General

Qatar’s Communications Regulatory Authority (CRA) has referred the management of a telecommunications tower to the Public Prosecution after it allegedly prevented one of the country’s licensed telecommunications service providers from accessing the building while granting exclusive access to another operator.

The CRA said the practice restricted fair competition, affected consumer rights and was contrary to the public interest. Following regulatory and legal intervention, the tower management rectified the situation and allowed the previously denied service provider to access the building and deploy its services in accordance with Qatar’s telecommunications regulations.

The regulator said the referral followed the tower management’s failure to comply with official notices and its continued alleged violation of Qatar’s Telecommunications Law under Decree-Law No. 34 of 2006, as amended by Law No. 17 of 2017. The alleged breaches also involved provisions of the law’s Executive By-Law, issued under Decision No. 1 of 2009.

The CRA said the enforcement action was part of its statutory mandate to uphold telecommunications legislation, safeguard competition and prevent practices that could give one licensed operator an unfair advantage over another.

Equal Access

Under Qatar’s telecommunications regulatory framework, licensed service providers are entitled to access buildings and facilities on an equal basis. The principle is intended to ensure that operators can deploy their networks and provide services without discriminatory restrictions.

The CRA said the tower management’s alleged conduct was inconsistent with these requirements because access was effectively granted exclusively to one operator while another licensed provider was prevented from deploying its services at the same location.

Following the initiation of judicial proceedings and an investigation into the alleged violations, the tower management complied with the applicable legislation and regulations. Its technical team subsequently provided the affected telecommunications provider with access to the building, allowing it to deploy its services without restrictions or discriminatory conditions.

Regulatory Enforcement

The CRA reiterated that equal access to buildings and facilities is an important element of maintaining competition in Qatar’s telecommunications market. The authority said the regulatory framework is designed to ensure that licensed providers can compete on a fair basis while consumers have access to a wider range of telecommunications services.

The regulator also warned that it has the authority to refer cases to the relevant authorities and pursue legal measures against conduct that may constitute monopolistic practices or obstruct the exercise of its statutory powers.

The CRA called on building and facility managers, as well as licensed telecommunications service providers, to comply fully with the laws and regulations governing access to telecommunications infrastructure.

The authority said it would continue enforcing Qatar’s telecommunications regulatory framework to support a fair and transparent market, improve service quality, expand consumer choice and encourage the availability of innovative telecommunications services.

Starbucks has agreed to settle a discrimination lawsuit brought by the state of Florida, pledging not to adopt race- or sex-based quotas or preferences in hiring, promotion and pay decisions.

Starbucks and Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier jointly announced the settlement on Thursday of a lawsuit filed by the state last December.

Florida accused the company of violating state anti-discrimination law, including by setting racial quotas and linking executive compensation to the achievement of diversity goals.

Starbucks denied wrongdoing and said in a statement that it would focus “on offering great jobs and career opportunities to our partners who wear the green apron”.

Under the settlement, Starbucks agreed to comply with Florida law and pay $1 million to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs to cover litigation costs. The company must also submit annual certifications of compliance for four years.

In addition, Starbucks agreed not to participate in organisations that require companies to increase the racial diversity of their boards of directors.

A spokesperson for Uthmeier’s office said the agreement applies nationwide. He said the settlement ensures that Starbucks’ employment policies and practices comply with Florida’s anti-discrimination laws. “DEI can never be an excuse to violate civil rights,” he said.

The case is part of broader efforts by Republican officials, including members of President Donald Trump’s administration, to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programmes from the private sector, government and education.

In February, a federal judge dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by the Missouri Attorney General’s office targeting Starbucks’ alleged diversity policies. The state is appealing the decision.

A fraudster who tricked a tenant into transferring Dh42,500 in rent to a fake bank account has been convicted, with an Abu Dhabi court ordering him to return the money.

The fraud occurred when the tenant, who was renting a property from a company, received a message from a person claiming to be an employee of the firm while he was preparing to renew his lease.

The impersonator instructed the tenant to transfer the rent to a specified bank account. Believing the instructions had come from an authorised representative of the property company, the tenant transferred Dh42,500.

He later discovered that the account did not belong to the company and realised that he had fallen victim to a scam. The incident led to a criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings, in which the person linked to the fraudulent transaction was convicted.

Following the criminal case, the victim approached the civil court seeking to recover the money he had lost.

He filed a lawsuit before the Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court, demanding that the defendant repay the full Dh42,500.

The tenant also sought Dh10,000 in compensation for the material, moral and psychological damage he said he had suffered as a result of the fraud. He further requested legal interest of 10 per cent from the date the lawsuit was filed until the amount was paid.

In considering the civil claim, the court relied on findings established during the earlier criminal proceedings.

Under the principle governing the relationship between criminal and civil judgments, findings conclusively established by a criminal court concerning the act underlying both proceedings cannot be reconsidered by the civil court.

The civil court therefore ordered the defendant to return the Dh42,500 transferred by the tenant.

The case highlights the risks of acting on payment instructions received through messages without independently verifying the recipient's bank details with the landlord or property management company.

Two women whose images as girls were found in pornography seized from Jeffrey Epstein have filed a class action lawsuit seeking damages from the late sex offender’s estate on behalf of people featured in his collection of thousands of images and videos of child sexual abuse material.

The lawsuit seeks at least $6 million on behalf of more than 40 people, some of whom appeared in Epstein’s so-called “modelling book”, a collection of sexualised images of children seized by federal investigators in 2019 from his New York home, according to a filing in Manhattan federal district court.

Others were depicted in thousands of downloaded videos and images of child sexual abuse material and other pornography recovered from Epstein’s properties, according to the lawsuit.

The action seeks to broaden the legal claims against Epstein’s estate beyond women who have sued over alleged sexual assaults, to people he allegedly exploited as children through images he and his associates took of them or obtained. In some cases, the images were subsequently distributed to others.

The lawsuit names Epstein’s former attorney Darren Indyke and former accountant Richard Kahn, the co-executors of his estate, as defendants. Daniel Weiner, a lawyer representing Indyke, declined to comment. An attorney for Kahn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

One of the plaintiffs, identified as Jane Doe, alleges that Epstein stole partially nude photographs of her taken when she was 12. The other, who uses the pseudonym “Amy”, says she is featured in child sexual abuse material seized from Epstein’s properties in 2019 that is still being traded.

Hillary Nappi, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit could potentially involve thousands of class members. In an interview, she said most of the people pictured in Epstein’s collection had never been identified.

The lawsuit calls for Epstein’s estate and federal authorities to work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to identify individuals in the collection and notify them. It asks the estate to pay class members $150,000 each, along with other penalties.

Epstein was convicted in 2008 of soliciting sex from a minor and was charged with sex trafficking of minors in 2019, months before he was found dead in a New York jail cell. His death was ruled a suicide. He was never prosecuted for creating, obtaining or distributing child sexual abuse material.

Prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty in the murder case against Nick Reiner, who is accused of fatally stabbing his parents, Hollywood filmmaker Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner, at their home in December.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said his office had taken into account the wishes of the slain couple’s two surviving children, Jake Reiner, 35, and his sister Romy Reiner, 28, as well as unspecified mitigating factors, in reaching its decision.

“We did speak with Nick Reiner’s siblings; they made their views very clear,” Hochman told reporters outside a downtown Los Angeles courthouse.

“This decision reflects our careful judgment about the most appropriate path to take in this case and does not diminish the severity of these crimes,” the district attorney said in a statement.

The maximum penalty Reiner now faces if convicted is life in prison without the possibility of parole, Hochman said, adding that a trial was unlikely to begin before next year.

The announcement came shortly before Nick Reiner, 33, appeared in court for a hearing during which prosecutors also formally informed the presiding judge that they would not seek capital punishment in the case.

The defendant, who has pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder, sat beside his lawyer, shackled to his seat and dressed in brown prison clothing during the hearing. He answered “yes” in a soft voice to several procedural questions from Superior Court Judge Sam Ohta.

Origins Of Case

His parents, Rob Reiner, 78, and his wife Michele Reiner, 70, were found stabbed to death on December 14 at their mansion in the upmarket West Los Angeles neighbourhood of Brentwood, marking one of the most high-profile celebrity homicide cases in the city’s history.

Nick Reiner, who has acknowledged a years-long struggle with substance abuse and mental health issues, was arrested later that day and charged with the killings. He was widely reported to have quarrelled with his parents while the three were attending a holiday party hosted by comedian Conan O’Brien the night before the couple were killed.

He was formally indicted by a grand jury earlier this month, clearing the way for prosecutors to bring the case to trial without the additional step of having to convince a judge that sufficient evidence existed to establish probable cause.

Hochman said Nick Reiner’s siblings had urged the court to keep the grand jury transcripts sealed to prevent public disclosure of details of their parents’ killings that would “cause them additional trauma”.

The judge said his final decision on whether to unseal the transcripts would await further proceedings on any motion the news media might bring seeking to make the records public.

The next hearing in the case, including proceedings on the grand jury transcripts, was set for October 7.

Rob Reiner, a prominent Democratic Party activist and donor, gained fame as a co-star in the 1970s hit television comedy “All in the Family” and later directed popular films including “When Harry Met Sally”, “This Is Spinal Tap” and “The Princess Bride”.

Hollywood paid tribute to the couple at Monday night’s Emmy Awards ceremony. Actor Jamie Lee Curtis called Rob Reiner “generous and kind and funny as hell” and noted that he had won a posthumous Emmy a week earlier for his guest comedic appearance as a restaurant consultant on “The Bear”.

The win set a new Emmy record for the longest gap between acting awards, with Rob Reiner’s previous Emmy having come 48 years earlier for his role in “All in the Family” as Mike “Meathead” Stivic, the son-in-law and liberal foil to the lead character, working-class bigot Archie Bunker, played by Carroll O’Connor.

The previous record holder was his father, television comedy pioneer Carl Reiner, who won Emmys 37 years apart.

Although capital punishment remains on the books in California, nobody has been put to death in the state since 2006, and Governor Gavin Newsom imposed an indefinite moratorium on executions in 2019.

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to allow the US Postal Service to enforce a rule targeting mail-in ballots, dealing a setback to efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to restrict voting by mail ahead of November’s midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress.

The justices denied the Justice Department’s request to lift a ruling by Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani, who blocked the Postal Service from enforcing the measure while legal challenges brought by states and voting-rights groups proceed. The agency adopted the measure after Trump issued a March executive order aimed at tightening rules governing mail voting.

“The government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the court said in its brief, one-paragraph order.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from Monday’s decision. No other justice publicly dissented. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Trump’s fellow Republicans are locked in a close battle to retain control of Congress in the midterms. Restricting mail-in ballots could benefit Republicans because Democratic voters disproportionately use mail-in voting, according to various surveys.

Under the rule, states would have to provide lists of mail-ballot recipients to the Postal Service and use agency-approved outbound and return ballot envelopes equipped with unique barcodes. The Postal Service could then refuse to send ballots that did not comply with the new standards or were associated with voters who did not appear on the lists.

Critics have said the plan could disrupt the delivery of thousands of legitimate ballots as the November 3 vote approaches and create chaos because many states were preparing to send mail ballots to eligible voters. The administration has said the new rule would help prevent voter fraud, although evidence of widespread such fraud is rare.

Talwani imposed an injunction on September 4 blocking the rule, finding that it likely violated the US Constitution, under which states administer elections. She also said it would be impossible for states to comply with the requirements given the rapidly approaching midterm elections.

Another federal judge, Washington, D.C.-based US District Judge Carl Nichols, also ruled against the rule on Sunday.

'Testing the Limits'

Sophia Lin Lakin, voting rights project director at the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped represent some of the challengers to the USPS rule, welcomed Monday’s decision.

“This administration keeps testing the limits of its power, as if the rules governing our elections are merely suggestions to ignore when they don’t suit the president’s agenda. But the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to set the rules for federal elections — not the president, and not the Postal Service,” she said.

“Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law and the American people looking to exercise their constitutional right to vote,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose state led one of the lawsuits challenging the rule.

“Trump’s attacks on democracy these last 20 months have been nothing short of un-American,” Newsom added.

Trump signed his executive order targeting mail-in ballots after years of casting doubt on their security, although he often votes by mail himself. Trump has also made false claims of widespread fraud in US elections, including his 2020 loss to former Democratic President Joe Biden.

In an emergency request filed on September 6, the administration urged the Supreme Court to allow it to implement what it called an “important federal policy to protect the mails from being used to commit voter fraud”.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring statement on Monday, said there was a “fair prospect” that the rule fell within the Postal Service’s authority. However, he said state and local election officials did not have sufficient time to reasonably implement it before the 2026 elections.

In his dissent, Alito likened some of the challengers’ claims to a “Hail Mary pass” that was “unlikely to be successfully completed”, using a football analogy.

“The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail,” Alito added.

States Challenged the Rule

A coalition of states, most of them governed by Democrats, along with Washington, D.C., and several voting-rights groups challenged the new USPS rule.

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals refused last Thursday to put Talwani’s order on hold. The 1st Circuit said the rule “will likely result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country while providing minimal — if any — gains in combating voter fraud”.

The dispute over mail ballots is part of a broader series of efforts by the administration to increase federal involvement in voting ahead of the midterms. On August 24, the Supreme Court lifted an earlier injunction imposed by Talwani in June that had blocked Trump’s executive order, including the USPS rule before it had been finalised.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs has signed an agreement with Oman Telecommunications Company (Omantel) to develop an integrated digital platform for training and qualifying lawyers and legal advisors in Oman.

The platform, called “Itqan”, is designed to improve professional efficiency and enhance the quality of legal services in the Sultanate.

The agreement was signed on behalf of the Ministry by Dr Yahya Nasser Al Khusaibi, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs, and on behalf of Omantel by Eng Sami Ahmed Al Ghassani, Chief Commercial and Operational Officer.

Itqan will move legal training into a modern digital environment, allowing training programmes and professional development pathways to be delivered more efficiently and flexibly. It will also help standardise training and assessment criteria and make programmes accessible to beneficiaries across Oman’s governorates.

The platform will enable the authorities to monitor trainees’ performance and assess their progress against targeted educational and professional outcomes.

Itqan will offer specialised digital content combining legal knowledge, professional skills and practical applications. The programmes will cover areas including national legislation, professional ethics, legal research and drafting, pleading and legal consultation, as well as other aspects of legal practice.

The content will be tailored to the different needs and professional levels of those undergoing training. Training materials and programmes will also go through review and accreditation processes to ensure their legal accuracy and scientific and technical quality.

The initiative will draw on national and specialised expertise in the development and delivery of training content. It is also expected to contribute to the creation of a digital legal library that can be continuously updated in line with legislative changes and developments in professional practice.

Al Khusaibi said Itqan represented an important step in implementing the requirements for training and qualifying legal practitioners.

He said the initiative reflected the Ministry’s commitment to developing legal professionals with the knowledge, competence and professional skills required under clear and sustainable standards.

The platform is also intended to establish a sustainable system for professional development in the legal sector, keeping practitioners abreast of legislative and professional changes, he said. This would strengthen their preparedness and improve professional performance, ultimately contributing to higher standards of legal practice in Oman.

Al Ghassani, Chief Technology and Digitalisation Officer at Omantel, highlighted the role of Itqan in using modern technology to support legal training and advance digital transformation in the justice sector.

Oman has enacted a new Law on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances under Royal Decree No. 67/2026, introducing tougher penalties for drug trafficking, smuggling, possession and personal use, including the death penalty and life imprisonment in certain circumstances.

Under the new law, importing, exporting, producing or manufacturing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for trafficking purposes is punishable by imprisonment and a fine of between RO 35,000 and RO 60,000.

The death penalty applies to drug smuggling for trafficking purposes in specified aggravated circumstances. These include repeat offences, abuse of official authority, licences or legal immunity, using a person who lacks legal capacity or has diminished capacity, and participating in or cooperating with international gangs involved in drug smuggling.

The law also imposes a minimum prison sentence of 15 years, along with a fine of between RO 10,000 and RO 25,000, for possessing, transporting, selling, delivering or distributing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for trafficking purposes.

The sentence may be increased to life imprisonment when such offences are committed in or around certain protected locations, including educational, cultural and sports facilities, correctional institutions, places of worship, camps and prisons. The harsher penalty may also apply when drugs are supplied to a person who lacks legal capacity or has diminished capacity.

For personal use, anyone who possesses, acquires, purchases, produces or manufactures narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for consumption faces imprisonment of between one and three years and a fine ranging from RO 1,000 to RO 5,000.

The legislation also provides treatment and rehabilitation options for people suffering from drug dependency. Courts may order such individuals to be placed in rehabilitation centres or specialised treatment facilities instead of imposing imprisonment, subject to the conditions set out in the law. Admission to a rehabilitation centre may last between six months and one year.

The law further provides that criminal charges will not be established against a drug user who voluntarily approaches the authorities seeking treatment, or who is referred for treatment by a qualifying relative.

The new legislation repeals the previous Law on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances issued under Royal Decree No. 17/99. It entered into force following its publication in the Official Gazette.

Law students working as unpaid interns for federal judges after their first year of studies may accept stipends from law firms seeking to recruit them as summer associates under certain conditions, according to the US judiciary’s top ethics body.

The US Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct addressed the issue on Tuesday after several major law firms began offering first-year law students who commit to working for them stipends of $25,000 to $50,000 to enable them to undertake public interest internships in government and nonprofit sectors.

Among the firms offering such stipends to attract law students early in their studies are Davis Polk & Wardwell, Milbank, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Latham & Watkins.

Many federal judges take on unpaid volunteer interns as part of their legal education. Law students commonly assist judges and law clerks with legal research and writing without pay.

The judicial ethics panel, which provides guidance to federal judges, had previously said interns could accept a modest “educational stipend” but could not accept money from a law firm if the payment was contingent on the individual working for a judge.

In Tuesday’s opinion, the committee said that, in cases involving the latest form of stipends, judges should ask whether their interns will receive payments from prospective law firm employers and that interns should disclose their decision to accept the money.

The panel said such payments may be ethically permissible as long as the stipend is not tied in any way to the intern’s judicial service and the money is not paid during the internship itself.

“The Committee also recognises that some judges may prohibit interns and externs from accepting any stipend or similar payment, regardless of the payment timing or other circumstances,” the advisory opinion said.

Interns who receive such payments must also recuse themselves from any matter in which the law firm appears as counsel, the committee said.

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the legal representatives of a man after discovering that the original writ petition, instituted in his name in 1993, was filed five years after his death.

The Court held that the 1993 writ petition and its own 2001 order remanding the dispute to the Land Tribunal were not legally valid because the petitioner, C. Mariyappa, had died on August 8, 1988.

Justice ES Indiresh described it as “rather strange” that the writ petition had been filed in Mariyappa’s name through his power of attorney holder despite his having died several years earlier.

The Court also imposed costs of ₹10,000 on Mariyappa’s legal representatives, directing that the amount be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

The dispute concerned 4 acres and 21 guntas of land in Belavadi village of Srirangapatna taluk. In 1981, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights over the property to C Ningamma. That decision was subsequently challenged before the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition filed in Mariyappa’s name in 1993.

In October 2001, the High Court allowed the petition and remanded the dispute to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal later passed another order in the matter, which was challenged before the High Court by Mariyappa’s legal heirs.

The heirs argued that the Land Tribunal proceedings had been conducted behind their back and that they had not been given a fair opportunity to be heard before the Tribunal passed its order in March 2023.

However, the private respondents involved in the land dispute, including Ningamma’s heirs, questioned the very validity of the original writ petition. They pointed out that Mariyappa had died in 1988, several years before the petition was instituted in 1993.

The High Court found merit in the objection. “There is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this regard,” Justice Indiresh observed.

The Court held that a writ petition could not have been validly instituted in the name of a person who was already dead. It also noted that Mariyappa’s death had not been candidly disclosed during the subsequent proceedings.

An affidavit filed by Mariyappa’s daughter, Sumalamma, before the Land Tribunal merely stated that he had died “long ago”, without mentioning the actual date of his death, the Court noted.

According to the High Court, this indicated that the legal representatives had continued with the proceedings without making a full and candid disclosure of a material fact concerning the case.

“Having approached this Court with unclean hands, the petitioners are not entitled to seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the Court observed.

The High Court consequently held that its own 2001 order remanding the dispute to the Land Tribunal had no legal effect.

With the 2001 order rendered invalid, the Land Tribunal’s original order dated November 9, 1981, granting occupancy rights to Ningamma stood revived. The Court held that the original order had consequently attained finality.