WORLD

Once a familiar face to millions of social media users after videos of her selling prayer beads at the 2025 Maha Kumbh Mela in North India went viral, Monalisa Bhosle now finds herself at the centre of a very different spotlight — one playing out in courtrooms and police stations.

The Kerala High Court last week ordered police protection for Monalisa, who has alleged that she and her husband, Mohammed Farman Khan, have been facing threats, intimidation and an online hate campaign following their inter-faith marriage.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that, after hearing both sides, he was prima facie satisfied that she ought to be given protection for her life. The court directed the Station House Officer of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, to provide security to her until the writ petition is finally decided. The matter will next be heard on July 10.

In her petition, Monalisa said she had moved to the film industry after gaining sudden public attention during the Maha Kumbh Mela, and later married Farman Khan in Kerala on March 11, 2026. The marriage was registered under the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008.

She told the court that soon after news of the marriage became public, social media accounts began circulating abusive content against the couple. Photographs of the pair were reportedly burned and symbolically attacked during protests, with videos of these incidents widely shared online.

The petition further alleged that the couple has been receiving threatening messages from unknown individuals and is being followed by strangers. One message, cited in the plea, allegedly warned that she would be shot for marrying a “Pakistani”.

Despite lodging complaints with the police and the City Police Commissioner, Monalisa said the threats have continued, leaving her in fear and affecting her ability to pursue her acting career.

Her plea for protection is part of a wider set of legal proceedings linked to the marriage. Following allegations regarding her age at the time of marriage, a criminal case was registered in Madhya Pradesh based on a complaint filed by her father. In response, the couple has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Parallel proceedings are also underway before a Thiruvananthapuram POCSO court, while the couple has separately moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court alleging manipulation of age records.


Monalisa, who shot to nationwide fame as the “Kumbh Mela girl” after her viral presence at the 2025 pilgrimage, was widely featured across social media and digital platforms as an unexpected internet sensation. However, her rapid rise to visibility was also accompanied by scrutiny over her age, with conflicting claims circulating online and triggering public debate and subsequent legal attention in related proceedings.

eBay is once again facing the prospect of a trial in a lawsuit brought by a Massachusetts couple who were subjected to a bizarre stalking and harassment campaign carried out by several of its employees, after the company failed to finalise a settlement.

US District Judge Patti Saris in Boston has set a trial date of January 4 in the lawsuit filed by David and Ina Steiner against the company and three former executives. The couple allege they were targeted by former employees in retaliation for their coverage of eBay in the newsletter they publish.

The judge scheduled the trial after the Steiners said in a court filing on Friday that they were unable to complete a settlement which the defendants had agreed to in principle in February, just days before the case was originally due to go to trial.

As a result, the Steiners asked the court to reopen the case. Their lawsuit is seeking millions of dollars in compensatory damages, along with $466 million in punitive damages, according to court filings.

The defendants include eBay, former chief executive Devin Wenig, former chief communications officer Steve Wymer, and former senior vice-president of global operations Wendy Jones.

Neither Todd Garber, a lawyer for the Steiners, nor eBay spokespersons responded to requests for comment.

The Steiners filed the lawsuit in 2021 after several former eBay employees were charged over their roles in an extensive harassment campaign in 2019. The campaign involved sending the couple cockroaches, fly larvae and a bloodied Halloween pig mask.

Prosecutors said several eBay employees travelled from California to Natick, Massachusetts, to surveil the Steiners and attempted to install a GPS tracking device on their car.

Seven former eBay employees pleaded guilty and received prison sentences of up to 57 months for their roles in the stalking campaign, which prosecutors said was intended to silence the Steiners after senior executives considered their newsletter, EcommerceBytes, to be critical of the company.

Prosecutors and the Steiners alleged the campaign began after Wenig texted Wymer in August 2019, saying it was time to “take her down”, referring to Ina Steiner.

San Jose-based eBay agreed in 2024 to pay $3 million and enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors.

The Steiners’ lawsuit accuses eBay and the former executives of trespass, false imprisonment and violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.

Wenig, who stepped down as eBay’s chief executive in September 2019 and previously worked at Thomson Reuters, was never charged. His lawyers have argued that he had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the harassment campaign.

A federal judge in Manhattan has denied a request for nearly $1.4 million in legal fees sought by advocacy groups that had successfully challenged immigration rules introduced during President Donald Trump’s first term, which made it harder for some immigrants to obtain permanent residency.

In his ruling, US District Judge George Daniels said several groups, including Make the Road New York, did not qualify as “prevailing parties” under the federal Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows individuals and small organisations in certain circumstances to recover limited legal fees from the federal government.

The Equal Access to Justice Act is attracting renewed attention as hundreds of lawsuits against Trump’s second administration begin to conclude and successful attorneys seek fee awards funded by taxpayers.

Daniels ruled that because the Biden administration reversed the immigration rules in 2021 before a final judgment was issued, the groups had not secured an “enduring” legal victory that would justify the fees, despite having won a preliminary injunction blocking the restrictions.

The Justice Department and Make the Road New York did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Law firm Paul Weiss, which was among those seeking fees for representing the groups in the cases, also did not immediately respond.

The decision hinged on the scope of a 2025 US Supreme Court ruling, which held that winning a preliminary injunction does not make a group or individual a “prevailing party” eligible for fees if the case ends before a final ruling on the merits.

In the New York case, Daniels overturned a report by US Magistrate Judge Ona Wang, who had concluded that the Supreme Court ruling did not apply. Wang had said the Equal Access to Justice Act contains its own definition of “prevailing party”.

The Justice Department had urged Daniels to reject the fee request, arguing that the Supreme Court ruling should govern the New York cases. The government also argued that its legal positions in the litigation were substantially justified and that the recommended award was excessive.

A recent cyberattack targeting Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP highlights a growing shift in how hackers are infiltrating major law firms. Rather than relying on phishing emails, cybercriminals are increasingly using phone calls to manipulate employees into granting access to sensitive systems, Bloomberg Law reported.

Earlier this month, hackers reportedly attempted to access Lewis Brisbois employees’ accounts by impersonating the firm’s IT personnel during phone calls. The incident reflects a broader trend seen across large firms, where threat actors are moving away from email-based attacks and instead applying pressure on employees over the phone to gain entry.

Cybersecurity experts say such tactics exploit the weakest link in any organisation — human behaviour.

Several support staff at Lewis Brisbois work remotely or on hybrid schedules, often accessing the firm’s internal network from personal devices. While this arrangement has become common in the post-pandemic legal sector, experts warn it creates additional vulnerabilities, particularly when attackers pose as trusted IT staff seeking remote access to devices already connected to the firm’s virtual private network (VPN).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation warned last month that cyber groups such as Silent Ransom are increasingly focusing on law firms, aiming to bypass two-factor authentication and other security barriers.

Legal and cybersecurity professionals say large law firms remain attractive targets because they hold vast volumes of highly sensitive client data, making them lucrative “one-stop shops” for cybercriminals.

It remains unclear who was behind the attempted breach at Lewis Brisbois or whether the attackers successfully infiltrated the firm’s systems. Representatives of the firm, which employs around 1,600 lawyers across the US, have not publicly commented.

High-value Data, High-stakes Attacks

The Silent Ransom Group — also known as Luna Moth — is known for sophisticated social engineering campaigns that use urgency and psychological pressure to trick employees into bypassing security safeguards. Once inside, attackers quickly extract sensitive data and attempt to extort organisations by threatening to publish or sell the information.

Experts say some ransomware groups even examine law firms’ cyber insurance policies and tailor ransom demands accordingly, sometimes seeking amounts close to policy limits.

The group has been linked to recent cyber incidents involving Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Fox Rothschild LLP, according to lawsuits filed against those firms.

In the Fox Rothschild case, a lawyer reportedly fell victim to a “sophisticated” social engineering operation. The firm later said the breach was limited to a single device and that there was no wider compromise of its systems.

Personal Devices Now Blocked

Following the recent incident, Lewis Brisbois disabled access to its internal network from employees’ personal devices, according to a 10 June internal email reviewed by Bloomberg Law.

In an earlier email dated 5 June, the firm’s Director of Information, Curtis Hendzell, warned employees to be cautious of urgent calls from individuals posing as internal IT staff while using spoofed caller IDs.

Luigi Mangione, accused of gunning down a health insurance executive on a Manhattan pavement, has for now withdrawn plans to introduce evidence at trial that he was experiencing an extreme mental health crisis at the time of the alleged killing, according to a court filing on Friday.

Mangione, 28, is accused of fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson outside a hotel in Midtown Manhattan in December 2024. The killing was widely condemned by public officials, but it also became symbolic of growing public frustration over rising healthcare costs and insurance industry practices linked to UnitedHealth Group UnitedHealth Group.

He pleaded not guilty in December 2024 to state murder, weapons and forgery charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Alvin Bragg. His trial is scheduled for September before Justice Gregory Carro Gregory Carro in Manhattan.

In a letter to the court on Friday, Mangione’s lawyers said they were “at this time” withdrawing plans to present evidence that he had been undergoing an extreme mental health crisis.

Neither Mangione’s legal team nor Bragg’s office commented on the development.

Under New York law, defendants may argue that their actions were the result of an “extreme emotional disturbance”, which can reduce criminal culpability. The defence can allow a jury to downgrade a murder charge to manslaughter, which does not carry a potential life sentence.

Legal experts have said it may be difficult for Mangione to succeed with such a defence, given allegations that he carefully planned the killing and attempted to evade arrest.

Thompson, who led UnitedHealth Group’s insurance division, was shot dead early in the morning outside the hotel where the company was hosting an investor conference.

Graphic footage of the killing and a five-day manhunt for the suspect drew intense media attention and social media scrutiny. Mangione was eventually arrested in Pennsylvania.

He separately pleaded not guilty in April 2025 to federal murder, weapons and stalking charges brought by Manhattan federal prosecutors.

A judge later dismissed the murder and weapons charges on legal technical grounds in January, removing the possibility of the death penalty. However, Mangione still faces the possibility of life imprisonment without parole if convicted of stalking. Jury selection is scheduled to begin in September, with opening statements expected in November.

US federal court has allowed Eminem’s music publisher to proceed with key copyright infringement claims against Meta Platforms, in a dispute over the alleged unauthorised use of hundreds of songs on the company’s platforms.

The ruling means the publisher can continue pursuing its central allegation that Meta directly infringed copyright by using or making available a large catalogue of protected musical works without proper licensing. The case involves claims relating to 243 songs, which the publisher says were used without authorisation across Meta’s services.

Florida has sued TikTok, claiming it violates a state law that bars social media platforms from allowing children under 14 to create accounts.

The lawsuit, filed in state court in St Lucie County, alleges that the platform, owned by ByteDance, knowingly permitted underage users to access the service and misrepresented the extent of violent and sexual content accessible to minors.

Judicial clerkship “stacking” — where law graduates complete two, three or even four coveted clerkships with sitting judges before entering legal practice — is increasingly reducing the number of clerkships available to other aspiring lawyers, according to a new study by three law professors.

The trend is particularly disadvantaging graduates of non-elite law schools who lack access to insider hiring information, first-generation lawyers, and those who cannot afford to postpone higher-paid employment for several years, the researchers found.

“The federal judicial clerkship has evolved from a brief detour into a mini-career,” the study, titled Stacking the Deck, said.

Judicial clerkships are highly sought-after one-year positions in which graduates work under the mentorship of a judge. They significantly enhance a young lawyer’s credentials, opening doors to prestigious roles in law firms, academia and government.

The pay is relatively modest, with most federal clerks earning about $65,000. However, many law firms offer former clerks bonuses of $100,000 or more, rising to as much as $500,000 for clerks of the US Supreme Court.

Despite the prospect of such bonuses, lower-income graduates may be unable to afford delaying better-paid legal jobs while undertaking multiple clerkships, the researchers concluded.

Clerkship stacking originated at the Supreme Court and spread to federal district and appellate courts during the 1990s before expanding rapidly over the past 15 years, according to Vanderbilt law professor Tracey George, who interviewed more than 130 judges with co-authors Mitu Gulati of the University of Virginia School of Law and Albert Yoon of the University of Toronto.

Their earlier research found that while some Supreme Court clerks in the 1980s were hired directly from law school, today’s Supreme Court clerks arrive with more than two prior clerkships on average.

Comparable data are not available for federal district and appellate court clerks, George said. However, judges reported that stacking has “increased substantially” over the past decade, according to the study.

Information gaps among both judges and students, along with the ease of submitting online applications to multiple judges, are fuelling the trend, the researchers found. Judges are inundated with applications, and a prior clerkship serves as a strong signal of a candidate’s suitability.

Students often know little about the judges to whom they apply. However, they have more information than ever before about “feeder judges” — those with the strongest record of sending clerks to the Supreme Court — and may target those positions accordingly.

Faced with large numbers of highly qualified candidates, judges frequently make offers several years in advance. Applicants often accept because they fear not receiving another offer, the study found. Many then seek to “backfill” with more immediate clerkships, further extending their clerkship careers.

“The credential that was once available to a first-generation lawyer who caught a judge’s attention is increasingly reserved for those who arrive at law school already knowing how the game is played,” the study said.