UK Banks Report Surge in APP Fraud Losses as Pressure Mounts on Meta and Tech Platforms 
Disaster or digital spectacle? The dangers of using floods to create social media content 
Why financial hardship is more likely if you’re disabled or sick 
Trump Administration Closes Delta Air Lines Investigation Over 2024 CrowdStrike Outage 
Want to cut your energy bills? Here’s how five experts are doing it 
Why have so few atrocities ever been recognised as genocide? 
Woodside Energy Denies Exxon Mobil Takeover Talks Amid LNG Growth Focus 
Glastonbury is as popular than ever, but complaints about the lineup reveal its generational challenge 
SoftBank Vision Fund CFO Navneet Govil to Exit After Decade-Long Tenure 
SK Hynix Shares Hit Record High After Shipping Next-Generation HBM4E AI Memory Samples 
Columbia Student Mahmoud Khalil Fights Arrest as Deportation Case Moves to New Jersey 
The ghost of Robodebt – Federal Court rules billions of dollars in welfare debts must be recalculated 
China Industrial Output Beats Forecasts as Domestic Demand Weakens 
Dollar Surges After Fed Holds Rates Steady, Signals Potential Tightening Ahead 
Kingboard Holdings Shares Surge After HK$11.77 Billion Block Trade to Expand PCB and AI Supply Chain Business 
A federal judge has dismissed a 2019 lawsuit against Starbucks, filed by Balmuccino LLC, accusing the coffee giant of stealing its coffee-flavored lip balm trade secrets. The judge ruled that Balmuccino LLC waited too long to file the case in federal court.
The trade secret claim against Starbucks is over after a federal judge dismisses the lawsuit on technical grounds. The case was said to have been filed after the company launched its S'mores Frapuccino lip gloss in 2019.
According to Courthouse News Service, Starbucks was cleared because the complainant, Balmuccino LLC, waited too long to file the lawsuit in federal court. The latter sued SB for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Still, U.S. District Judge John Chun explained that the case was tossed out because of the lack of jurisdiction over Starbucks since it was filed in a state court in California.
The judge sided with Starbucks after applying Washington state law instead of the more lenient California state law. He referred to the former to answer whether Balmuccino could still go after its claims after the statute of limitations expired.
"Balmuccino draws on California's more forgiving tolling law to argue that declining to toll the statutes of limitations during the pendency of the state-court action is bad public policy," Judge Chun stated. "Balmuccino may have a point that requiring a plaintiff to concurrently file separate actions in two different jurisdictions is inefficient and laborious. Yet this is the tolling policy that Washington has apparently adopted."
He added, "Even assuming that Balmuccino reasonably asserted personal jurisdiction in California at the outset of litigation, Balmuccino was on notice that it might need to file elsewhere at least as of June 2020, prior to the expiration of the limitations periods lessens the force of its policy argument that it would be unfair or redundant to have to concurrently file multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions."
In response to the dismissal of the lawsuit, Reuters reported that Eduardo Martorell, Balmuccino's lawyer, said they think the case was wrongly decided, so they will appeal the decision or re-file the suit in New York. He added that they would not stop fighting until the courts allow Balmuccino to be heard on the merits.
