Justice

Antena 3 has been broadcasting the Rosco from ‘Pasapalabra’ for 26 years as if it were theirs. And justice has just put an end to it

by

Is the most watched program on Spanish television. And he faces a considerable problem. It is a topic that affects not its mechanics, but its most iconic and recognizable moment: those final minutes in which two contestants review the alphabet against the clock. The Supreme Court has ratified that this circle of letters was never owned by Antena 3, and in fact, its true owners have been waiting for decades for the courts to agree with them. The time has come. The sentence. The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court issued its resolution on April 30 and made it public on May 21, 2026. The ruling confirms the ruling of the Provincial Court of Barcelona and dismisses the appeals of Atresmedia and ITV Studios, producer of the program, concluding that El Rosco is a work protected by intellectual property whose ownership corresponds to the Dutch company MC&F Broadcasting Production and Distribution CV The sentence requires the cessation of broadcast of Rosco and a compensation of 50,000 euros for moral damages. Delete ‘Pasapalabra’. In fact, there are a detail in the sentence which is more impressive on practical levels for the average viewer than the fine itself: the sentence imposes the destruction of all recordings of programs that include El Rosco. Although this “destruction” comes from article 139 of the Spanish Intellectual Property Law, whose purpose is to remove copies from commercial exploitation (DVDs, platform licenses, sales to third parties), it does not necessarily refer to the chain’s internal archive, that is, ‘Pasapalabra’ is not going to become lost media. In practice, however, you cannot license, sell or distribute the program in streaming. If Antena 3 had, for example, episodes available on Atresplayer, they would have to be removed. The defense of Atresmedia. According to Atresmedia, El Rosco was a generic idea (questions ordered by the letters of the alphabet), and the ideas are not protectable by law. However, the Supreme Court, in reaching its decision, emphasizes that the test enjoys “sufficient originality” because it reflects free creative decisions of its authors, a “own uniqueness” that distinguishes it from other games based on the alphabet, and above all, it alludes to its visual configuration: the circular donut, the dynamic of passing and returning to unanswered questions and the final stopwatch. This idea was born in the Italian version of ‘Pasapalabra’, in 1999. As arrive El Rosco to Spain without rights. It is to that point in history that we must go back to understand the dispute. The game was created by two Italians, Reto Luigi Pianta and René Mauricio Loeb, as part of a program called ‘End Game 21×100’, which was later merged with the Italian version of ‘The Alphabet Game’, called ‘Passaparola’, at the end of that decade. The creators assigned their rights to the Dutch production company MC&F. Until then, no conflict. The problem came when ITV began licensing Pasapalabra to other European networks, including El Rosco in the package, as if it were part of the original format, something that MC&F has been calling illegal for decades. That is to say, Antena 3 has broadcast for 26 years a format that included a piece that was not its own, nor the person who sold it to it. When Telecinco also lost ‘Pasapalabra’. It is not the first time that the Supreme Court has reorganized the Spanish television map on account of this program. In 2019, the Supreme Court forced Telecinco to stop broadcasting ‘Pasapalabra’ following the lawsuit brought by ITV in 2010 over the rights to the full format. Following its victory in court, ITV assigned the rights to Atresmedia, and Antena 3 resumed broadcasting on May 13, 2020. Since then the program has not stopped growing. The importance of ‘Pasapalabra’. The contest is the cornerstone on which all of Antena 3’s late-night programming is based, currently the most viewed chain of Spanish television. In the 2024/2025 season, ‘Pasapalabra’ reached an average share of 18.3% of sharewith a maximum of 21.1% in June 2025, consolidating itself for the sixth consecutive year as the most watched daily program on Spanish television. And from there people do not turn away from television: El Rosco is the anchor that drags viewers towards the nightly news and towards the prime time of ‘The Anthill‘. What is the future of ‘Pasapalabra’. The ruling does not eliminate ‘Pasapalabra’ from Antena 3. ITV’s contract with Atresmedia remains in force and the program can continue on the air. What it cannot do is include El Rosco. Program sources have confirmed that Atresmedia will maintain the broadcast “normally” until receiving official notification of the ruling and knowing the deadlines for the process. From there, the possible paths are to negotiate directly with MC&F to obtain a use license, design a new final test to replace the Rosco or wait for ITV to reach an agreement with MC&F. Problem: None of the three options are quick and all involve altering a program that, as it stands right now, is working like a charm. Mediaset’s trick. And here comes the twist: apparently Approximately a year ago, Mediaset closed an agreement with MC&F to acquire the rights to Rosco, conditional on the Supreme Court resolving the dispute in the terms that have finally become known. With the sentence now final, Mediaset can create a program around Rosco. But that program cannot be called ‘Pasapalabra’ nor have the mechanics of the Antena 3 program. In other words, if it is confirmed that Mediaset can use Rosco, the most famous program on television is now divided: its name and structure is from one network, its best-known test from another. In any case, we are going to see changes in the future, predictably in Access that Antena 3 now dominates. And whoever controls Access… controls the audiences. In Xataka | Four years of historic audience lows: Telecinco is looking for oxygen this summer and its idea is to recycle presenters and formats

Renfe trusted in Justice to prevent Iryo from using its workshops. Your last hope just faded away

by

Renfe will have to open its workshops to Iryo. At least for now. This is what the National Court has decided, rejecting the very precautionary measures requested by Renfe with which it intended to close the Italian company’s access to its space. Of course, the judicial procedure continues, so it is not at all clear what will end up happening in the medium term. No. This is what the National Court has determined. It does not accept the very precautionary measures requested by Renfe to prevent Iryo from using its facilities to carry out its own heavy maintenance activities at its facilities, they point out in The Economist. The National Court sides with the CNMC, at least for now, in the battle that Renfe maintains against Iryo and the regulators. However, the procedure continues and Justice will have to confirm whether, in the future, Renfe must keep its facilities open to rivals. The CNMC. This first decision of the court reaffirms the position of the CNMC, which claims to be allowing all the protagonists of this film to operate under equal conditions. Cani Fernández, president of the CNMC, defended the position of the regulators, arguing that “the CNMC has to guarantee access to the market under equal conditions,” in words reported by He Northern Castile. Since the conflict beganthe CNMC has sided with Iryo and demands that Renfe open its workshops so that the Italian company can carry out maintenance work on its trains. They point out that if Iryo has to send its trains to Italy, it would lose them for weeks and put it at a disadvantage in the market. The other alternative, that scheduled maintenance is not carried out, is not logically viable either. What Renfe says. For its part, Renfe believes that give access to Iryo to carry out the activities that have already been advanced to them has no place within the competitive framework that the Spanish company and the rest of its rivals had given themselves. Renfe does not avoid its obligation to have to lend its facilities to Iryo and Ouigo but remember that this is only the case for light maintenance tasks. However, they allege, Iryo has requested to be able to carry out its own heavy maintenance activities. This, according to Renfe, would have direct consequences on its offer because its facilities are already working at full capacity. The company assures that if it gives entry to the Italian company will suffer the following consequences: Remove 1.2 million seats from its offer due to not being able to maintain its own trains Of those seats, one million would correspond to the offer offered as a public service Loss of 60 million euros in income What Iryo says. In its allegations, Renfe points out that Iryo’s activities would occupy 10% of the La Sagra facilities, where its Comprehensive Maintenance Base is located. Iryo reduces this figure to 7% and points out that it would not be too much of a problem since they are activities that can be scheduled based on the mileage of the trains. They emphasize that if Renfe does not give them access to their workshops they will have to take them to Rome and that this implies leaving them out of circulation for up to two months, a situation that they consider unfair. The company has not made any comment on the possibility of setting up its own workshops in Spain, just as promised upon arrival. They complain. The latter does not convince Renfe that she feels aggrieved in this fight. Back in the day, he discovered that Ouigo was carrying out heavy unscheduled maintenance work in his workshops. Now they believe that giving Iryo access to act in the same way is not fair because it is not specified or by the Directive 2012/34/EU (RECAST) on the single railway space nor the standard EN 15380-4:2021 Spanish. Faced with the first decision of the CNMC, Renfe responded by closing the door and putting forward its reasons but the organization stood firmand. The next thing was to appeal the decision to the National Court requesting very precautionary measures but these, as we say, have been rejected. At the moment, Justice forces the workshops to open but the procedure continues to decide whether, in the medium term, Renfe, Iryo and Ouigo must maintain this same balancing act or if the Spanish company can close the door on them. Photo | Renfe and Iryo In Xataka | There is a fight between the railway operators to get the best drivers and Renfe is winning it

Neighbors in Chile tried to stop an Amazon data center. Justice has left a clear message with its decision

by

Artificial intelligence has been part of our lives for a long time, often almost without us stopping to think about what is behind it. We use it as if everything were happening in an invisible layer: models, algorithms and, perhaps, servers in some remote location. But we can also look at it from another perspective. The infrastructure that supports that world is very real: it has a location, consumes resources, requires permits, involves enormous investments, and can also alter the environment of those who live nearby. That is one of the great debates that is beginning to accompany the rise of AI: the cloud also has neighbors. They lost the case. A specific case leads us to Huechurabanorth of Santiago de Chile, where Amazon plans to build a data center. The initiative had received a favorable Environmental Qualification Resolution in July 2024, but not everyone was convinced that the project had been evaluated accordingly. That concern reached the judicial route through a claim presented by Patricio Hernández Valenzuelaa resident of the area, and the Second Environmental Court resolved on April 9, 2026 to reject ita decision that leaves the data center in a position to move forward. A very specific concern. Hernández questioned whether the environmental evaluation of the project had not adequately taken into account a possible high voltage line that, according to his approach, would be necessary to power the data center. The criticism was not minor: if both infrastructures were linked, they had to be analyzed together. For residents, not doing so meant leaving relevant impacts on the environment out of the analysis. The key to the failure. The court’s reasoning involves clearly separating both pieces. The ruling concludes that the data center and the eventual high-voltage line cannot be considered to form a single initiative, among other things because the Amazon project does not include that infrastructure as part of its design. Furthermore, the planned electricity supply does not depend on its own installation, but on the network managed by third parties, which reinforces the idea that these are different projects. Without joint evaluation. Once the existence of a project unit has been ruled out, the court concludes that an integrated environmental assessment is not appropriate. The sentence explicitly states it: “it has been proven that between both initiatives there is no relationship of functional interdependence that conditions their execution.” This nuance is key, because it implies that the data center can operate using the available electrical infrastructure, without the need to subject its viability to a future high voltage line which, in any case, would have to be evaluated separately if it were to be considered. Beyond the legal debate. The Amazon project has very specific dimensions on paper. The data storage center in Huechuraba is designed to operate for 30 years, with an estimated investment of 205 million dollars. It would be built on an area of ​​10.9 hectares, with a construction of 21,350.07 square meters, in the street of Américo Vespucio 1055. From the company, collects Reutershave pointed out that the design of the infrastructure focuses on minimizing energy and water consumption, and maintains that the plan met environmental requirements. Chile as a hub. The Huechuraba project is not an isolated initiative within Amazon’s strategy. Amazon Web Services has proposed an investment of more than 4,000 million dollars in Chile over 15 years to build, operate and maintain its infrastructure in the country. The idea is to turn Santiago into its third major center in Latin America, after São Paulo and the central region of Mexico. Factors such as connectivity through fiber optic cables are added to this context. The concern of those who live nearby. Beyond the investment and digital infrastructure they promise, data centers are often accompanied by very specific concerns: high electricity consumption, use of water for cooling, heat or noise generation, and their fit into environments that, in many cases, have environmental or community value. Google did not have the same path. The case of Amazon is not the only one that has gone through this type of debate in Chile. Google had obtained initial approval in 2020 to build a $200 million data center in Cerrillos, southwest of Santiago. However, the project’s journey was different. In February 2024, the Second Environmental Court decided to partially reverse that permissionand months later the company announced that it would not continue with the initiative as it had originally been proposed, opting to start a new process from scratch for a project in the same location, but with a redesign based on air cooling. Electricity enters the scene. If we broaden the focus, the debate is not limited to a specific project, but to the system’s capacity to absorb this type of infrastructure. A Systep reportpublished on September 23, 2025 with data from the National Electrical Coordinator, indicated that, taking 2025 as a starting point, the electrical demand of data centers in Chile could increase by 270% in five years. The same projection places this consumption at around 1,207 MW in 2030. These figures help to understand why the energy issue has become one of the central axes when talking about the expansion of the cloud and AI. Images | Xataka with Nano Banana In Xataka | In 2024, Big Tech spent absurd amounts of money on AI. In 2025, they managed to spend 77% more

Mexicans have been harassed by banks and financiers over the phone for years. Justice has just stopped their feet

by

In Mexico, debt collection by telephone has been part of the background noise for many people for years. Insistent calls, messages at odd hours and contacts that cross the line of reason have turned collection into one of those abuses that are often suffered before even understanding who should be responsible for them. For a long time, the pressure was concentrated on the office that dials or writes. But behind this harassment there is more than just an unknown number on the other end of the line: there is also a financial institution that hired him. The key resolution. The underlying novelty is not minor. On January 15, 2026, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) closed the door to one of the arguments with which some financial entities sought to release sanctions linked to their reports on collection offices. The ruling confirmed the validity of the framework that allows the CONDUSEF fine them when they fail to comply with these information obligations. According to the SCJN statement, in addition, there is a time limit to act: the authority has a maximum of 180 calendar days, counted from the expiration of the period granted for the hearing guarantee, to issue and notify the corresponding resolution. What this does change. The scope of the ruling goes beyond a technical discussion between courts and financial entities. The responsibility does not end with the firm that engages in improper practices, but can also reach the financial institution that hired it if it fails to comply with its reporting duties to the CONDUSEF. In other words, the entity can no longer hide so easily that the harassment was carried out by a third party. If you failed to report what the law requires, you may also be sanctioned. The origin of the fight. To understand why this case ended up in the Supreme Court, you have to go back to October 14, 2022. That day it was published in the DOF the Provision on Records before CONDUSEF, which established new obligations for financial institutions in their relationship with collection offices. Among other things, the rule obliged them to register these third parties with the Registry of Collection Offices and to submit reports on user complaints. The fines that came later were born precisely from that previous framework. The route the banks took. After the fines for non-compliance with these reports began, several financial entities chose to fight the matter in court. These resources moved between 2023 and 2025 until they ended up in the Amparo in Review 323/2025. In the case reviewed by the Supreme Court, the SCJN itself explained that the sanctioned entity alleged that the rules did not make it clear who was obliged to provide the information and that there were no clear time limits to sanction it. That was, in essence, the defense with which he tried to overturn the punishment. The Plenary’s response. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that these rules left financial institutions on uncertain ground. He assured that the framework that regulates reports on collection dispatches is clear and coherent, because it identifies the obligated subjects, establishes the charges that must be met and allows for precisely locating when there is non-compliance. For this reason, it concluded that the principles of typicity, reservation of law and legal certainty invoked by the entity that promoted the protection were not violated. What changes from now on. Rather than inaugurating a new rule, this ruling consolidates one that already existed and that had been challenged by financial entities. The difference is important, because based on this criterion it is much more difficult to maintain that there was not enough clarity to comply or to be sanctioned. In practical terms, the decision strengthens the position of CONDUSEF and makes it clearer that financial entities can also be administratively sanctioned when they fail to comply with the information obligations provided for by the regulation. Images | pvproductions (Freepik) In Xataka | Mexico has an ambitious plan to be the tenth economy in the world and that involves technology: semiconductors

The Aragón justice system has shown how expensive it can be for a company to get involved with dismissal letters: 46,665 euros

by

There are mistakes that can be corrected with a simple apology. And then there are errors that, once committedhave legal consequences that no apology can undo. A freight transport company in Huesca discovered this in the worst possible way when it fired one of its employees, regretted it days later, trying to back down, and then fired him again. All of this while the worker was at home on medical leave. What seemed like an internal bureaucratic mess ended up in court and with compensation of more than 46,000 euros. The dismissal letters the devil carries them. Two layoffs, one leave and fifteen days of chaos. As documented in the sentence In the case that reached the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, the worker had been in the company since 2011, with an indefinite contract, and had accumulated more than a year of medical leave due to a cervical injury when, on December 14, 2023, he received a burofax from his company informing him of the disciplinary dismissal. As indicated in the dismissal letter, the employee had carried out incompatible activities with his low status. The worker did not take long to react and began the process to challenge the dismissal in court. But then something unexpected happened. On December 20, just six days later, a second burofax arrived in which the company declared that the first dismissal was annulled and that an internal disciplinary file was opened in its place. Not satisfied with this, on December 29 they received a third burofax containing another dismissal letter, this time accompanied by the payroll and the corresponding settlement. Within two weeks, the employee had received two dismissal communications and one cancellation while was still convalescing at home. Why the company wanted to back down. As stated in the ruling, the company argued that the first dismissal had been a procedural error and considered that the initial letter had formal defects related to the applicable collective agreement, since the worker had questioned by email whether the merchandise transportation agreement or the chemical industry agreement should apply. The company’s intention was to annul that first dismissal, open the correct disciplinary file and issue a new letter in order. From his point of view, the only real dismissal was that of December 29, which had never been challenged by the worker. The company also tried to demonstrate to the court that the underlying reason for the dismissal was legitimate: a private detective report recorded the worker carrying out physical activity during his medical leave, which he interpreted as a simulation of the disability or, at least, as a behavior incompatible with recovery. A dismissal letter is not a draft. The problem for the company is that the dismissal letter is not a simple administrative communication with the employee, but is a document with key legal value with which an entire dismissal process begins with very well-defined deadlines and procedures to give maximum guarantees to both companies and employees. He article 55.1 of the Workers’ Statute establishes that disciplinary dismissal must be notified in writing, with the facts that motivate it and the effective date. Once that letter is delivered, a legal mechanism is put in place that neither party can stop unilaterally. The law itself contemplates the possibility for the company to retract the dismissal and provides a way out when a company wants to correct a poorly formulated dismissal, but as stated in article 55.2 of the Workers’ Statute, it is subject to very precise conditions and deadlines. Furthermore, it is only admitted if, during that rectification period, the company keeps the worker registered with Social Security and pays them all salaries. In this case, the ruling states that it was not proven that the company had complied with that requirement, which blocked this means of rectification. Without the worker’s acceptance, there is no turning back. On the other hand, and beyond the administrative procedures, there is an additional requirement that the company did not comply with in its process of rectification of the first dismissal: for the employment relationship to be restored, the worker who has been dismissed must expressly accept it. It is not enough for the company to declare on its own that the dismissal is without effect. The Supreme Court already established that a communicated dismissal determines that the worker is not obliged to accept any subsequent retraction from the company, and that claiming before the courts in that situation does not constitute any type of abuse. In this case, the employee did not explicitly accept the annulment of the first dismissal or return to his position. The email he sent to the company questioning the applicable collective agreement was not considered by the court as a tacit acceptance of the withdrawal, but rather as confirmation of his dismissal status. The employment relationship, in the eyes of the law, had been terminated on December 14 and no subsequent communication from the company could change that unilaterally. The outcome: more than 46,000 euros in compensation. The TSJ of Aragón also ruled out the argument about physical activity during sick leave. It was proven that the outputs recorded by detective They were walks or runs of about 40 minutes of moderate duration that, according to the medical assessment, were not contraindicated for the worker’s recovery from the cervical injury. With all these arguments on the table, the court declared the dismissal inadmissible, the first, because the second no longer had any legal value, and established compensation of 46,665.34 euros, calculated based on age of the worker. The company appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, which confirmed it in its entirety and also ordered it to pay 800 euros in costs. Dismissal letters, especially if they are not well formulated, are carried by the devil. In Xataka | He had been in the same notary office for 16 years and was fired for not passing the trial period: the Supreme Court ended up seeing the … Read more

If the question is whether you can go on vacation or play sports while on sick leave, justice has the answer: it depends.

by

There is a widespread belief about what it means to be on medical leave. Many people believe that being on medical leave is incompatible with doing any type of activity physical or going on a trip, and that doing so may be grounds for disciplinary dismissal. It is a widespread fear, but the reality is quite different. Knowing the nuances around this issue can prevent workers and companies from be seen in court. A recent sentence issued by the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community confirms what Spanish judges have been repeating for years in their rulings: that the problem is never the activity itself, but rather whether carrying it out affects in some way the process of recovery from the illness or injury for which one is on sick leave. That detail changes absolutely everything. ​What the law says, and what it doesn’t say Although many people believe it this way, no Spanish labor law expressly prohibits playing sports. or go on vacation when you are on medical leave. There is no article that says “if you are on sick leave, you can’t do this or that.” What the Workers’ Statute does include, in its article 54 that regulates the conditions of disciplinary dismissal, is that a company can fire you if you seriously breach your employment obligations or act in bad faith. And that’s where these cases fit. The principle that truly governs these cases is not prohibition, but compatibility with recovery. In practice, this means that when you are on medical leave, you have an obligation not to do things that slow down or contradict your own recovery process. Not because the law expressly prohibits it, but because acting in a manner inconsistent with your medical diagnosis can be interpreted as a serious lack of honesty with your company and with Social Security, which covers a large part of your salary during that period. When the judges have ruled in favor of the company The courts have supported layoffs disciplinary action when the activity carried out during the medical leave was clearly incompatible with the declared illness or injury, especially if it occurred several times and the company was able to demonstrate it with medical reports and even with the provision of evidence by a private detective. The most recent case is the sentence which was resolved by the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community in January 2026, which stated that a worker was on sick leave due to a lumbar injury compatible with limited effort and moderate physical activity and was investigated by private detectives. During that period, it was confirmed that the employee was doing intense and repeated physical exercise for several weeks in a row (running, mountain routes lasting several hours, gym training, etc.), an activity that, according to the court, was incompatible with his illness and made his recovery difficult. The court declared the disciplinary dismissal valid not for playing sports, but for doing an activity contrary to the recommendations for recovery from sick leave due to low back pain. In a similar vein, the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon, also declared valid the disciplinary dismissal of an employee who was on medical leave due to an injury to the cruciate ligament in his knee and had to undergo surgery. During his recovery, the employee He participated in several padel tournamentsand even winning some of them while on medical leave due to his knee injury. The judges have also ruled in favor of the worker Case law also has numerous examples to the contrary, where the dismissal was considered unjustified because, although physical activity was recognized, it could not be demonstrated that the activity harmed recovery from the injury. An example of this is the who judged the Superior Court of Justice of Murcia in which an employee on leave due to depression and anxiety traveled to Albania for 12 days. As and how I analyzed Iberleythe Murcian High Court declared that the trip did not interfere with recovery nor did it contravene medical recommendations, which is why it declared the dismissal unfair. It has not been the only case. The Supreme Court confirmed in November 2024 that the dismissal of a driver who played paddle tennis while on sick leave due to low back pain was inappropriate, because her own doctor had recommended in writing that she do moderate exercise, including that type of activity. The key is always in the doctor As can be seen in the different examples, the key is not the sport that is practiced or the trip itself, but what the doctor says about that activity and whether that activity negatively affects recovery. The judges limit themselves to analyzing whether the worker’s medical reports authorized or recommended what he did, whether the company was able to demonstrate with an expert report that it was detrimental to recovery, and whether the worker repeated the behavior in a way that would suggest that he was simulating his state. A worker on sick leave due to depression or anxiety who is advised by his psychiatrist to go out, exercise or travel has every right to do so. In fact, it can be an important part of the treatment. For all this, the most useful practical advice is to always have the doctor’s authorization in writing before carrying out any physical activity or travel during sick leave. This role does not guarantee that the company will not consider a disciplinary dismissal or that the judge will always agree with you, as some of the previous cases demonstrate, but it makes a real difference when it comes to defending yourself. Without that documented medical support, courts tend to side with the company when there is evidence of activity. In Xataka | A company fired the same employee twice in eight months. The court has annulled them and returns to work with 25,000 euros Image | Freepik (pressfoto)

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

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.