Justice

A man bought Lambo.com to ask for 75 million from Lamborghini: justice has taken it from him and his problems do not end there

by

In 2018, an Arizona domain investor thought he had found a four leaf clover digital by taking control of the “Lambo.com” domain for $10,000. The man was convinced that one day he could resell it for a huge amount thanks to Lamborghini’s fame. Years later, the judges have given him bad news: not only will he not get that money, but he will be left without the domain and with a considerable legal bill. I am “Lambo” for life According to the documents In the case, Richard Blair bought the Lambo.com domain in February 2018 for $10,000, seeing in it a business opportunity linked to the enormous popularity of the Italian car manufacturer and the colloquial name by which its supercars were known: lambos. In Xataka Lamborghini will only manufacture 29 units of its latest supercar but don’t be in a hurry: they were already sold before being presented Shortly after the purchase, Blair began using “Lambo” as a nickname online, although until then there was no sign of him identifying himself that way. Blair maintained that this nickname was not related to the Italian brand, but rather was a play on the English word “Lamb“, that is, lamb, trying to present an alternative explanation that would distance it from the universe of supercars. At the same time, he redirected Lambo.com to another page where he published personal content and from which he presented the domain as an asset for sale, trying to show that the use of the name It was linked to its own identity and not to an attempt to take advantage of the car manufacturer’s reputation. In Xataka Buying a Lamborghini is a luxury reserved for a few: building one with used parts and an Ikea sink is another level Lambo’s price escalation The case records show that Blair soon set a very high price for the Lambo.com domain. The domain was first listed for sale on August 6, 2020 for $1,129,298. On December 23, 2020, the figure already tripled, rising to 1.5 million dollars and on January 27, 2021, it already reached 3.3 million dollars. Far from stopping, the owner continued to increase expectations and on September 23, 2021 the price rose to $12 million, on August 11, 2022 it made a considerable jump to $58 million, and on September 7, 2023 the figure reached $75 million. According to pointed Road&Track, during that period Blair received several offers for the domain but rejected them, because his objective was not to sell it to any buyer, but to get Lamborghini to pay an exorbitant amount for an address that fits the colloquial form of his name. Blair’s move did not go unnoticed by the Italian manufacturer, which in April 2022 filed a lawsuit with the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), under the protection of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy UDRP), requesting the transfer of the Lambo.com domain to the company considering that it was trying to profit from a name clearly linked to its trademark registered by the supercar manufacturer. In August 2022, WIPO concluded that Blair acted in bad faith and ordered the transfer of the domain to Lamborghini, understanding that he had no prior rights to the term “Lambo”, that he only began using that alias after purchasing the domain, and that he was trying take advantage of brand awareness to profit. Despite that decision, Blair decided to go to federal courts to appeal the WIPO resolution and maintain control over Lambo.com, prolonging the conflict and thus assuming new legal costs. The final blow of the courts As the conflict progressed, Blair redirected the domain to a personal website where he published a text in which he warned that he would be confronted by those who tried to take away his domains. “I AM LAMBO of LAMBO.com and I will defend, defeat and humiliate those who try to steal any of the trademarks from my domain name, including my nickname,” a statement attributed to Richard Blair himself. {“videoId”:”x957t4e”,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”Lamborghini Countach”, “tag”:”Lamborghini”, “duration”:”163″} The litigation ended up in district court of the United States, which supported the WIPO resolution and concluded that Blair had no rights to the name, demonstrating that he did not carry out any real activity on the page and that he attempted to benefit from the reputation of the Lamborghini brand. The result is that the manufacturer has obtained the Lambo.com domain without paying a single cent, while Blair has lost both his initial investment of $10,000 and the sales opportunities. In addition, the court has ordered him to pay legal costs, so buying Lambo.com not only has not brought him the expected benefits, but he has had to put money out of his pocket. Greed broke the bag. In this case, one that came loaded with money. In Xataka | In Dubai they don’t know what to do with so many abandoned luxury supercars: the less shiny side of getting rich Image | Lamborghini (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news A man bought Lambo.com to ask for 75 million from Lamborghini: justice has taken it from him and his problems do not end there was originally published in Xataka by Ruben Andres .

A company identified an employee on its payroll as “buzzed.” Justice has added some zeros to the joke

by

A payroll can be much more than a payment document: in this case, it became judicial evidence and object of compensation for damage to honor. A company in the Basque Country included the word “Zumbada” to identify the employee as a beneficiary on two successive payrolls. It so happened that the employee’s ex-husband was also the co-owner of the company. A ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country has condemned the company to pay 10,000 euros in damages to the employee’s honor. A list for “Zumbada”. According to is detailed in the sentence issued by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country, the worker carried out administrative tasks in the company of her ex-husband, of whom he was in the middle of the judicial process of divorce and custody of their common son with a disability. In this context, the employee received two payrolls in which the word “Zumbada” appeared in the section intended to indicate the name of the beneficiary of the payroll. As it could not be otherwise, the employee filed a lawsuit against the company. As the employee herself stated in an intervention in the program “And now Sonsoles” hosted by Sonsoles Ónega on July 27, “There was a first trial for the crime of minor insults in which it was the other partner, Iñaki, who took responsibility for having made that transfer.” However, the employee resorted to court again when she understood that it was the company that had to respond for her work mistreatment, arguing that she suffered a workplace harassment for the humiliating work shown towards her on her payroll. It’s not harassment. In July, the Social Court handed down a ruling arguing that, however reprehensible, the company’s conduct did not constitute workplace harassmentconsidering it a sporadic act. The labor lawyer Juanma Lorente agreed with the court’s ruling and analyzed the case in a published video on his Instagram profile. “We are not talking about workplace harassment, but rather a breach by the company, and you can file a complaint against it. But it is not workplace harassment. They have to be repeated over time for approximately six months,” said the lawyer, indicating that the employee’s legal advice had not been correct. The TSJPV did not let it pass. Although in the first instance the Social Court dismissed the claim. The ruling was taken to the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country, where on October 25 it revoked the first ruling, recognizing that the company had violated the employee’s right to honor by using the term “Zumbada” on its payroll. The ruling emphasizes that “the inclusion of derogatory terms in a list generates a detriment to the dignity of the worker and constitutes an act contrary to the fundamental principles of respect and honorability”, indicating that the offense occurred in a public context given that the document had to be processed by the employees of the financial institution, bypassing the area of ​​privacy. For this reason, the Court has sentenced the two partners of the company (one of them her ex-husband) to pay compensation of 10,000 euros for damage to the employee’s honor. History repeats itself. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that payroll processing has been used as a channel to inflict humiliating treatment on employees. In 2024, a baker included the concept “Nómina Abril Maricón” on the payroll of one of its employees, which led to a conviction and the seizure of his assets to face a compensatory compensation. In Xataka | An employee put the handbrake on the company van when he was the passenger. He was fired, but from his company Image | Wikimedia Commons (Zarateman), Unsplash (Resume Genius)

If the question is whether they can geolocate you during your work day and use it to fire you, justice leaves no doubt: yes

by

Know that your company knows where are you every minute of your workday can generate discomfort and even doubts about its legality. However, the courts have been clarifying this area for some time. A recent ruling by the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias does so with unusual forcefulness. The case involves an elevator maintenance technician and an application time control which recorded, in addition to his schedule, the exact point from which he clocked in. What seemed like a routine tool ended up becoming the key to a disciplinary dismissal which today is fully validated by justice. Schedule control with advanced features. As detailed in the sentence issued by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias, a maintenance employee of an elevator company used a time control application installed on the corporate mobile. His function was simple: mark the beginning and end of his day and do it from the place where he attended to each incident. The company distributed the routes on a daily basis and registration had to be done at the customer’s location, not from another point. However, the employee’s workday began to show strange patterns. In one month, the company detected up to 11 outbound signings made from the employee’s home and coinciding with work hours. The record indicated that, instead of closing his last intervention from the customer’s location, the technician finished his day on time, but already at home. Notices, warnings… and a disciplinary dismissal. The company did not act immediately. Before the dismissal, he issued several internal warnings to the worker and reminded him of the operation of the application, pointing out the irregularities detected and reminding him the obligation to sign from each real location. Even so, the signings from home continued, so the company interpreted that the agreed working day was being breached. Finally, he proceeded to the disciplinary dismissal, considering it proven that the technician ended his day prematurely and from a place outside the workplace. The Social Chamber of the TSJA confirmed the decision of disciplinary dismissal and validated the use of geolocation as evidence. What the law says. The TSJA ruling is based on the article 20.3 of the Workers’ Statutewhich specifies “the employer may adopt the surveillance and control measures he deems most appropriate to verify compliance by the worker with his or her work obligations and duties.” Therefore, and given the mobility nature of the position, the time control system with geolocation was justified. In addition, Organic Law 3/2018 on Data Protection (LOPDGDD) specifically regulates geolocation systems. Your article 90 requires clear information about the existence of these systems, their purpose, the scope of the processing and data protection rights. In this case, the app was corporate, the device belonged to the company, the worker knew how it worked, and the application only recorded the location when the application was opened. Taking all these regulations into account, the TSJA considered that the company acted within the law and used a proportional tool, linked to strictly labor purposes and correctly communicated to the employee. Time nuances. He Workers Statute It also precisely delimits when the day begins and ends. Article 34.5 establishes that “working time will be calculated so that both at the beginning and at the end of the daily shift the worker is at his or her workplace.” This is where we have to differentiate workplace and job position. It is not a minor nuance: effective working time begins when one is operationally available to perform the assigned functions. This does not mean that the employee must arrive at the workplace at the agreed time, but rather that he must be at his workplace at that time. If there are 10 minutes from the company entrance to your position and you arrive at the work center at your agreed time, you would be arriving 10 minutes late. The same applies at departure time. That employee must remain at his position until the agreed time, and then collect his things and leave the company. If you are leaving the company premises at the agreed time at the end of the day, you would be leaving 10 minutes early. The only exception to the rule: there is no job to go to. The Supreme Court has recognized a relevant exception: When the company does not have offices, premises or any physical space where workers can start their day, the employee’s home can be considered a valid starting point for the day. This doctrine applies especially to completely decentralized companies whose workers only move from client to client. In these situations (well accredited and exceptional), the travel time from home to the first client can be counted as workbecause the home assumes the function of the only available operating point. But as long as there is a work center or a clearly defined place where the activity can begin, this exception does not apply. Clocking in from home, as in the case of the Asturias elevator technician, is not justified and is a non-compliance with working hours. In Xataka | Breakfast and the first 15 minutes of entry are work: the Supreme Court sets the limits of time control Image | Unsplash (Kevin Grieve)

Justice condemns Meta to pay 479 million euros to Spanish media for unfair competition

by

Meta has been condemned by the Commercial Court No. 15 of Madrid to pay 479 million euros to 87 media and news agencies integrated into the Information Media Association. According to the ruling, picked up by AMIthe company is considered to have gained an unfair competitive advantage by illicitly using personal data on Facebook and Instagram for “behavioral advertising.” The resolution, dated November 19, 2025, is not final and can be appealed. We have requested comments from Meta and are awaiting a response. The origin of the case dates back to May 2018, when The General Data Protection Regulation came into force and Meta modified the legal basis for processing the personal data of its users, moving from consent to the supposed need for a contract. On December 1, 2023, the News Media Association filed the lawsuit in court. The preliminary hearing was held on November 27, 2024 and the oral hearing took place on October 1 and 2, 2025, after an economic claim of between 551 million euros. GDPR violation, not advertising violation. The resolution focuses on the way in which personal data was obtained and processed, rather than on the advertising activity itself. According to the ruling, the processing lacked a valid legal basis under the GDPR, because the contract formula does not replace informed consent. This violation is considered sufficient reason to activate article 15.1 of the Unfair Competition Law, which penalizes obtaining advantages in the market through regulatory non-compliance. The 5,281 million under analysis. During the procedure, the court notes, Meta Ireland did not provide its operating accounts in Spain, despite having been requested. Given this absence, the judge applied the rules of the burden of proof and validated the data presented by the plaintiff. Based on these elements, it estimated that, between May 25, 2018 and August 1, 2023, Meta would have earned more than 5,281 million euros with its advertising business in Spain. How compensation is calculated. To set the amount of compensation, the court used the Study on the conditions of competition in the online advertising sector in Spain prepared by the CNMC. Based on the market shares of the affected period, it was established that the income obtained by Meta through a practice contrary to the RGPD should be redistributed among competitors. The ruling considers it proven, with “reasonable plausibility,” that the digital press suffered lost profits. The ruling does not end the matter. The sentence itself admits of appeal and it will be the Provincial Court that will evaluate the arguments of both parties if the procedure continues. Until then, the case serves to place at the center the question of how privacy, commercial exploitation of data and competition should be related in the digital environment. The company has not yet expressed its position. We have requested your evaluation and are waiting to receive official comments. Images | Mark Zuckerberg | Dima Solomin In Xataka | Circular AI funding was not over: NVIDIA, Microsoft and Anthropic have signed a new billion-dollar deal

Justice has told them a couple of things

by

Convert a window into a door to have private access to the common patio, install the washing machine, place pots and a clothesline. This is how two owners acted of a building in Seville without having the authorization of the community of neighbors. The Provincial Court has confirmed that they must now reverse all the works and remove their belongings from the patio. Conflict. As you can read in the sentencethe lighthouse was a common space belonging to two buildings. One of them filed a lawsuit against these owners for opening a hole in the wall that faced the patio, allowing them to access directly from their home and use the area as if it were private, just as they explain from NewsWork. All of this without having requested or obtained the approval of the owners’ meeting. The defense. The reported neighbors alleged that there was discrimination, since another owner had maintained a similar door to the same patio for decades. They also argued that the neighbors at the time expressed indifference and that the lawsuit was motivated by poor personal relationships. However, none of these arguments succeeded. What the law says. The Provincial Court of Seville rejected the appeal and confirmed the First Instance ruling. Just like express From the middle, according to article 7.1 of the Horizontal Property Law, no owner can make alterations to common elements without express permission from the community. Opening a hole in the façade requires approval by board agreement, something that in this case was never requested. The problem of exclusive use. The court pointed out that he article 397 of the Civil Code establishes that no community member can use a common space in a way that excludes others or prevents their use. By installing a washing machine, pots, clothesline and other personal items, these owners were depriving the rest of the neighbors of shared use of the patio. Someone doing it is not enough. The fact that another neighbor has been granted that right does not automatically authorize the rest of the owners to do the same. The sentence discard the “comparative grievance” as a justification for repeating previous violations, especially when there is no community agreement to support it. In this way, the community would have acted within the legal framework. A recent use. The defendants were also unable to demonstrate that they had acquired rights through the passage of time. The acquisition of easements by prescription requires peaceful, public and continuous use for at least 20 years, according to the article 537 of the Civil Code. In this case, just as share the medium, the intervention was recent and without legitimation. Conviction. The two neighbors must close the door, replace the original window and remove all elements from the common patio: washing machine, flower pots, clothesline and any other object. In addition, they are obliged to repair the damage caused in the area and assume the full cost of the work to restore the previous state of the façade and the shared patio. Cover image | Javier Gomez In Xataka | The best horror movie of this winter has been released. And the protagonists are the owners of a home in Spain

In 2019, Iberia lost a dog before flying. Now the European Justice says that it is worth the same as a suitcase

by

After six years of trials, the Court of Justice of the European Union has issued its verdict: a dog is a suitcase. The question that the European court had to resolve is whether the loss of a pet should entail greater compensation than that contemplated for a suitcase. And the response has been blunt. October 22, 2019. That was the day an Argentine family lost their dog Mona. That day, the family was at the Ezeiza airport, next to Buenos Aires, to travel to Barcelona. Given the company’s regulations, Mona had to travel in a carrier in the hold of the plane, but during the loading operation, the dog escaped from the control of the operators and, scared, ran towards the runway. They explained those days in The Vanguard that Grisel, its owner, was completely sure that she had closed the cage properly. However, once they were seated, a flight attendant approached to notify them of what had happened and confirm that the dog had escaped. The mother, who was accompanying Grisel, then claimed to have seen her dog running away and the workers trying to catch her but they were not allowed to get off the plane. Loss. After this first moment of anguish had passed, the family claimed that the Iberia workers confirmed that the dog had been trapped and that they had to give them a telephone number so that a contact could come get the animal at the airport. However, when Christian, the owner’s brother, went to the airport, they told him that the dog had escaped again and that they had not been able to catch her. Since then, the family did everything possible to investigate in the vicinity of the airport if the animal was nearby but with no luck. Iberia’s response. Then, the family was already indicating that they were unhappy with how Iberia had handled the situation. “We do not have any type of response from the airline. Iberia tells us that as happened in Argentina, nothing can be done from Spain,” they explained to the Catalan newspaper at the time. For its part, from Iberia in Argentina, the company assured Clarion that they were very sorry for what happened and that both Iberia and the airport manager kept the search active. According to her version, the animal “broke one of the sides of the cage and escaped. Before shipping any cage with an animal inside, we always seal the opening doors to prevent the animal from opening it and escaping. However, Mona broke the opposite side of the cage and that’s why she got out.” They confirm that the workers managed to recover Mona but she bit the worker’s arms and face, fleeing again. “Non-material damage”. Given the animal was lost, the family decided to report Iberia to claim compensation for what happened. Given the seriousness of the matter, the family requested that the company pay 5,000 euros for “non-material damages”, which Iberia refused, they explain in Guardian. They explain in the English newspaper that Iberia agreed to compensate for the loss of the animal since it had escaped under the responsibility of its workers. However, they were not willing to pay more than would be paid for the loss of any luggage. That is, they would pay but the same amount that they would pay for the loss of a suitcase. Europe agrees… with Iberia. During a process that has lasted six years, since the Madrid game they escalated the debate in 2024 to the Court of Justice of the European Union who, finally, ruled in favor of Iberia. The company will compensate the family as if they had lost a suitcase. That is to say, just under 1,600 euros which is the maximum amount contemplated for these cases. When the issue was brought to the European court, Iberia defended itself, arguing that “It makes no sense to equate animals with people. The owner, the only one who fully understands the animal, is the one who chooses to expose it to the often stressful and challenging experience of traveling by plane.” And he stressed that “it is his responsibility to prepare it for the trip, assume the risk of exposing it to an inhospitable environment and guarantee its veterinary aptitude. But the most important thing is that only he can assess the deep emotional bond with his pet and, therefore, the moral damage he would suffer if something happened to him during transport.” How is a pet valued? According to the Court of Justice of the European Unionvery simply: a special declaration of the value of the pet. This is what, in the opinion of the European court, the family should have signed and the company accepted. When this agreement is reached, the company agrees to pay a higher compensation if something happens but the passenger also pays a surcharge for the transportation of the animal. This is, in the opinion of Carlos Villa Corta, the family’s lawyer, a “missed opportunity to continue raising awareness about the rights of animals and the people who care for them. The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that pets do not deserve special or improved legal protection compared to a simple suitcase,” in words reported by Guardian. What the European court alleges is that the Montreal Convention that regulates these cases speaks of “people and luggage” and that, therefore, the term people would cover the damages to the “passenger” and that everything else must be considered as luggage. And they emphasize: “the fact that the protection of animal welfare is an objective of general interest recognized by the European Union does not prevent animals from being transported as ‘baggage’ and being considered as such for the purposes of liability resulting from the loss of an animal.” Photo | TA-WEI LIN and Miguel Angel Sanz In Xataka | What the law says about breaking a car window when a dog is suffering from heat stroke

Justice has annulled it

by

A medical visitor from Galicia, with productivity awards and a salary of almost 5,000 euros per month, was fired after his company’s decision to put a Private detective to control you. He accused him of working just 90 minutes a day when he said he did much more. But justice has made a decision that radically contradicts the criteria followed by the company. The detective stopwatch that has not served at all. This story starts in the spring of 2024, as collects the judicial sentence. The medical visitor who worked for a pharmaceutical company had the task of visits to doctors to sell their new treatments. But after a decline, the company decided to hire a private detective to monitor its movements. The commercial was controlled by all fronts. Both his company car and the tablet he used could register their movements within the working day. But the detective in this case detected important irregularities between what the commercial reported and what really did in its day to day. A demolishing report for the worker. After monitoring from different locations in Galicia, it was seen that the worker said he worked more than he really did. For example, in Vigo the employee reported four hours of work where he visited 12 doctors. The detective timed only an hour and a half of activity in the hospital. The same happened in Ourense, where he spent 45 minutes in a cafeteria, although he points out that he visited four doctors. In the case of Pontevedra and Ferrol, these same patterns were repeated as there were stay times in hospitals much lower than the day and visits that the commercial recorded on its agenda. With this report in the hand, the company concluded that there was an abuse of flagrant trust, since of the 51 visits he said he made, the company, based on surveillance, attributed “five to the most” and proceeded to fire him. Productivity weighs more than GPS. This case reached the high courts and that was where the company’s argument collapsed. The worker’s defense focused not on the hours he physically passed in a hospital, but on the nature of his position and the demonstrated performance. For the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia It is very striking for the company to reward the worker up to 4,000 euros for having great productivity and be an “exemplary worker.” In this way, for judges efficiency is not laziness, since they point out that it is fully compatible to make “visits together”, something that a detective cannot interpret correctly. A pulse between two work models. The TSXG ruling confirms the inadmissibility of the dismissal and forces the company to choose between the worker’s readmission or the payment of compensation that exceeds 118,000 euros. Beyond the particular case, this sentence opens the current debate on the measurement of work. It shows that, at least in judicial field, the idea that monitor connection hours o Physical presence is an obsolete method to evaluate roles based on autonomy and objectives. There are many techniques to avoid time control. This is not an isolated case in the offices, as with Teams where The connection status can be controlled to see who is workingwhich also makes Companies appear to monitor workers who telework. Even in the offices it has been seen as the gene generation makes ‘task masking’ that is literally pretend that you work. Everything so that they do not receive more tasks they already have. And all because evaluating the goals for hours cannot be the most appropriate. It is not an isolated case. There are many companies that follow this same strategy, especially for combat possible false casualties That there are in your template. And it is completely legal, since according to the Private Security Lawdetectives can act in the face of suspicion of fraud in work decline. Images | Hunters Race In Xataka | This worker promised them happy combining three jobs, until he made an error and in a matter of hours was unemployed

Justice allows airlines what Spain wants to fine. And who is winning is Ryanair

by

The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid He has precautionary suspended sanctions of 179 million euros that consumption imposed to five airlines receivable the hand luggage. Companies will continue to invoice these services as an extra, at least until there is a final sentence. Why is it important. This judicial decision comes in full clash between Spanish and European regulations. Spain considers these practices illegal and sanctions them. The European Union Council expressly supports them. However, the latter has not yet been translated into current law, for the moment The European Parliament wants to restore its gratuity And then the inter -institutional negotiation will arrive. In figures. Ryanair and Norwegian have achieved precautionary measures contributing 110 and 1.8 million bank guarantees respectively. The magistrates argue that the fines are “very high” and their anticipated payment would cause “difficulties to the Treasury” of the airlines. This does not mean in any case that the court considers the fine illegitimate, only there are reasons to suspend it while judging. Ryanair heads the sanctions with 107 million, followed by Vueling (39.3), Easyjet (29,1), Norwegian (1.6) and Volotea (1,2). The total fine amounts to 179 million euros. The context. The EU Council reforms in June the European regulations for expressly allow collection by cabin suitcaseslimiting free luggage to packages of 40x30x15 centimeters. This reform, of course, must still be ratified by the European Parliament. But the European Parliament Transportation Commission this week approved a opposite proposal: That each passenger can wear a small bag and suitcase without additional cost. Between the lines. The European Commission has already opened a procedure against Spain for possible irregularities in these sanctions. Meanwhile, airlines press to maintain their freedom of rates. It is a clash between two ways of understanding the business of flying: Ryanair disaggregates everything that can be reduced to the basic ticket and fill the airplanes, something that explains its good profitability. Legislators want a basic ticket to include certain services that cannot be disaggregated. The only thing that all parts seem to coincide is to allow a small bag or backpack for free (40x30x15 cm). It is the minimum difference between plane traveling and traveling by subway. And now what. The proposal of the Parliament must go through the plenary in July and negotiate with the Member States. Until then, the airlines will maintain their current policies, which are also now backed by the Spanish judicial decision. Minister Pablo Bustinduy is confident that the position of the European Parliament prevails. The airlines, meanwhile, have won judicial legitimacy to continue charging hand luggage as extra. Outstanding image | In Xataka | The great secret of Ryanair’s success is that he does not earn money to fly: he does so squeezing you in everything else

It is unpublished that justice allows something like that

by

This weekend we have lived a unique First Division League day. No longer for the celebration of Barça-Madrid on Sunday, but because once LaLiga returned to order indiscriminate blockages of IPS that affected a large number of domains. In this case there were even institutional websites such as the Madrid City Council that They were inaccessibleand this opens a new chapter in this absolute disaster that remains without predictable solution. What happened. Last weekend the blockades affected X, Redsys and cited institutional websites Like the Madrid City Council. It is another drop more than one glass that does not seem to stop: we carry Almost three months in which IPS blockages are uninterruptedly causing thousands of websites that are inaccessible. And we are talking about particular websites or fully legitimate companies. Cloudflare against LaLiga. The only crime of these websites is to use the services (free or payment) of Cloudflare. This CDN, DNS and Proxies service provider helps these websites improve their global availability and also Protects from cyber attacks. As we have explained above, Cloudflare makes use of shared IPS that brings together hundreds or thousands of domains, and when LaLiga orders to block one of those IPS, that affects all the domains that use that shared IP. Result: They pay fair for sinners. There should be no damage to third parties. He Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Law (LEC) indicates that these types of actions should be rejected when they suppose a damage to third -party not demanded in the procedure. Thus, there should be no damage to third parties, but there is and justice is not apparently doing anything to prevent it. But they keep paying fair for sinners. We know that these blockages are not only preventing users’ access to certain domains, but there are also companies that are suffering economic and reputational damage. This last weekend the thing was even more striking, because among those affected were institutional websites such as the Madrid City Council. Before others were like those of the Royal Academy of Languagebut still there have been no changes from the judicial environment, LaLiga or the operators. Denied nullity. Rootedcon and Cloudflare fought against that sentence in which LaLiga relies. The nullity of said judgment was requested, but the court that managed the petition rejected this request. He also dismissed Cloudflare requests when stopping these blockages, and for now these hard judicial setbacks have allowed LaLiga to continue ordering those blockages and affecting thousands of legitimate domains. Something unusual. There are no documented precedents in Spain of such massive and indiscriminate blockages that they have left institutional websites or public bodies out of service. In previous interventions for distribution of contents with copyright – as those that achieved close websites like Lectulandia or those that They shared music illegally – the measures were aimed at concrete domains and not to shared infrastructure. What do experts say. We have spoken with Ofelia Tejerina (@Fetg), lawyer and president of the Association of Internet users. She reminds us that the Article 264 of the Criminal Codewhich speaks of sanctions for computer crimes, indicates the following: “The one that by any means, without authorization and seriously deleted, damage, deteriorate, alter, suppress or make inaccessible computer data, computer programs or electronic documents outside, when the result produced was serious, will be punished with the prison penalty of six months to three years.” Both this article and the previous one seem to be clear with what should be done before these blockages, which are causing damage to third parties and that are also making inaccessible computer data during blockages. And yet, everything remains the same. The silence surprises. Tejerina remembers how with the SGAE IPS were traced and the persecution was to end users, but European justice made it clear that those They were private communications Although years later his speech I changed completely. For her “this systematic, arbitrary and irrational blockade is unusual.” But it also shows the same surprise as many of a situation that does not seem to have made the alarms of official institutions or justice jump: “We are attending an execution of a completely unlimited court order that affects fundamental rights, public services and freedom of business. We have for example a defender of the People or a Secretariat of State for Communications. Everyone knows what is happening, they must protect neutrality in the network and have the ability to operate ex officio, but do not do so. Speech.” Images | Peter Glaser In Xataka | LaLiga has found the best way to beat Cloudflare: ally with its competition

If the question is “I can wear a free hand suitcase with Ryanair”, the response of justice is: it depends

by

Win and lose. And along the way a fine continues to float a fine and the consequences derived from it. The sanction to Ryanair receives an extra cost in the hand suitcase continues to leave us sentences and one thing is clear: neither the justice itself agrees. A fine. It all starts last November. One is confirmed Historical fine to four operators. Of these, Ryanair is the most affected. The sanction is 107.78 million euros and is imposed to breach the rights of passengers to carry a hand suitcase without extra cost. At least that is what the government that sanctions the company through consumption. Ryanair, on the contrary, has another opinion. Yes, it accepts that there is a regulation that allows free hand luggage to be carried out but it shields that there are no established measures for it. As there is no “standard” suitcase, they charge to carry the luggage that can be transferred to the winery. What are Ryanair’s conditions? First of all, what we have to know is that Ryanair does let a lump to the cabin. But that is, exclusively a lump that does not exceed the measures of 40 x 20 x 25 cm. That size does not comply with those considered as cabin bags that extend up to 55 x 40 x 20 cm and 10 kg of weight. In that case, in carrying with us a trolley to the cabin of the plane, we will have to pay the fee Regular or priority that opens the door to that usual suitcase in the planes and a second lump such as a backpack or a bag. This game with the diffuse areas of the law, that of not being defined in any regulations what are the exact measures of a suitcase, is the one that the Irish company grabs to defend its position before the demands of the users. Ryanair wins. At least in Seville. There, the company has made the resource of a client who was forced to pay for the cabin suitcase does not prosper. Section 2 of the Mercantile Court of Seville has dismissed the demand filed by the traveler, they explain since The world. The client understood that they were charging 12 euros on a round trip (six per trip) illegally. However, the Sevillian court buys the defense of Ryanair: it is not true that it is prevented from flying with a free suitcase, what Ryanair prevents is accessing with a suitcase superior to the dimensions of 40 x 20 x 25 cm. And they point out that the client was allowed “to carry a lump of reasonable dimensions.” Ryanair loses. At least in Salamanca. There, the company has to return 147 euros to a passenger receivable the cabin suitcase in five different routes between 2019 and 2024, they point out in eldiario.es. The affected person is a Facua partner, an association through which they have filed their demand. In this case, the passenger denounced that the company had forced him to choose the rate Priority to be able to access the cabin of the plane with your hand luggage in which it only wore basic clothes and equipment. The judge has based her decision that “hand luggage is an indispensable element of passenger transport (…) cannot be subject to price supplement,” they collect in The world. Beyond specific cases. What we have, in addition to two contradictory sentences, is that the battle between Ryanair and the Government continues. On the one hand, from the Executive they defend the consumption decision and, on the other, Ryanair continues to show that the sentences in which they obtain favorable results They are certification that the company “fully complies with the legislation of the European Union.” The problem for passengers is that the pulse between Ryanair and Government has overflowed and is affecting peripheral airports, where the company had a substantial role in air traffic and where is marching as a pressure measure To the Executive. In fact, the company has insisted that if Aena’s rates do not fall in the future (the excuse to reduce the presence in these places) will continue to derive its operations To other places. Operations like its new line to Morocco that despite the low volume of occupation keeps open thanks to a government doping. Doping that, by the way, We have also applied in Spain. Photo | Fotis In Xataka | Choosing seat to fly has become a luxury. Now Ryanair has his own subscription to assure you

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.