legal

“There are legal grounds that justify Renfe returning the money if you travel without air conditioning”

by

Madrid-Extremadura without air conditioning. Not, at least, working at full capacity. That is what is being experienced on some Renfe trains. As confirmed by Renfe itself, the heat is being so intense these days that, in some cases and to protect the train itself, the air conditioning is turned off. And for this you can ask for your money back. Yes, grab a chair. an oven. This is what some of the train cars are becoming. Renfe Madrid-Extremadura trains that these days travel through the plains of Toledo and Extremadura before reaching Badajoz. And just as CCOO unions have denouncedin some of these trains the air conditioning is being turned off. According to Renfe, this is because the trains are being exposed to such high temperatures that the train itself has to protect itself because the cooling system is not enough to keep it running. Saving resources, trains turn off the air conditioning in some cars and continue to their destination. Controlled? At Renfe they assure that yes. The company accepts the union’s criticism but assures that the train crew is ordered to move passengers from cars without air conditioning and relocate them to where it does. In addition, they assure that when these extreme weather conditions occur, they stop selling tickets to ensure that there are enough free seats to relocate passengers. And your rights? Your right as a consumer allows you to file a complaint and even request a refund of the ticket money. This is what they point out from the OCU, an organization from which they tell us the following: “The relationship between the traveler and the railway company is articulated by a transport contract whose content is not exhausted by the obligation to transfer, but rather includes the conditions under which this must be provided. And although there is no legal rule that recognizes an express right to a full refund of the ticket for traveling on a train without air conditioning, there are legal bases that can justify said refund when the breakdown constitutes a serious breach of the transport contract” And it is also confirmed by Renfe itself who confirms that the traveler has the opportunity to file a claim if they consider that the conditions of the service do not meet expectations. And the European Union defends that if the consumer does not receive a service of a quality as expected, he will have the right to request a refund of the ticket when the company does not ensure the “cleanliness of the rolling stock and the station facilities (control of air quality and temperature in the carriages, hygiene of the sanitary facilities, etc.)”, as reflected in the Regulation on the rights and obligations of railway passengers. Some minimums. As stated in this document, all companies that offer public transport services must adhere to minimum quality standards to offer their journeys. The company states in the general contracting conditions that the client has the right “to receive the contracted service in adequate conditions of quality and safety.” If these minimums are not met, customers have the right to claim the money for the ticket and the company will be obliged to provide a response in less than three months. “The fundamental question of whether or not to obtain a refund will depend on whether the absence of this service is considered an essential breach of the contract or not, depending on the specific conditions of the case,” they specify in the OCU. And they emphasize: “It must be sufficiently argued, not in general, but in this case, that the lack of air conditioning cannot be equated to a simple annoyance or a minor incident on a high-speed train during the summer, but rather a direct breach of the essential conditions of the service. For example, if the train runs for several hours with very high temperatures and without cooling, it can be argued that there is defective performance of the contract, it is not an accessory service (like the Wi-Fi connection for example)” The cases already known. As Renfe and the Facua experts recognize, complaints about not offering air conditioning on the train are not entirely unrelated to the company. In 2018a user claimed from Renfe (and won) the return of his ticket because the air conditioning had broken down. But the most striking case is the one that Facua itself reported a few weeks ago. The consumer defense organization pointed out that one of its members had gotten the money back for a Zaragoza-Barcelona match for this same reason… but The claims spanned three years. in which they had to communicate with Renfe on various occasions. Is it a precedent? The most important thing here is that the facts known and defended by Facua do not generate any type of legal precedent because there is no judicial ruling involved. It is “a solution reached extrajudicially between a consumer and Renfe, with the collaboration of a consumer association (Facua), and therefore does not consolidate any rights. Traveling by train without air conditioning does not automatically generate the right to a full refund of the ticket,” they explain from the OCU. They emphasize, on the contrary, that “the relevance of the case lies in the fact that the railway company itself recognizes that a breakdown of this nature can justify, in itself, the full refund of the amount paid” and that if we find ourselves in this situation “it is advisable to complain to the company. If no response is obtained or it is not favorable, legal advice can be sought, such as that provided by consumer associations, as well as appeal to the Transport Arbitration Boards or the Courts.” Photo | Pablo Nieto Abad In Xataka | If the question is who is going to pay your compensation for taking five hours to Madrid-Barcelona, ​​the answer is clear: nobody

which one is legal, which one costs you 6,000 euros and why the DGT can fine you

by

The radars They are, without a doubt, one of the great fears of drivers on the road. The DGT uses them to control the maximum speed at which cars move, which gives rise to numerous more or less true information around them. For years it has been rumored that there are many empty boxes in Spain, something that ended up confirm the director of the DGT himself, but there is also doubt about some possible Traffic tricks, such as the so-called cascade radars either anti-braking which, however, the DGT does repeatedly deny. What is certain is that Traffic monitors the speed with fixed kinemometerswith their Pegasus helicopters and with mobile radarssome of which are practically invisible. This has led some drivers to use various means to remain alert. Some of them, as we are going to see, are prohibited and entail serious sanctions but in other cases, Traffic does allow them or, at least, there is no sanction as such that can be applied to them. Warning, detector and inhibitor: their differences and possible fines To be aware of all the radars that we can find on a route, we can visit the DGT website itself but, without a doubt, the easiest thing is to keep news of them while we are driving. For these cases, do not confuse the following terms, since a significant fine will depend on it, as stated in the Traffic Law. radar warning They are the devices or mobile phone applications that alert us that we have a radar in front of us. In this case, the navigator notifies us because it is registered in its database that there is a fixed radar at a specific point or because, if necessary, we receive a notification published by another driver. That is to say, the device or application does not detect At no time does the presence of the radar only alert us to its location because the DGT notifies it or another driver has indicated it. Is it allowed?: Yes Fine?: No radar detector Here it goes one step further. The device can use its own databases but its true task is to find the radars that we find in our path. It is used because, through waves, it is capable of detect the presence of a radar of speed and, therefore, is used to “discover” mobile radars. We are not talking about a device or an application that stores information about speed cameras and then alerts the driver. It is a device that actively searches for radars and, therefore, they are prohibited. Is it allowed?: No, its mere presence is cause for sanction Fine? Yes, 500 euros and three driving license points radar jammer The most intrusive device in the operation of a radar. In this case, the device not only alerts of the presence of a radar. Besides, disables operation of this and, therefore, disables the possible sanctions that may be imposed if we exceed the maximum speed limits. That is to say, it not only acts by warning the driver, it also “protects” the vehicle from radar activity and, therefore, prevents it from being penalized. Therefore, it is prohibited. Is it allowed?: No, its mere presence is cause for sanction Fine? Yes, 6,000 euros and six points on your driving license A clarifying note Although here we have talked about warning devices, detectors and inhibitors, the news that has been accumulating in the last two years will stop us for a moment. Technically, as we have said, using an application that warns us of the presence of a radar is not grounds for sanctions, but the DGT understands that if we warn of a radar or a police checkpoint we will be committing a crime. In May 2024, The Civil Guard arrested a man that warned of speed cameras and traffic controls through WhatsApp groups that had up to 15,000 users in real time. It is what was called “the Galician method”. This information was used to avoid being caught committing any irregularity. The problem is that, technically, neither the Traffic Law nor the Traffic Regulations indicate this activity as illegal. Therefore, what was done was to point out that the accused was committing a crime against the safety of the agents, based on article 36.23 of the Citizen Security Law which prohibits the following: The unauthorized use of images or personal or professional data of authorities or members of the Security Forces and Corps that may endanger the personal or family safety of the agents, the protected facilities or jeopardize the success of an operation, with respect to the fundamental right to information. That is, the DGT wanted to make it clear that notifying police controls may be punishable. However, two years later it has still not managed to reformulate the text of the current regulations that punish warnings through applications such as Waze or Google Maps. something that has been talked about for a long time. With all this in mind, it is important to know that radar warning devices are not prohibited in any case but also that the DGT has used the Citizen Security Law to try to stop the publication of the activities of Civil Guard agents, both breathalyzer controls and mobile radars. With no news in this regard, at the moment we are still in a diffuse area between what is or is not allowed regarding the radar warning on social networks and applications connected to our mobile phone. Image | Isaac Mehegan In Xataka | Pamplona is going to launch four radars with AI: they detect if you are wearing a seat belt, if you are on your cell phone or if you make illegal turns A version of this article was published in March 2024

The legal shield of the wolf has been cracking for years. Now the majority of communities in Spain have opened the door to hunting them

by

Maybe not at the level of the housing or corruption, but in the political chronicle of recent years there has been a topic of debate that has exacerbated tempers: the wolf. From 2022 The European and Spanish institutions are immersed in a thorny debate about the degree of protection of the Canis lupuswhether it should be allowed to be hunted or whether it remains vulnerable. The result of this tug of war has not been exactly positive for the species, whose legal shield It has been eroding little by little. Now just received a new setback in Spain, where the majority of communities have made it clear that they don’t look with evil eyes his hunting. What has happened? That the legal status of the wolf has just received a new setback in Spain, where it has become clear (for the umpteenth time) that everything related to the management of the herds is a matter of political dispute. To understand it, we have to go back to last Monday, when the majority of communities and the Ministry of Ecological Transition (Miteco) staged their difference of opinions around a report that, in practice, will influence the really relevant issue: whether or not wolf hunting is allowed in Spain. What exactly was discussed? He sexennial report about the situation of the wolf in Spain. Basically it is a study that shows how the country’s herds evolved between 2019 and 2024 and (importantly) concludes whether or not the current conservation status of the species can be considered ‘favorable’. Said like this, it may not seem like a big deal, but that label (‘favorable’ or ‘unfavorable’) in turn influences whether hunting should be allowed. Furthermore, it is a report required by the European Commission (EC) and which is already a year late: Spain should have sent it before July 31, 2025. Why has it taken so long? Because before the report had to go through the Sectoral Environment Conferencea body in which two parties sit with totally opposite positions: the ministry, in favor of considering the situation of the wolf in Spain as ‘unfavorable’, and therefore in need of high protection; and the majority of autonomous communities, who believe that after years of preservation the species is already in a ‘favorable’ situation. And what did they agree? The positions of each other are so far apart that at Monday’s meeting they were put on the table two reportsboth focused on the wolf but with different conclusions. One was made by Miteco and advocated protecting the herds. The other was presented by the Xunta de Galicia and basically concluded that the herds have increased so much since 2019 that we can now speak of an acceptable level of conservation in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. That last one was (by far) the position that received the most endorsements during the meeting. The autonomous governments of Galicia, Andalusia, Cantabria, La Rioja, Region of Murcia, Valencian Community, Aragon, Canary Islands, Extremadura, Balearic Islands, Madrid, Castilla y León and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla supported the report that concludes that the situation of the wolf today in Spain is “favorable.” The only votes against were those of the Government and Catalonia, which delegated to Miteco. Basque Country and Castilla-La Mancha they abstained. What does the Government say? The Minister of Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, claimed on Tuesday that “technical and scientific rigor” prevailed and recalled that the objective of the report should be to show the state of conservation of the species in the last six years. Along similar lines, Jordi Sargatal, from the Government, judged “without scientific basis or value” the report of the communities led by the PP. Miteco has actually advanced that it will send to the European Commission “all the information” on the subject, which would include both studies. Just a year ago the ministry published a census which concluded that in Spain there are 333 herds, 12% more than in the previous census, carried out between 2012 and 2014. Although this data is positive, the Government itself accompanied it with a footnote: that 12% is still insufficient. “Scientists consider that, to ensure long-term genetic viability, 500 herds must be reached.” What do the communities say? They argue that the species has recovered ground, which would justify opening the door to hunters. “The current status of the book is favorable and there is no scientific basis to justify it having a special protection regime,” argues the Xunta. At stake are not the herds, but their impact, as remember Joaquín A. Pino, counselor of Castilla y León, who recalled that ranchers “suffer recurrently” attacks from wolves. “The management of the species must be based on the reality accredited by the six-year report to also protect extensive livestock farming and rural areas,” insist the regional government before remembering that damage to the primary sector has been increasing by more than 10% annually and, only in Castilla y León, was it recorded last year 4,474 attacks from wolves to livestock farms. The compensation for these damages (6,294 dead cattle) exceeded four million. Images | Arturo de Frias Marques (Wikipeda) and AR ® Higher School of the Environment (Flickr) and Mytec In Xataka | Mexico desperately needed Mexicans to care about axolotls. So he put them on the bills

a legal battle for control of Nexperia

by

A company can be many things at the same time: a factory, a subsidiary, a patent portfolio, a piece within a supply chain. But, in the technological war we are seeing between China and Europe, it can also become a battlefield. Nexperia fits right in there. We are not just talking about who owns a semiconductor company based in the Netherlands and owned by the Chinese Wingtech, but about who can decide on it when courts, governments and the fear that certain industrial capabilities end up under another center of power come into play. The new demand. The latest movement comes from China. According to ReutersWingtech Technology and a subsidiary have filed a lawsuit against Nexperia BV and five other entities before a court in Guangdong, which has already accepted the case. The company provisionally claims 8 billion yuan, about $1.18 billion, for the economic losses it attributes to the conflict. SCMP adds another relevant element: Wingtech is not only asking for compensation, it is also demanding to regain full control over Nexperia, a point that once again places the case in the field of corporate governance. The origin of the crash. To understand why the demand does not come from nowhere, you have to go back to September 2025. So, The Dutch Government intervened Nexperia and removed Wingtech from effective control of the company, citing fears about a possible transfer of operations and intellectual property to China. The administrative decision was later revoked, but the problem did not go away. Wingtech maintains that its scope of control remained limited by a parallel Dutch court ruling, still relevant to the dispute. Nexperia’s response. The Netherlands-based firm has responded by downgrading the immediate scope of the judicial move. In statements reported by the aforementioned news agency, Nexperia stated that it “has taken note of Wingtech’s announcement” and that it understands that the corresponding court “has not opened the case to trial.” He also regretted the strategy of its Chinese owner and maintained that Wingtech does not seem interested in reaching a solution beneficial to all parties, including its own shareholders. The Chinese legal route. The lawsuit is not only based on a business claim, but on a politically charged legal framework. Wingtech invokes China’s Foreign Sanctions Law to seek compensation for damages it attributes to restrictions on Nexperia. The company maintains that Nexperia and its executives applied “discriminatory restrictive measures” within the meaning of that law. The financial blow. The financial blow. The push for Nexperia is also leaving its mark on Wingtech’s accounts. Reuters notes that the company closed 2025 with a net loss of 8.7 billion yuan, compared to 2.8 billion the previous year. The deterioration continued in the first quarter of 2026: income plummeted by 94%, after the foreign business stopped consolidating its results. A conflict still open. The lawsuit does not close the battle for Nexperia, rather it prolongs it in another area. SCMP points out that Beijing and The Hague have defended that the case should be resolved “between the two companies without government interference,” as explained on April 17 by the Dutch Minister of Economy, Heleen Herbert, after meeting with the Chinese ambassador to the Netherlands, Shen Bo. The message seeks to limit the conflict, but the evolution of the case itself shows how difficult it is to separate business, courts and industrial policy when a semiconductor company is caught in the middle of the fight between China and Europe. Images | Nexperia In Xataka | Brussels has just fined Temu the largest fine in its history with the Digital Services Law: 200 million euros

Microsoft just turned an $11 billion startup into a Word feature. It’s more than a legal Copilot

by

Brad Smith is more than the vice chairman of the board and president of Microsoft: Smith is also a lawyer and as he himself tellsat the beginning of his career he asked his company for a computer because he firmly believed that computing could change the way lawyers work. In fact, his Wikipedia biography gives more detail: it was the requirement that the Washington, DC law firm Covington & Burling set to join. Said and done: in 1986 he was the first person in the firm to have one, which ran the legendary Word 1.0 processor. Seen in perspective it sounds like marketing, but a tremendous omen: Microsoft just announced Legal Agent for Wordan AI agent designed for legal work. What’s new from Microsoft is not a legal Copilot. Legal Agent is an agent designed to understand and operate within a legal document as a lawyer would: it analyzes risks, compares clauses against the organization’s internal rules, has tracking for the changes it generates, differentiates previous reviews of new proposals and detects potentially problematic provisions. Everything happens within the .docx itself, without leaving Word. What distinguishes it technically is its architecture. The agent does not ask the LLM to generate each edit directly, but instead combines that semantic understanding layer with a deterministic layer that applies the changes in a controlled way. This allows you to insert clauses, delete paragraphs, or add comments while preserving the original formatting of the document, including tables, lists, and change history. The result is a more reliable and predictable system than a chatbot, with fewer hallucinations and with the consistency that legal work demands. Brad Smith’s tweet includes a video that lasts almost a minute and a half where it can be seen in action: Tap to go to the post Why is it important. The key is not so much the technology, which already existed, but rather the distribution: Word is the program par excellence for drafting, reviewing and negotiating contracts around the world. Integrating there means being in the right place at the right time, without friction: it eliminates the need for another service, creating an account and logging in, the learning curve, the workflow between two different apps, data migrations and security. All in one, all easy. The definitive boost is the price. While subscribing to specialty products like Harvey they hover the 1,000 – 1,200 dollars per lawyer per base month, according to market estimates collected by Sacrathe Legal Agent arrives integrated into theCopilot Enterprise subscription of 30 dollars a month that surely many spiteful people already pay per se. The difference in magnitude and the product placement anticipate a voracious entry into this market niche. Context. A troubled river, fishermen’s profit: Microsoft did not start from scratch for this project. At the beginning of the year contract to more than 18 engineers from Robin AI, the legal AI startup that collapsed after failing to close its $50 million round. Probably if Robin AI had not fallen, Microsoft would not have been able to create such a product so quickly. We were talking about other specialized products but the name on the horizon was one: Harveythe sector’s benchmark. Founded by Winston Weinberg and former Google DeepMind Gabe Pereyraoperates with more than 100,000 law professionals in more than 1,300 organizations and is valued at 11 billion dollars. Your latest financing round It was 200 millionclosed in March 2026 and co-led by GIC and Sequoia. It is true that its proposal goes beyond the review of contracts: it has more than 25,000 personalized agents operating on its platform with deep integrations into the document management systems used by large law firms, such as iManage and NetDocuments. Bottom line: It’s not a $30 a month feature. Yes, but. In any case, for now the product is still in early access, only in Word for Windows, with configuration restrictions and some complaints from those who have already tried it. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether lawyers will trust into a mainstream tool for highly complex cases where a minimal error can be costly. The battle of price and distribution is won, confidence and technical depth is another story. Saying that Microsoft is going to kill Harvey it’s an exaggeration: The Legal Agent is more focused on volume work, that more mundane work of routine reviews, standard contracts, NDAs… that takes legal professionals hours every day. Harvey is strong in more complex and/or high-risk tasks: a multinational with a serious litigation advised by an elite law firm is hardly going to entrust the matter to an agent included in an Office subscription. What the Robin AI story does make clear is that having a good product and customers does not guarantee survival: the group of organizations willing to pay is smaller than the investment rounds anticipated. In Xataka | The relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI is no longer exclusive. It took someone 48 hours to fish in a troubled river: Amazon In Xataka | The results of the technology companies are very clear: the business of AI is not AI, it is renting its infrastructure Cover | Brad Smith on Twitter

Peru has a lot at stake in protecting a key bee for the Amazon. So you have begun to recognize legal rights

by

In Peru the judicial chronicles of 2026 start with an unexpected protagonist, one that usually has little to do with courts and lawsuits: bees. To be more precise, insects gender Meliponafamous above all for lacking a stinger and their important pollinating function. Precisely because of this relevance and to protect them from possible threats, the authorities of Satipo, in Junín (Peru), have recognized to the bees legal rights, which among other issues will allow them to be represented before the law. The decision is more important than it seems. Of laws and bees. that the bees play a key role in environmental balance is nothing new. For years (decades) researchers have been analyzing their role as pollinatorsits usefulness as pollution indicators and his slow decline. However, studies on the species tend to remain in the papers scientists and only occasionally sneak into the political debate. Hence decisions like the one adopted by the Provincial Municipality of Satipo, in Peru, are so relevant. There the authorities have decided neither more nor less than to publish an official ordinance which recognizes the legal rights of stingless bees that inhabit the biosphere reserve Avirei-Vraem. More than words. The decision is important for several reasons. The first, for the clear and resounding message it sends to society. The second transcends the symbolic sphere and part of the content of the ordinance itself. In it, the Provincial Municipality of Satipo not only recognizes stingless bees and their habitat as legal subjects. The text goes further and details the regulatory shield that protects insects, emphasizing their right to live in “healthy, balanced and adequate” habitats. The ordinance even grants them the “right to representation” in case their interests are harmed. Does it say anything else? Yes. The document, signed on October 27 and which can be consulted On the Peruvian Government website, it highlights “the fundamental role” that bees have at an environmental level and the importance of recognizing their “intrinsic rights”, which affects, for example, the use of pesticides. Hence, the Peruvian authorities also want to “promote awareness” about the species. “Nature is a whole (…). The rights recognized in this declaration are not only intended to guarantee the health of stingless bees, but also of the Amazon as a whole,” ditch. Beyond Satipo. There is who considers that, with its decision, Satipo has turned stingless bees into the first insects in the world with explicitly recognized rights. Whether or not this is the case, the undeniable thing is that its October ordinance seems to have paved the way for other similar ones. The diary The Spectator relieved Recently, the provincial municipality of Loreto-Nauta has taken a similar step and has become the second region to opt for the judicial protection of Amazonian bees. Beyond the measure itself, both localities have managed to put the focus on the risks that faces a species on which not only the environmental balance depends, but also the future of crops with a considerable impact economical, like cocoa or coffee. Is the situation so serious? In September the Peruvian Amazon Research Institute (IIAP) echoed from a study that warns that more than 50% of bee habitats Melipona eburnea and Tetragonisca angustula They are located in “high risk of deforestation areas” in the Amazon. Among the causes of this vulnerability, he cited the felling of trees in which the species nests, the illegal extraction of wood and the expansion of agriculture. It is not a minor issue if we take into account that, as remembers the Municipal Council of Satipo90% of the region’s wild plant and flower species depend directly on pollination driven by bees. Images | IIAP, Elena Mozvhilo (Unsplash) and Wikipedia In Xataka | The scientific reason why it is not a good idea to jump into the water to escape from bees (and other tips to avoid getting stung)

It is now legal to bring your own food and drink into festivals

by

It is a battle for consumer rights that is receiving very notable attention, and there is nothing strange about it: it affects some of the most widespread forms of leisure, cinema and concerts, and at stake is the right of customers to bring drinks and food into the venues. FACUA has been filing complaints against cinemas and event organizers for years and today we have a resolution that could set a precedent that changes everything. What has happened? The Court of First Instance number 4 of Valencia has issued the first ruling in Spain declaring null and void the clauses of a festival that prohibited access to the venue with food and drinks purchased abroad. The judicial resolution affects the Madrid Salvaje festival, and considers these restrictions as abusive practices that violate consumer rights as reported by FACUAthe association that filed the lawsuit. The ruling also annuls the charge of three euros as “management expenses” that the organization applied to attendees who wanted to recover the unconsumed balance on the bracelets. cashless. The court expressly prohibits the promoter to reiterate these practices in future events and thus establishes a precedent that could affect future editions of festivals in Spain. Because. The sentence justify your decision in the impossibility of attendees doing without food during the long days that the festivals last. The magistrate emphasizes that requiring users to leave the premises to eat would mean missing part of the scheduled concerts, in addition to generating unnecessary inconvenience. The resolution concludes that this prohibition constitutes in practice a forced imposition of hospitality services that consumers have not requested. That is, preventing entry with food from outside is equivalent to forcing the audience to purchase products exclusively in the festival’s internal establishments, which represents an “unjustified contractual imbalance.” The ruling emphasizes that the fundamental purpose of these events is to offer musical entertainment, with the restoration being a merely accessory element that should not condition the enjoyment of the main show. Repeat offenders. This is not the first time that Madrid Salvaje AIE has faced sanctions for its trade policies. The Community of Madrid has already imposed a fine of 96,000 euros for irregularities committed during the 2023 edition of the Brava Madrid festival. That sanction responded to the imposition of the system cashless as the only form of payment within the premises, without the possibility of paying in cash. In addition, the organization established a period of only seven days to claim outstanding balances. FACUA maintains active complaints against the 2024 and 2025 editions of Brava Madrid. Legal precedents: cinemas. The judicial argument of the case does not arise from nowhere, but is based on precedents established around the film sector. The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha established in a previous resolution that prohibiting the consumption of products according to their origin constitutes an irrational restriction of the consumer’s ability to choose. That ruling introduced the concept of “tied sales”, identifying how establishments use their dominant position to indirectly force the purchase of complementary services. The report prepared in 2016 by the then Spanish Agency for Consumer Affairs, Food Safety and Nutrition (Aecosan, today Aesan) was especially forceful when analyzing these prohibitions in movie theaters, concluding that the viewer was unjustifiably deprived of the main service they had paid for (watching the movie) when they were unilaterally imposed on them to use accessory services that they never requested, with the sale of food and drink being a secondary activity, not the essence of the movie business. The fines. These rulings regarding cinemas led to specific financial sanctions. The Basque Consumer Institute fined Yelmo Cines with 30,001 euros after a complaint from FACUA Euskadi for preventing access with external food. FACUA Galicia filed similar complaints against Cinesa in the Marineda City shopping center in A Coruña, while the Andalusian federation denounced five Yelmo establishments for repeating this policy after having been previously warned by the Junta de Andalucía in 2019. Implications. This court ruling sets a precedent of enormous relevance for the music festival industry in Spain, being the first resolution that specifically addresses these practices in events of this type. The ruling opens the door to possible retrospective claims by attendees who were affected by similar policies in past editions of Madrid Salvaje or other festivals that have maintained similar restrictions. It is an unequivocal warning about the illegality of such measures. The court decision significantly strengthens the position of consumer organizations, which have been fighting these trade policies for years. The court’s express order prohibiting Madrid Salvaje AIE from reiterating any of these clauses in future events also establishes a control mechanism that could be applied to other promoters. The cases pending resolution in courts regarding analogous situations—both in festivals and in other leisure spaces—now have a solid jurisprudential reference that will predictably influence the rulings. From now on, consumers have the right to freely choose where to purchase their food, which takes precedence over the commercial interests of the organizing companies, which redefines the relationship that existed to date between promoters and the public. Header | Colin Lloyd in Unsplash

The absurd legal battle between Elon Musk and the game “Cards Against Humanity” has ended in a bittersweet ending

by

The creators of the irreverent card game Cards Against Humanity have reached an out-of-court settlement with SpaceX, ending a legal dispute financed by his own fans. Although they promised to distribute the 15 million dollars they would receive from the company if they won the trial, there will be no trial to hold No money to distribute. The origin of the dispute. The story begins in 2017. Cards Against Humanity raised $2.25 million from its fans to buy land in cameron countyTexas. The goal? Legally block the construction of the wall promoted by Donald Trump on the border with Mexico. The purchase of the plot was possible, in addition to the ingenious marketing campaign, thanks to 150,000 donations of $15 each. The problem arose when SpaceX, which has the Starbase launch complex right next door, began using the empty Cards Against Humanity plot to store material. Elon Musk against the card game. In 2024, Cards Against Humanity accused SpaceX of invade your property for at least six months. In addition to starting a new marketing campaign, this time against Elon Musk, the owners of the game sued the company for depositing construction materials, gravel and debris on their plot without permission. Amid insults against Musk, whom they called “a billionaire even richer and more racist than Trump,” Cards Against Humanity promised $100 for each of the 150,000 crowdfunding participants. As? Demanding $15 million from SpaceX as compensation for the crime. Bittersweet ending. Finally, Cards Against Humanity has informed its fans that there will be no trial. SpaceX and the card game have reached an out-of-court agreement whose figure has not been revealed, but which the creators of the game describe like “Musk did the legal equivalent of throwing dust in our eyes and kicking us in the balls.” So why have they accepted it? Cards Against Humanity explained that a trial “would have cost more than we probably would have earned from SpaceX.” “According to Texas law,” they add“we probably wouldn’t have been able to recover our legal costs. We had the truth on our side, but Musk and SpaceX could have easily outspent us.” How will they compensate the fans? This is where the story takes a Cards Against Humanity turn. The 150,000 donors who helped buy the land will not receive cash, but only “comedy.” The company will send all entrants “a new, exclusive mini-pack of cards about Elon Musk,” which they hope to ship in early 2026. In an email to fans, the company summed it up: “Since we can’t give you what you really wanted—cash from Elon Musk—we’re going to make it up to you…with comedy!” The land is empty again. Images | Ministry of Communications of Brazil, Mercado Libre In Xataka | A genius named Tom Mueller designed the engines for the Falcon 9. And now that genius wants to beat SpaceX on its own turf

With Waymo’s self -employed cars we are arriving at a legal absurdity: driverless infractions

by

San Bruno police, a Californian city, He stopped a Waymo Robotaxi after making a prohibited turn at a traffic lightbut he had to let him go without sanction: the Californian law does not contemplate fine vehicles without driver. Why is it important. This episode has revealed a legal vacuum that may seem anecdotal now – a simple illegal turn – but that raises a much more serious issue: who responds to a deadly accident caused by an autonomous car? The context. California allows the circulation of autonomous vehicles for years, but its traffic code has not been updated so fast. Circulation fines require identifying a responsible driver. If there is no driver, there is no possible sanction. The agents contacted Alphabet, the Waymo matrix, but could not issue any citation. “Our fine forms do not have a” robot ‘box “, the police department has recognized in Your Facebook profile. He has said that he is “preparing legislation that will allow agents to issue notices to the company.” It is expected that Between in force in July 2026. Between the lines. The problem is not technical but political and judicial. Technology companies have deployed their robotaxis fleets faster than legislators have been able to adapt the laws. And that gap not only generates absurd situations such as this, but it leaves citizens unprotected against serious accidents. The big question. If a waymo mortally runs over a pedestrian, who is going to trial? The algorithm? The engineer who scheduled it? The CEO of the company? For now, nobody has an answer. However, we must distinguish between criminal responsibility – who goes to jail – and civil liability: In the event of a deadly outrage, the victim’s family would not face a no legal exit. His demand would have a perfectly identified recipient: the company, Waymo, as the final head of the vehicle. The objective in that trial would not be a prison sentence, but a millionaire compensation for the damages caused, based on established concepts such as the responsibility for defective product or business negligence. The real vacuum is not if someone would pay for the damage, but how to adapt a criminal code designed for humans to the autonomous decisions of a machine. In perspective. This legal vacuum is not exclusive to California. As autonomous vehicles extend around the world, the legal systems of dozens of countries will have to solve the same dilemma: how to sanction machines that cannot declare, cannot be imprisoned and technically have no will. Outstanding image | San Bruno Police Department In Xataka | I have tried a totally autonomous taxi. This is traveling without driver

In this map we can see the countries in which cannibalism is technically legal. It falls very short

by

He cannibalism It is one of the stars of horror cinema, but also of the most cases Morbose of serial murderers. Some of the most rugged (if you haven’t seen ‘Dahmer‘, in Netflix, it is very good) They have inspired films and series. And although we might think that it is illegal to be associated with serial killers And it may seem to us A prehistoric actwe would be wrong. At least, in much of the world. The act of eating the neighbor. Eate for each other It is something that has been present for millennia. Some societies enemies ate as supremacist actsreligious or simply to obtain nutrients. In other situations, it is the despair that leads us to cannibalism. Currently, we know that it is nonsense because We don’t have too many nutrients. Now, cannibalism continues to exist. It is associated with erotic fantasies that involve eating or being eaten as part of a sex Jeffrey Dahmer either Dorángel Vargas They ate parts of their victims as an act of extreme possession and cannibal acts have also been performed as part of magical rites, such as Red Zwazulu-Natal dismantled in 2017 In South Africa. We have cannibalism stigmatized for a good reason, but a few years ago this Map by Reddit in which it was stated that there were countries in which cannibalism was legal. The image problem? Well, it falls very short. A mess. That cannibalism is technically legal in some places does not imply that it is … legal. And the keyword is “technically.” In them, and in many others, cannibalism is not explicitly prohibited by any specific law. Does not appear in the Criminal Code or in the Constitution and, For example in SpainWhen cannibalism is mentioned, it is done in the context of animal protection against cannibal practices of its species. But of course, although there is no explicit criminalization, the acts to be performed to eat human flesh do constitute a crime. The murder, the damage to the neighbor, the manipulation of human remains or the illegal exhumation are acts pursued by the law. Therefore, although we can think that there is a legal vacuum, if we want to eat the neighbor, we will have to make a crime that, usually, is persecuted. In fact, a Armin Meiwesthe ‘Canibal de Rotiburg’, He was condemned for homicidenot by cannibalism (the victim was supposedly consented, but died in the process). Legal vacuum. We entered an extremely rugged gray area here with two cases that were given in Europe not so long ago. In 2010, the Norwegian artist Alexander Selvik He ate himself. Specifically, he consumed remains of his hip extracted surgically to prepare a dish that ate as part of an artistic project. A year later, in the Netherlands, there were two television presenters who They ate fragments of their own flesh and on the other in a live program. Both cases were investigated, but since cannibalism is not a crime, as was under its will and no other crime were damaged by law, No charges were presented. What there was was a debate about ethics and the limits of art. Requests. Of course, sporadic movements have been given for politicians to study if it would be worth including cannibalism as a crime in itself. In Spain, although some voice has been manifested to legislate, no serious request has been recorded. In the United Kingdom, a citizen petition for cannibalism was included as a specific crime. After six months, the platform record 38 firms of the necessary 10,000. In the petition, they detailed the following: “Canibalism is potentially dangerous and we believe that it is a little ethical act that should constitute a crime, even if the person whose flesh and/or part of the body and/or organ is being consumed has given its consent. There should be a minimum mandatory penalty of five years in prison for committing said crime.” Asterisks. In Papua New Guinea has been mentioned as illegal Sometimes and in the Central African Republic It was missing due to social contexts such as war conflicts. It remains a gray area and that, in some cases, is an implicit activity in others that are considered punishable. For example, in Canada it is not typified as autonomous crime, but the Criminal Code sanctions “Any outrageous interference with a human body or human remains.” And then there is the case of the United States. Although a rule similar to the rest is followed in the country (there is no specific prohibition, but performing cannibalism implies acts that are crime), There is a state in which The law is mentioned cannibalism expressly, penalizing it With up to 14 years in jail. It doesn’t matter if consumed with or without consent and does not only imply direct consumption: in 2024 the law was modified so that it is also punished if another person is supplied. There is only something that would free you if you eat the neighbor in Idaho: that it is a case of extreme survival. It means that what it means (it has not been given the case, until now). Image | The XXVIII terror house of ‘The Simpsons‘ In Xataka | A person has made Media Spain hook the most horrendous crimes: Clara Tiscar and ‘Criminopathy’

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.