Retail & Consumer

A fake apartment rental deal has cost fraudsters in Abu Dhabi after a court ordered them to return Dh15,566 taken from a victim and pay an additional Dh15,000 in compensation for the financial and emotional harm caused.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court issued the ruling after finding that the suspects had deceived the complainant by falsely claiming to be real estate brokers and offering an apartment for rent.

According to court records, the victim was contacted by one of the suspects through WhatsApp, where they presented themselves as property agents. After the victim agreed to rent the apartment, the suspects asked him to transfer Dh3,000 as a security deposit to one of their bank accounts.

They later instructed him to transfer another Dh9,666 as the first installment of the rent to the bank account of the alleged property owner’s fiancée. The suspects then demanded an additional Dh2,900 as a brokerage fee, bringing the total amount paid by the victim to Dh15,566.

However, despite receiving the money, the suspects failed to complete the rental agreement or provide the apartment as promised.

The victim subsequently filed a criminal complaint, resulting in a conviction against the suspects for causing financial and moral harm. He later approached the civil court seeking the recovery of Dh15,566, compensation of Dh35,000, and payment of legal costs.

After examining the evidence and transaction records, the court found that the victim had transferred the full amount to the suspects and ordered them to refund Dh15,566. The court also ruled that their actions had caused both material and moral damages, awarding the victim Dh15,000 as comprehensive compensation.

Kuwait’s Cabinet has approved a draft decree-law introducing significant amendments to the country’s Municipal Law, including changes to the composition, qualifications and tenure of the Municipal Council.

The four-article draft decree-law, approved during a Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, seeks to amend several provisions of Law No. 33 of 2016 governing Kuwait Municipality.

Under the proposed amendments, Articles 4, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 26 of the existing law will be revised.

The amended Article 4 provides that the Municipal Council will comprise 12 members appointed by decree. Members must be Kuwaiti citizens by birth, at least 30 years old at the time of appointment and hold a university degree in engineering, architecture or another field related to municipal affairs.

Article 6 sets the Council’s term at two years, beginning from the date of its first meeting. The Council must convene within 15 days of the issuance of the appointment decree.

The revised provisions also allow for a decree to be issued before the end of the Council’s term to dissolve and reconstitute the body or replace individual members. Any newly appointed members would serve the remainder of their predecessors’ terms.

In addition, the Council’s tenure may be extended by up to six months, or until a new Council is appointed, whichever occurs first.

Following Cabinet approval, the draft decree-law has been submitted to His Highness the Amir Sheikh Meshal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah for consideration.

During the meeting, ministers were also briefed on a range of regional and international developments. The Cabinet reviewed the outcomes of the Prime Minister’s participation, as the Amir’s representative, in the first EU-GCC Geopolitical and Investment Summit held in Greece.

Addressing the summit, Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah highlighted the longstanding ties between GCC states and their European partners, reaffirming Kuwait’s commitment to expanding cooperation in areas including energy, investment, infrastructure and digital transformation.

The Cabinet was further informed of meetings held by the Prime Minister on the sidelines of the summit with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Ministers also reviewed diplomatic correspondence exchanged between Kuwait and several countries, including Italy, Spain and France, aimed at strengthening bilateral relations and discussing regional developments.

Lawyers are seeking what could become one of the largest legal fee awards in history from a proposed $7.25 billion settlement with Bayer over its Roundup weedkiller, pending approval by a Missouri state judge.

Attorneys from six firms — the Holland Law Firm; Ketchmark & McCreight; Seeger Weiss; Motley Rice; Williams Hart & Boundas; and Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel — on Friday requested $675 million in fees for their role in negotiating a deal that would resolve current and future lawsuits alleging that Bayer’s Roundup herbicide causes cancer.

Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss said in a statement that the proposed settlement represents one of the largest class recoveries ever and the biggest in Missouri’s history, adding that the 9.3 per cent fee request is far below the one-third benchmark courts typically approve in major class actions.

“This case is unique because class counsel will continue working on it for 17 additional years, and the fee request reflects nearly two decades of additional work, risk and expenses,” said Mike Ketchmark of Ketchmark & McCreight in an email.

The other firms did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The group said the $675 million would also be distributed among additional plaintiffs’ law firms involved in the litigation.

Bayer subsidiary Monsanto said it looks forward to finalising the settlement, which would establish a long-term claims programme funded by capped annual payments over up to 21 years. The agreement covers most pending lawsuits but still requires court approval and a minimum number of plaintiffs to opt in. The company, which denies that glyphosate causes cancer, did not comment on the fee request.

If approved at an upcoming July hearing, the award would rank among the largest ever, exceeding $667 million and $657.1 million fee awards in antitrust cases involving Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2022 and 2025, as well as a $540 million fee award tied to a $6.01 billion 3M settlement in 2024.

In 2024, a federal judge awarded $956 million in legal fees in settlements worth more than $11 billion involving public water systems that sued manufacturers of PFAS chemicals.

Courts weigh multiple factors when assessing whether fee awards are reasonable, including settlement size, hours worked and case complexity. However, judges can be reluctant to approve exceptionally large payouts, and fee ratios typically decline in mega-settlements, said Michael Perino, a law professor at St John’s University in New York.

“When you get into these really large settlements, it’s usual for the judge to feel a little bit of sticker shock,” he said, declining to comment specifically on the Roundup case.

Perino also cited a recent case involving Elon Musk’s $56 billion Tesla pay package, where lawyers sought billions in shares before a Delaware judge rejected the request as excessive and instead awarded $345 million — the largest fee award in the state’s history. Tesla has appealed the ruling.

“Judges are human beings,” Perino said. “At some point, the judge is going to consciously or unconsciously say, ‘Wow, that seems like a lot of money.’”

In the UAE’s fast-moving second-hand car market, many buyers still rely on informal arrangements to complete transactions — but recent legal clarifications underline a crucial risk: a power of attorney, on its own, does not secure ownership of a vehicle. This distinction has significant consequences for buyers who assume that such authorisation is enough to protect their rights.

Under UAE law, a power of attorney issued by a vehicle owner merely grants another person the authority to act on their behalf, including the ability to sell or transfer the vehicle. However, this authorisation does not amount to a transfer of ownership. Legally, the vehicle continues to remain registered in the name of the original owner in the official records of the Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) until a formal transfer is completed.

This means that even after granting a power of attorney, the original owner retains full legal ownership of the vehicle. As a result, the seller is not prevented from selling the same car to another buyer. In the eyes of the law, the person whose name appears in the RTA registry continues to be the lawful owner, regardless of any private arrangements made through a power of attorney.

For buyers, this creates a clear vulnerability. Simply holding a power of attorney — even one that authorises the buyer to transfer the car into their own name — does not provide legal protection against resale to a third party. The only way to secure ownership is to ensure that the vehicle is officially transferred and registered under the buyer’s name with the RTA.

Failure to complete this registration step can lead to disputes, particularly if the seller resells the vehicle. In such situations, the initial buyer does have legal recourse. UAE law allows the affected party to approach the competent court to recover the amount paid. In addition to seeking a refund, the buyer may also claim compensation for any financial losses incurred as a result of the transaction.

However, pursuing such claims requires substantiated proof. The burden lies on the buyer to demonstrate that payment was made and that damages were suffered. This can be supported through various forms of evidence, including the power of attorney document itself, witness statements, and even digital communications such as WhatsApp messages that establish the terms of the deal.

The broader legal framework in the UAE consistently emphasises formal registration as the cornerstone of ownership in vehicle transactions. Informal agreements, while common in practice, do not override the authority of official records. This approach is designed to maintain clarity, prevent disputes, and protect the integrity of ownership records.

For prospective buyers, the takeaway is straightforward but critical: no matter the level of trust between parties, a vehicle purchase is not complete until it is formally registered in the buyer’s name. Relying solely on a power of attorney leaves room for legal complications and financial risk — a gap that can only be closed through proper transfer procedures.

The Dubai Misdemeanours Court has sentenced an Asian man to a jail term after he was found guilty of possessing Dh2,000 obtained through an online apartment rental scam.

The incident occurred in March, when a victim -- also of Asian nationality -- lodged a complaint after being deceived by a fraudulent listing advertising an apartment for rent. After contacting the advertiser via Facebook, he transferred Dh2,000 as a reservation deposit.

According to the complaint, the defendant met the victim in person and showed him an apartment in Dubai’s Al Satwa district. Shortly afterwards, he switched off his phone and blocked the victim on WhatsApp and Facebook, leading the victim to realise he had been scammed.

Investigators later confirmed the listing was fake and created for the sole purpose of deception. A Dubai police officer testified that the Criminal Investigation Department traced the bank transfer, which ultimately led to the suspect’s arrest.

The investigation found that the man had been using a fabricated online profile to entice prospective tenants, sharing images of luxury apartments at attractive prices and exploiting residents’ search for affordable housing.

The court convicted him of possessing funds derived from electronic fraud and imposed a custodial sentence.

The Supreme Court has ruled that companies purchasing software to organise or automate their business operations cannot claim the status of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In M/S Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/S Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that such transactions are inherently commercial, as the software in question directly contributes to profit-making and operational efficiency. This, the Court said, places the purchase outside the definition of “consumer” in Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.

The case arose from a complaint filed in 2019 before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by Poly Medicure, a company involved in the import and export of medical devices. The firm had bought a licence for “Brillio Opti Suite” from Brillio Technologies and later alleged that the software malfunctioned. It sought a refund of the licence fee and development charges, along with interest, on grounds of deficiency of service.

The State Commission dismissed the complaint in August 2019, finding that the software was acquired for commercial purposes. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld that decision in June 2020.

Before the Supreme Court, Poly Medicure argued that it had purchased the software solely for its own use and not for resale, contending that internal operational tools should not qualify as commercial acquisitions. It relied on prior rulings extending consumer protection to self-employed individuals whose purchases were linked to livelihood.

The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that although companies may file consumer complaints, they may do so only when the goods or services have no commercial purpose. Examining the nature of the software, the Bench found that it was used for export documentation, consignment tracking, foreign exchange management and handling statutory benefits — all integral to the company’s business.

The Court clarified that the “dominant purpose” test applies: software purchased to streamline business functions is meant to increase efficiency, reduce costs and ultimately boost profits. Such objectives, it said, clearly fall within commercial use.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the findings of the lower fora and dismissed the appeal,

concluding:

“The transaction of purchase of goods/services (i.e., software) had a nexus with the generation of profits and, therefore, the appellant cannot be considered a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.”

Amazon knew millions of customers were unintentionally signing up for Prime membership but did not stop the practice because it would have affected revenue, US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) attorneys argued as an antitrust case began.

The civil case against Amazon and three of its executives is a key test of the FTC’s tough-on-tech stance and could force the company to pay damages worth hundreds of millions of dollars, plus fines of up to $53,000 per violation. It could also damage the reputation of a company that markets itself as being obsessed with making customers’ lives easier.

Amazon deliberately simplified the Prime membership sign-up and cancellation processes but opted not to make them easier to cancel, “because to Amazon, nothing about Prime matters more than the number of members, whether those members want to be members or not,” FTC attorney Jonathan Cohen told jurors during opening statements. “More members, more money,” he repeated several times while presenting the government’s case in the federal courthouse near the Seattle-based company’s headquarters.

Amazon lawyer Moez Kaba denied any wrongdoing by the company or its executives, insisting that Prime’s terms were clearly disclosed and cancellation was straightforward.

Kaba accused the FTC of selectively presenting evidence to portray Amazon as deliberately duping customers into signing up for the auto-renewing membership.

The case forms part of a bipartisan crackdown on what the FTC describes as deceptive subscription practices. The agency began probing Amazon’s subscription practices during President Donald Trump’s first term, and the case was filed during Joe Biden’s presidency.

In recent months, the FTC has also taken action against other companies: in April, it sued Uber over allegedly deceptive marketing of its Uber One subscription, and in August, it sued the operators of the LA Fitness gym chain for burdensome membership cancellation requirements.

Prime subscribers pay up to $14.99 per month for benefits including free expedited shipping and access to Amazon’s streaming video service. While this may seem minor to some, for others it “could mean grocery money for a family, fuel for a car, or the last bit of money to cover rent,” an Amazon employee wrote in a 2020 email to one of the executives charged in the case.

Amazon attracts new subscribers with free trials on its website, using phrases such as: “Get FREE Same-Day Delivery.” The FTC, however, alleges that the company failed to clearly and prominently disclose that selecting the option would enroll customers in Prime and lead to monthly subscription charges.

While Amazon tested changes to clarify the terms between 2017 and 2022, executives repeatedly rejected them to avoid a drop in sign-ups, the FTC said. The company only implemented changes in 2022, during the FTC investigation, and was subsequently sued the following year.

The FTC alleges that Amazon’s lack of disclosure and its multi-step cancellation process, designed to discourage customers from leaving Prime, violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA).

An FTC expert estimated that Amazon signed up 40 million shoppers for Prime without their consent, with internal data showing tens of millions abandoned the cancellation process midway. This procedure, internally called the “Iliad flow,” required up to seven clicks to fully cancel a membership, despite Amazon directions implying the process was complete after only a few steps.

“The Iliad flow was difficult to access and difficult to complete,” said Reid Nelson, a former Amazon user-experience researcher, during testimony.

Amazon argues that the FTC is misinterpreting its internal efforts to improve the customer experience and contends that ROSCA does not require a cancellation mechanism to be prominently displayed or user-friendly. Kaba described the law’s requirements as ambiguous and said compliance “shouldn’t feel like Goldilocks trying to find the right formula.”

The trial is expected to last around a month and will feature testimony from both customers and current and former Amazon employees.

The FTC enters the trial with an advantage after a ruling that Amazon violated ROSCA by collecting customers’ billing information before disclosing Prime’s terms and conditions. The judge also held the three executives liable for any violations the jury finds.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court has upheld a ruling requiring two women to return Dh1.5 million and pay Dh250,000 in compensation in a high-value gold rental case.

The plaintiff sued the pair, claiming they rented gold worth Dh1.5 million for Dh157,000 but later sold it. As security, the defendants had signed a promissory note and a guarantee cheque, which they later disputed. The plaintiff alleged she suffered both financial losses and moral harm, prompting her to file a criminal complaint that resulted in a conviction against the women.

The Court of First Instance had ordered the defendants to jointly pay Dh1.5 million -- the value of the gold—along with Dh250,000 as compensation for damages.

On appeal, the defendants argued the transaction was not a rental but an installment purchase for gold worth Dh700,000. They further alleged the plaintiff had prematurely deposited the guarantee cheque after gold prices surged, using it as a basis to initiate the case.

However, the appeals court dismissed their claims and upheld the original judgment, ordering the defendants to pay the full amount to the plaintiff.

Walmart Inc. has reached a settlement in a series of shareholder lawsuits accusing the retail giant of mishandling its role in the distribution and sale of opioids, the company. The lawsuits alleged that Walmart failed to adequately address concerns about its pharmacies contributing to the opioid crisis, a long-standing public health issue that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the U.S. over the past two decades.

Settlement Terms

While the exact financial terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, the company will pay a significant amount to resolve the claims brought forward by shareholders. These lawsuits targeted Walmart’s corporate governance, accusing executives and board members of neglecting oversight responsibilities as the company’s pharmacies continued to fill opioid prescriptions, despite concerns about their role in fueling the crisis. The settlement brings an end to years of legal battles over the company’s actions related to opioid distribution.

In a statement, Walmart noted that while the settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing, it is part of a broader effort by the company to "focus on its future while contributing to efforts to combat the opioid epidemic." The retailer added that it remains committed to enhancing its compliance programs and expanding efforts to prevent the misuse of controlled substances.

Background on the Lawsuits

The shareholder lawsuits were part of a wave of legal actions against major companies involved in the opioid supply chain. Walmart, like other pharmacy chains, faced scrutiny from federal regulators, state governments, and private litigants over its role in distributing prescription opioids, which are linked to widespread addiction and overdose deaths.

According to the plaintiffs, Walmart’s board of directors failed to respond appropriately to numerous red flags regarding suspicious opioid prescriptions being filled at its pharmacies. The lawsuits argued that this alleged inaction led to significant legal and reputational risks for the company, ultimately harming shareholders.

The legal battles against Walmart mirrored those faced by other pharmacy chains like CVS and Walgreens, which have also been implicated in the opioid epidemic. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, including Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson, have likewise faced multibillion-dollar settlements and fines for their roles in the crisis.

Walmart’s Role in the Opioid Crisis

Walmart’s legal troubles in the opioid space began as part of a broader national reckoning over the role that corporations played in fueling the epidemic. The retailer operated one of the largest pharmacy networks in the U.S. and was accused of not adequately monitoring or reporting suspicious opioid prescriptions as required by law.

In 2020, Walmart faced a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which alleged that the company violated federal law by filling thousands of questionable opioid prescriptions. The DOJ accused Walmart of pressuring pharmacists to quickly dispense opioids, sometimes against their better judgment. The company has denied these allegations, asserting that its pharmacists were caught between doctors writing prescriptions and regulators seeking to enforce stricter controls.

Corporate Governance Concerns

At the heart of the shareholder lawsuits was the question of corporate governance and whether Walmart’s board and executives exercised proper oversight of the company’s pharmacy operations. Shareholders argued that the company’s leadership failed to mitigate known risks and did not act swiftly enough to address the increasing legal exposure related to opioid distribution.

The lawsuits claimed that Walmart’s lack of proactive measures to address the opioid crisis caused the company to face extensive legal liabilities, damaging its reputation and stock value. As a result, shareholders sought accountability through the courts, arguing that the board’s inaction constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

Opioid Crisis Settlements and Corporate Accountability

Walmart’s settlement comes as part of a broader trend of corporate accountability in the opioid epidemic. In recent years, pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacy chains have agreed to multibillion-dollar settlements to resolve thousands of lawsuits brought by states, cities, and individuals affected by the crisis.

Companies like McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Cardinal Health—some of the largest drug distributors in the country—have reached massive settlements, committing billions to fund addiction treatment and prevention efforts. Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, has also been at the center of the legal reckoning, culminating in a bankruptcy plan that involves restructuring the company and using its assets to address the opioid crisis.

Walmart’s settlement with shareholders highlights the increasing pressure on corporations not only to prevent harm but also to ensure adequate oversight of their operations. For shareholders, the settlement represents a victory in holding corporate boards accountable for their decision-making, particularly when public health and safety are at stake.

Looking Ahead

As part of its continued efforts, Walmart has pledged to strengthen its compliance programs and work closely with regulators to prevent the misuse of opioids in the future. The company is expected to enhance monitoring practices and ensure that its pharmacies comply with legal requirements for dispensing controlled substances.

While the settlement closes a chapter in Walmart’s legal battles related to the opioid crisis, it underscores the broader responsibility that corporations face in preventing the abuse of dangerous substances. As lawsuits continue against other major players in the pharmaceutical and retail industries, the opioid epidemic remains a critical issue that will likely shape corporate governance, regulatory practices, and public health policies in the years to come.

Conclusion

Walmart’s settlement with its shareholders over opioid-related lawsuits marks an important development in the ongoing legal response to the opioid crisis. The case serves as a reminder of the need for vigilant corporate governance and the importance of safeguarding public health in corporate decision-making. As companies across industries work to mitigate the impact of their actions on the opioid epidemic, settlements like this one demonstrate that accountability, even after harm has occurred, remains a vital part of addressing the crisis.

Amazon is responsible under federal safety law for hazardous products sold on its platform by third-party sellers and shipped by the company, a US government agency said.

In a unanimous vote, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said it determined that the e-commerce company was a “distributor” of faulty items sold on its site and packed and shipped through its fulfillment service.

That means the company is on the hook, legally, for the recalls of more than 400,000 products, including hairdryers and defective carbon monoxide detectors, the agency said.

It ordered Amazon to come up with a system for notifying customers who purchased faulty items and to remove the products from circulation by offering incentives for their return or destruction.
Amazon said it planned to appeal the decision in court.

Overall, Amazon accounts for roughly 40% of e-commerce sales in the US, according to the market research firm Emarketer. The company sells many items directly to consumers and also partners with nearly two million third-party sellers, who drive the majority of the sales on the platform.

The online retailer has fought the “distributor” label since 2021, when it was sued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for allegedly distributing hazardous items.

When Amazon was notified about the deficient products three years ago, the company “swiftly” notified customers, told them to stop using the items and issued refunds, Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle said.

But the agency said the company “did not take adequate steps to encourage” customers to return or destroy the products, leaving them at risk of injury. In the messages it sent, the company claimed the faulty products had “potential” safety issues and provided customers with Amazon.com credits rather than refunds, the agency said.

Amazon had argued before an administrative law judge and the five-person commission that it shouldn’t be classified as a distributor under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

The commission said the judge rejected the company’s argument, and Tuesday’s order was an affirmation of that decision.