Why have so few atrocities ever been recognised as genocide? 
Glastonbury is as popular than ever, but complaints about the lineup reveal its generational challenge 
Fortescue Faces Class Action Over Sexual Harassment Claims at Australian Mining Sites 
Asian Stocks Slide as AI Rally Pauses, South Korean Chipmakers Lead Regional Decline 
The ghost of Robodebt – Federal Court rules billions of dollars in welfare debts must be recalculated 
FedEx Stock Drops After Weak 2026 Earnings Forecast Despite Strong Q4 Results 
Asian Stocks Slip as Oil Rebounds Amid Fed Rate Hike Fears 
Disaster or digital spectacle? The dangers of using floods to create social media content 
Australia Inflation Cools in May, But Core CPI Keeps RBA Rate Hike Risks Alive 
Samsung Electronics Stock Surges on Report of Massive $59 Billion Share Buyback Plan 
Booked to travel through the Middle East? Here’s why you shouldn’t cancel your flight 
Micron Stock Surges on Strong AI Demand, Record Revenue, and Bullish Q4 Forecast 
Yes, government influences wages – but not just in the way you might think 
Tesla and NatPower Partner on $5 Billion Battery Storage Expansion in Europe 
Alibaba Shares Fall After Anthropic Alleges Massive AI Model Distillation Campaign 
Cerebras Revenue Forecast Tops Expectations, but Margin Concerns Weigh on Stock 
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.
