighting back. According to the Washington Times (via  Black Blue Dog), HBCUs may end up having to sue President Obama’s administration for allowing changes in student loan standards. These changes have disproportionately affected minority populations. On the HBCU side, they say they were not given advanced notice of changes in loan standards resulting from new eligibility requirements coming from the US Department of Education.

“We’re going to continue to pursue the legislative process to find a better solution,” Johnny C. Taylor, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund told the Washington Times. “We are not itching for a fight, [but] we need to do what is necessary to protect what is the most vulnerable and fragile in our society.”

On the White House side, the Obama Administration has said that they made the changes so that the expectations for these loans match industry standards for getting other types of loans. This has not happened, however, for many black students, especially those at HBCUs. “[D]ue to differences in wealth levels, African Americans are often left behind,” writes Black Blue Dog. “Before, less than a quarter of PLUS loan applicants were denied.  That number has risen to more than half,” the article continues.

Separately, but related, the average debt for HBCU students is $32,000. So though those loans are needed, many students are walking off campus for the last time with a high degree of debt.

Sweet Brown became famous for her harrowing tale of escape from a house fire. And if anyone’s going to profit from that, it’s going to be her!

The Internet celeb aka Kimberly Wilkins is suing Apple and others in federal court for selling a song on iTunes that sampled an interview she conducted with a Seattle radio program, the Bob Rivers Show, without her permission. The result was a song called “I Got Bronchitis,” which went up hours after the interview. NewsOK quotes the lawsuit: “At no time did Sweet Brown consent or agree to have her name, likeness, voice, statements, photograph used in connection with any products, songs, video productions, merchandise, goods, advertisements or solicitations for merchandise, goods or service.” The radio program and the company that owns it, Citicasters, is also named in the lawsuit.

NewsOK says the song was on sale from April 16 to June 29 of last year. The lawsuit was originally filed in June 2012 and has since moved to the federal courts. The lawsuit started at $15 million but has since been amended to an unknown amount.

Sweet Brown’s short clip yielded a bunch of catchphrases that have since made her famous enough to become a spokesperson for an Internet start up company.

Business Insider says the lawsuit against Apple may not hold up as The Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects companies from litigation if they take swift action to remove content that becomes part of a copyright dispute.

We don’t blame Sweet Brown one bit for taking action to protect her meal ticket. If you want to use her celebrity, you have to sign an agreement like WePay did. What’s WePay? Check out the ad after the jump.

Source: WENN

Back in December, we told you that a woman by the name of Jesseca White was threatening to sue Grammy Award-winning singer and songwriter, Ne-Yo. In case you’re unaware of who Jesseca White is, allow me to catch you up to speed. A few years ago Ne-Yo and Jesseca dated. During this time, White gave birth to a child whom Ne-Yo believed that he fathered. Shockingly, in 2009 he found out Maury Povich-style that he was not the father.

In September of 2012 the “Let Me Love You” singer appeared on a VH1 Behind The Music special, where at some point he discussed the traumatic ordeal and finding out the baby wasn’t his.

“Jessica called me, balling crying. I’m like, ‘What’s wrong with you?’ And all she could say is, ‘He’s not yours, he’s not yours.’ She just kept saying it over and over and over again, to the point where I dropped the phone. Chimere’s not mine. That hurt ’cause I had attached myself to this guy, you know. This is my son. I’m looking at him and I’m picturing I’m gonna be old, and he’s gonna be — this is my son! It’s not my son,” he said during the special.

A few months following the show’s airing, Jesseca hired an attorney and threatened to sue Ne-Yo, claiming that his depicting her as “a harlot who lied, broke his heart and then vanished,” was defaming and caused her to become the subject of much ridicule and harassment. She also claimed that she was so distraught and mentally tortured over Ne-Yo’s comments that she was unable to work, forced to file for state aid and suffered intense “nausea, vomiting and hair loss.” It was expressed that White hoped that she and Ne-Yo could settle amicably, but if he didn’t pay up, she’d be forced to sue him.

It appears that Ne-Yo hasn’t complied because TMZ is reporting that White is moving forward with legal proceedings. In her lawsuit, she claims that Ne-Yo depicted her as ”an unchaste woman who deliberately tricked him into believing he was the father of her child … so that she could fraudulently bilk him of ‘ungodly amounts of money.’” She also claims that she didn’t “trick” the singer, but at the time she gave birth, she wasn’t sure if he was the father and that Ne-Yo made it seem as if she “aggressively” sought to deceive him. White says that her career as a photographer and graphic designer has been drastically impacted since Ne-Yo’s special.

While Jesseca’s claims seem a bit outrageous, when she finally revealed to Ne-Yo that he was not her child’s father, the two reached a settlement agreement where he paid her $575,000. It is reported that the two also agreed to a confidentiality clause, in which both parties vowed to never go public with certain information regarding the paternity drama. And this is why Jesseca just might have a case.
Messy.

What are your thoughts on this? Should Ne-Yo have to pay Jesseca?

Follow Jazmine on Twitter @jazminedenise.

(AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

On March 12^th the Bloomberg administration’s new soda regulations will hit New York City. Under the first-of-its-kind soft drink prohibition meant to fight obesity, restaurants and mobile food carts can’t sell sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces and after a three-month grace period, the city will fine violators $200 per sale. This legislation, approved by the Board of Health last year, does not impact convenience and grocery stores.

Some business owners are taking to action quickly, investing in new cups and glasses to comply. Dunkin’ Donuts has started posting signs to educate customers. Others are holding out to the last minute to see if the law will be postponed or overturned based on a lawsuit filed in October by a number of groups, including the American Beverage Association, National Association of Theatre Owners of New York State, the National Restaurant Association. That has yet to be ruled upon.

Although the Department of Health sent out a sheet of frequently asked questions to 24,000 food service establishments and encouraged them to call 311 with questions. A week before the ban many are still confused about all the rules and how strictly they will be enforced.

Many restaurant owners are in disbelief. Brother Jimmy’s BBQ Josh Lebowitz said, “All of our sodas were in large glasses, it just seemed appropriate. We tend to serve everything oversized. It’s a little bit funny that it’s actually happening, I never thought this would be legislated.”

First Lady Michelle Obama has come under some criticism by those who think the government has overstepped with its efforts to combat obesity. What do you think of the coming soda ban? If you’re not in NYC, is this something that you would like to see where you live? Word is that some candidates for city council in Washington DC would like to see a similar ban there.

Follow CAP on Twitter: @in_allcaps

Joseph Marzullo/WENN.com

It has been a few months since we’ve heard anything about the lawsuits pending against ex-Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash but that doesn’t mean the wheels haven’t been turning.

His lawyer Michael Berger filed a brief in the New York Federal Court on Friday claiming statute of limitations should be applicable in all three cases.  He states:

“There are two applicable types of statutes of limitations, a six-year one based on when the right of action has accrued, and a three-year one based on when the alleged victim turned eighteen and was therefore no longer under the disability of being a minor.”

With that in mind, he went on to say that all three men – Cecil Singleton who said he first came in contact with Clash in 2003, “John Doe” who said his relationship began in 2000 and S.M., who said his affair with Clash happened in the mid-90s -would have had to file their lawsuits in 2009, 2006 and 2001, respectively to fit in the first option of the statute or in 2009, 2003 and 2001, respectively, to fit into the second statute.

It should be noted, and was pointed out by attorney Jeff Herman who represents all three men he spoke to E! Online, that there is no denial on Clash’s part of sexual misconduct:

“It should be noted his motion does not say the abuse did not happen, just that it is too late to file the complaints.  The law we are proceeding under recognizes the rights of victims to bring their lawsuits within six years from the time they connect their injuries to the abuse. We are hopeful the Court will see it our way, however, by being able to bring their claims forth publicly the victims are already further along in the healing process.”

That is, indeed, interesting as is the fact that none of the alleged victims are seeking that criminal charges be brought up against Clash. These are all civil suits seeking financial damages.

If this goes to trial, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

You can mess with a lot of things, but don’t play around with people’s adult beverages. Really. They’re just not having it.

Hot on the heels of Maker’s Mark’s decision not to water down its bourbon after all, Anheuser-Busch is being sued in three states for watering down 11 of its beers, including Bud Light Platinum, Bud Lime, Michelob Ultra, and Black Crown. According to Gawker, the suits have been filed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California.

The complaint alleges that the company employs machines to monitor the amount of alcohol in their beers and then adds water. But that means the beers have “significantly lower alcohol contents than is represented on the labels.”

The three people who are suing the company all drink a lot of Anheuser-Busch beer, Gawker says. And they claim they heard about Anheuser-Busch’s shenanigans from employees at the company, which is hilarious.

Anheuser-Busch says it’s not true, of course. “Our beers are in full compliance with all alcohol labeling laws,” the company’s VP of brewing and supply said in an email to Bloomberg.

The lawsuit seeks not only $5 million each, a drop in the bucket for a big company like Anheuser-Busch. The lawsuit is also looking for “corrective advertising,” which would force the company to push out a campaign admitting to lies on its labeling. That would actually be the more damaging part of the decision were it to come down.

Source: Facebook

From Black Voices

A 32-year-old homeless man is suing his parents for neglect, demanding that they sell their tiny share of a Brooklyn house to finance two Domino’s Pizza stores, the New York Post reports. The franchises will provide a lifestyle upgrade, he reasoned.

“I feel unloved and abandoned,” he told the Post.

Bernard Anderson Bey conceded that his mother and father legally owe him nothing but said he thought his father “might find pleasure in seeing his children become successful,” according to the news outlet.

Read more on BlackVoices.com.

Shutterstock

According to the New York Times and the contents of the suit, a Costco shopper in Huntington Beach, CA complained to Tiffany last year “that she was disappointed to observe that Costco was offering for sale what were promoted on in-store signs as Tiffany diamond engagement rings.”

After further investigation, Tiffany says it found that Costco sales personnel referred to the rings that were being sold as Tiffany, however they were not described as such online to avoid being found out. The suit explains further that “Tiffany has never sold nor would it ever sell its fine jewelry through an off-price warehouse retailer like Costco.” And that as a result, “hundreds if not thousands of people who mistakenly believe they purchased and own a Tiffany engagement ring from Costco.”

CNN Money reported that the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court on Valentine’s Day. It is seeking damages equal to triple the amount of any profit Costco made on the sale of the rings and $2 million in punitive damages for every model of the Tiffany rings that were sold. The story price checks a couple of rings priced at about $3,200 and $6,400. Not sure you should really spend that much on a ring from Costco whether it’s Tiffany of not.

Shutterstock

File this under outrageous news: According to a lawsuit filed by a  group of African-American NYC club-goers, they were forced to buy a $320 bottle of vodka to get into a popular rooftop lounge while white patrons easily gained admittance without having to make a similar purchase.

Jermaine Sanders, 29, and three female friends are suing the popular spot 230 Fifth, accusing its bouncers of discrimination. They also claim nightclub staff used racial slurs. The incident soured the Brooklyn-based foursome from partying in Manhattan.

“Since this incident the plaintiffs have almost entirely given up on frequenting night life spots in Manhattan due to the prejudice they experienced that night,” the lawsuit claims.

“Sanders, his brother and two friends arrived at the sprawling club at 11:10 p.m. on Feb. 13, 2010, after booking a VIP section over the phone earlier in the day,” reports DNA Info. A bouncer blocked them from entering, even though Sanders’ girlfriend and three white female friends were already inside.

Sanders’ girlfriend came back to the entrance and informed the bouncer that they had already purchased a $320 bottle of Grey Goose vodka, which was supposed to cover the entrance fee for 10 people. But the bouncer still blocked Sanders from entering.

“You didn’t purchase a bottle from me so go back upstairs, you guys aren’t getting in,” he said, according to the lawsuit filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

According to DNA Info, “The bouncer finally relented on the condition that they bought another $320 bottle of booze — even though no other party on the rooftop had to do so, the lawsuit says.”

“They had to agree to terms and conditions that were different from what a white patron was subjected to,” Sanders’ lawyer, Fred Lichtmacher, told the outlet.

The story continues. When Sanders’ three black female friends, Nyisha Haynes, Niyah Cook, and Julia Cook, arrived later at the club, they were turned away while 45 non-black patrons were admitted, the lawsuit says.

Reports DNA Info, despite Sanders’ protests that his group had bought two bottles, which should have covered 20 guests, the bouncer still wouldn’t admit the women. The bouncer allegedly called Haynes and the Cooks “black b—-es” and told them, “I let enough of you up here tonight.”

“It sounds preposterous to me,” Michael Scharf, a managing member of 230 Fifth, told DNA Info. “We don’t discriminate. We have African-American customers every night and value their patronage.” According to Scharf, the club has not been served with the lawsuit.

This isn’t the first discrimination lawsuit against the club. In 2011, 16 black men sued 230 Fifth for $500 million, claiming they were booted from the bar after then-owner, Steven Greenberg, started screaming at the staff that they would “f— up my $10,000 sofa” with a cake they had brought, write DNA Info.